 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Oops, I really screwed up
tysonlowery
What I would propose is that we start over from scratch. A bunch of things have changed since we started this beta league 3-4 months ago, and the current results aren't a good indicator of what would happen in the other leagues any how.
Is there any major objections to this? It would give everyone a chance to start from scratch too.
Oops, I really screwed up
May 22, 2002 at 02:33AM View BBCode
Okay, I really screwed up this time. The first part of the offseason where players improve or decline according to age, ran about 3-4 times instead of once. This means players got much better or worse in the offseason than normal. Also, the player cards show a whole bunch of new seasons for each guy in 1953 and 1954.What I would propose is that we start over from scratch. A bunch of things have changed since we started this beta league 3-4 months ago, and the current results aren't a good indicator of what would happen in the other leagues any how.
Is there any major objections to this? It would give everyone a chance to start from scratch too.
DougPaz
May 22, 2002 at 03:55AM View BBCode
It would be nice to try it this way for a while as it appears that we have gained some "Super" players. Unfortunately, it wouldn't translate well to the regular leagues. I think you know what is best and will help you out in the long run Tyson. For that matter, if everyone wanted to, they could change the names of new players to their old names for the players they've grown attached to. It wouldn't be quite the same but pretty close. Of course there aren't too many Kilroy Monterays out there!!
dawgfan
May 22, 2002 at 03:59AM View BBCode
Oh well...I guess we should start over. Too bad, I was pretty attatched to that team...
honus
May 22, 2002 at 04:08AM View BBCode
I think it would be pretty useless to keep these teams now that the players are super-inflated. So, reluctantly, I'll cast my vote for starting over.
rickoshea
I'll just think of it as the players went on strike, and the owners replaced 'em all with scabs!
May 22, 2002 at 04:31AM View BBCode
As excited as I was about finally making a run (no, really, this was my year. I was gonna win it all, I tell ya!), you've got to do what's best for the game.I'll just think of it as the players went on strike, and the owners replaced 'em all with scabs!
geoffrey13
whatever's best
May 22, 2002 at 06:10AM View BBCode
Although I was looking forward to turning the team around...but now we all start on even footing...is there no way of backing the changes out though? Whatever is better Tyson.
Bob
If you decide to start fresh, I would like to make two suggestions.
1. Find a replacement owner for the Chicago Gangsters; hackman appears to have gone AWOL (unless you think it's wise to leave one ghost team to test that logic).
2. After the first week or two, go to a much accelerated schedule. It seems to me the biggest things in need of testing is the long term effects of player development and retirement and how it impacts the overall talent level of the league as well as the balance between hitting and pitching. I think we need to crank through a dozen or so seasons to get a decent handle on this.
May 22, 2002 at 09:58AM View BBCode
Obviously this is a beta league, and you should do what is best for the game. If starting over is your call, I say go for it -- although I will really miss my Bums :(If you decide to start fresh, I would like to make two suggestions.
1. Find a replacement owner for the Chicago Gangsters; hackman appears to have gone AWOL (unless you think it's wise to leave one ghost team to test that logic).
2. After the first week or two, go to a much accelerated schedule. It seems to me the biggest things in need of testing is the long term effects of player development and retirement and how it impacts the overall talent level of the league as well as the balance between hitting and pitching. I think we need to crank through a dozen or so seasons to get a decent handle on this.
tysonlowery
I can't back out the improvements and declines for the players. Sorry about that. At least I found the bug on the beta site rather than the real thing! I'll also find a way to back these things out in the future.
I agree with Bob. Here's my plan. When making changes to the game code, I'll probably run 4 games per day. When I'm not making changes, I'll run 12 per day. And as always, I may throw a few random games in to test things on the fly. When I do 12 per day, I'll most likely do 3 games in the early morning, 3 games in the afternoon, 3 games around 6PM, and 3 more around 9PM. I've found that the site is slow when the games are running, so to minimize this I'd like to only run one set of games during normal business hours.
I'll reset the league on Thursday night.
May 22, 2002 at 03:35PM View BBCode
A friend of mine is creating yet another new look and feel for the game. I think I'll invite him to take over for Hackman.I can't back out the improvements and declines for the players. Sorry about that. At least I found the bug on the beta site rather than the real thing! I'll also find a way to back these things out in the future.
I agree with Bob. Here's my plan. When making changes to the game code, I'll probably run 4 games per day. When I'm not making changes, I'll run 12 per day. And as always, I may throw a few random games in to test things on the fly. When I do 12 per day, I'll most likely do 3 games in the early morning, 3 games in the afternoon, 3 games around 6PM, and 3 more around 9PM. I've found that the site is slow when the games are running, so to minimize this I'd like to only run one set of games during normal business hours.
I'll reset the league on Thursday night.
hcboomer
And let's face it -- probably the only reason to keep THIS beta league going was because we were all so attached to our teams. Probably fortuitous that the improvements glitch kind of forced the issue.
May 22, 2002 at 04:16PM View BBCode
I think the accelerated pace would really help. It seems to me too that the most important thing the beta league can accomplish at this point is gauging the evolution of the talent pool as well as determining how easy or difficult it is going to be to build up bad teams -- and that's going to take a lot of seasons to assess. While there may be a certain realism to forcing a lousy team to work for many seasons to build a winner, this is most of all supposed to be fun and attractive to the largest number of players possible. So figuring out how to allow a faster building curve without pumping too much new talent into the league will be one of the more important things to learn.And let's face it -- probably the only reason to keep THIS beta league going was because we were all so attached to our teams. Probably fortuitous that the improvements glitch kind of forced the issue.
Bob
1. Make the top 5-8 draft picks each year good enough to start in the big leagues right away. The drawback here is that this will increase the overall talent level of the league unless something is done to remove the same amount of talent (maybe allow for a few career-ending injuries).
2. When players improve during the off-season, have those on bad teams improve more than those on good teams. Likewise, when players start to decline, have those on the good teams decline more quickly.
3. Allow each team to protect a certain number of players each year (say 30) and allow the weaker teams to select a couple players from the unprotected pool.
4. Give more coaching points to poorer teams. For example, last place teams might receive 40 coaching points the next year whereas first place teams might only receive 10.
What do you like/dislike about these ideas? Do you have any other ideas that would work?
May 22, 2002 at 05:08PM View BBCode
hcboomer is 100% right. Bad teams have to be able to improve relatively quickly or owners will lose interest -- and none of us want that. The trick, of course, is balancing realism with playability and fun. By the same token, you don't want to overly punish teams for good performance. So how do you improve weak teams relatively quickly? I sure as hell don't know, but I'll throw out a few ideas just to stimulate conversation.1. Make the top 5-8 draft picks each year good enough to start in the big leagues right away. The drawback here is that this will increase the overall talent level of the league unless something is done to remove the same amount of talent (maybe allow for a few career-ending injuries).
2. When players improve during the off-season, have those on bad teams improve more than those on good teams. Likewise, when players start to decline, have those on the good teams decline more quickly.
3. Allow each team to protect a certain number of players each year (say 30) and allow the weaker teams to select a couple players from the unprotected pool.
4. Give more coaching points to poorer teams. For example, last place teams might receive 40 coaching points the next year whereas first place teams might only receive 10.
What do you like/dislike about these ideas? Do you have any other ideas that would work?
hcboomer
That protection pool concept might be the best idea, I think, and could even involve fewer than 30 protects. The better teams have guys on the bench or in the minors that can contribute to the bottom teams. No big loss for the top teams, but helpful to the lower squads. This would provide some balancing just by redistributing some of the talent instead of adding more talent into the league. Also another layer of roster maneuvering and strategy that would be entertaining.
I don't like the concept of lesser improvement scales for better teams. That would needlessly punish good teams, and could also set up some undesirable scenarios. For instance, if I wasn't going to win the pennant, I would want to finish as low as possible in the standings to gain more improvement the following year. I might bench better players late in the year etc.
I also don't think adding coaching points will do much. That would still be mostly longer-term stuff, and that seems like it should be the same for all teams.
From my perspective, if a protection-pool concept is doable, that might be most worth the experiment.
May 22, 2002 at 05:21PM View BBCode
I like Bob's first and third ideas. Making the amateur draft a little more akin to, say, the NBA draft would make sense --the worst teams could get immediate help, the better teams developmental guys. Also think some provision for long-term -- or career-ending -- injuries could be an appropriate balancer. What's the longest anyone can be hurt for now?That protection pool concept might be the best idea, I think, and could even involve fewer than 30 protects. The better teams have guys on the bench or in the minors that can contribute to the bottom teams. No big loss for the top teams, but helpful to the lower squads. This would provide some balancing just by redistributing some of the talent instead of adding more talent into the league. Also another layer of roster maneuvering and strategy that would be entertaining.
I don't like the concept of lesser improvement scales for better teams. That would needlessly punish good teams, and could also set up some undesirable scenarios. For instance, if I wasn't going to win the pennant, I would want to finish as low as possible in the standings to gain more improvement the following year. I might bench better players late in the year etc.
I also don't think adding coaching points will do much. That would still be mostly longer-term stuff, and that seems like it should be the same for all teams.
From my perspective, if a protection-pool concept is doable, that might be most worth the experiment.
tysok
However, I do love baseball. I've played it, I've coached it, I've even managed a few times. I was a pitcher, which gives almost a completely opposite view of the game than a hitter. I know a lot about baseball and having tried (and failed on the programming end) to make a game such as this, I think I would be able to provide some ideas/strategies to handle some of the problems/enhancements that would go into making this game even better than it already is.
But anyhow, if another Beta team needs a new owner at some point I would be happy to take over. There's just not much I have to do these days, and if I'm wasting time on the coputer I might as well be doing something useful as well. :)
May 22, 2002 at 09:38PM View BBCode
I don't do well or know much about programming, it kinda bored the hell out of me and I quit the first step in my "Programming" career... (quit college). :)However, I do love baseball. I've played it, I've coached it, I've even managed a few times. I was a pitcher, which gives almost a completely opposite view of the game than a hitter. I know a lot about baseball and having tried (and failed on the programming end) to make a game such as this, I think I would be able to provide some ideas/strategies to handle some of the problems/enhancements that would go into making this game even better than it already is.
But anyhow, if another Beta team needs a new owner at some point I would be happy to take over. There's just not much I have to do these days, and if I'm wasting time on the coputer I might as well be doing something useful as well. :)
DougPaz
1. Make the top 5-8 draft picks each year good enough to start in the big leagues right away. The drawback here is that this will increase the overall talent level of the league unless something is done to remove the same amount of talent (maybe allow for a few career-ending injuries).
*** I think that this is the best idea by far. I think you need to slowly improve the talent level anyway. Some of this years dynasty players are pretty rank! I could go along with some career-ending injuries but it sure would be a tough pill to swallow if you lost one of your best players.
2. When players improve during the off-season, have those on bad teams improve more than those on good teams. Likewise, when players start to decline, have those on the good teams decline more quickly.
****I think this idea opens too many pandora's boxes. It would be awful tought to decide who is worthy of improvement just because they are on a bad team. And it would be unfair to good teams to let their best players age rapidly.
3. Allow each team to protect a certain number of players each year (say 30) and allow the weaker teams to select a couple players from the unprotected pool.
****If REAL major league baseball was just a little bit smart, they would do something like this. Hockey basically does it now right before the season starts. I think to make it fair though, you have to let every team get a crack at drafting someone from the unprotected list. How about this...Every team protects 20, that's basically all of your starters and one good minor leaguer or back-up. If you need to protect a couple more minor league players, you have to leave a couple of starters unprotected. The worst team gets to pick anyone on the unprotected list. Whoever loses a player has a list in order of the players he wants to protect next. You lose a player, you get to put another one on the protected list. That way no one gets decimated by everyone taking all of their players. Every team gets one choice in two rounds. (2 players total) You could do this by making a list of all the players you are interested in. If all of the players on your list are gone when it comes to your turn, you pass your turn. The best teams may only have a list of half a dozen players they would want, if they don't get them they use the draft or waiver wire to fill their holes. Under this scenario, a team could possibly lose 9 players (if the "dispersal" draft is before retirements which it probably shouldn't be). You may want to put a cap on how many you could lose, like 5 or 6 though.
4. Give more coaching points to poorer teams. For example, last place teams might receive 40 coaching points the next year whereas first place teams might only receive 10.
****I don't like this idea at all. It is just too unrealistic. Why would the worst teams have the best coaches? (Of course the Expos alway seem to come up with the best players...hmmmmmmm)
Here's another idea been grappling with. As it stands now, the free-agent pool is first-come-first-serve at the beginning of the season. Whoever logs on first gets the cream of the not-so-creamy crop. I think that the worst teams from the year before should get to take a free agent or pass before the next person in line gets to take theirs. Even if it is only one player and it gets reset after one round it would be more fair. We usually seem to have a couple of days between a draft and the start of the season, this could be fit in. Once the season starts, it is back to normal.
Sorry this is so long, but I think this is the most important aspect of keeping people interested in the game. If you are the Pittsburgh Pirates of the league and never realistically have a chance to win, what fun is it?
May 23, 2002 at 03:15AM View BBCode
An answer to Bob's Post:1. Make the top 5-8 draft picks each year good enough to start in the big leagues right away. The drawback here is that this will increase the overall talent level of the league unless something is done to remove the same amount of talent (maybe allow for a few career-ending injuries).
*** I think that this is the best idea by far. I think you need to slowly improve the talent level anyway. Some of this years dynasty players are pretty rank! I could go along with some career-ending injuries but it sure would be a tough pill to swallow if you lost one of your best players.
2. When players improve during the off-season, have those on bad teams improve more than those on good teams. Likewise, when players start to decline, have those on the good teams decline more quickly.
****I think this idea opens too many pandora's boxes. It would be awful tought to decide who is worthy of improvement just because they are on a bad team. And it would be unfair to good teams to let their best players age rapidly.
3. Allow each team to protect a certain number of players each year (say 30) and allow the weaker teams to select a couple players from the unprotected pool.
****If REAL major league baseball was just a little bit smart, they would do something like this. Hockey basically does it now right before the season starts. I think to make it fair though, you have to let every team get a crack at drafting someone from the unprotected list. How about this...Every team protects 20, that's basically all of your starters and one good minor leaguer or back-up. If you need to protect a couple more minor league players, you have to leave a couple of starters unprotected. The worst team gets to pick anyone on the unprotected list. Whoever loses a player has a list in order of the players he wants to protect next. You lose a player, you get to put another one on the protected list. That way no one gets decimated by everyone taking all of their players. Every team gets one choice in two rounds. (2 players total) You could do this by making a list of all the players you are interested in. If all of the players on your list are gone when it comes to your turn, you pass your turn. The best teams may only have a list of half a dozen players they would want, if they don't get them they use the draft or waiver wire to fill their holes. Under this scenario, a team could possibly lose 9 players (if the "dispersal" draft is before retirements which it probably shouldn't be). You may want to put a cap on how many you could lose, like 5 or 6 though.
4. Give more coaching points to poorer teams. For example, last place teams might receive 40 coaching points the next year whereas first place teams might only receive 10.
****I don't like this idea at all. It is just too unrealistic. Why would the worst teams have the best coaches? (Of course the Expos alway seem to come up with the best players...hmmmmmmm)
Here's another idea been grappling with. As it stands now, the free-agent pool is first-come-first-serve at the beginning of the season. Whoever logs on first gets the cream of the not-so-creamy crop. I think that the worst teams from the year before should get to take a free agent or pass before the next person in line gets to take theirs. Even if it is only one player and it gets reset after one round it would be more fair. We usually seem to have a couple of days between a draft and the start of the season, this could be fit in. Once the season starts, it is back to normal.
Sorry this is so long, but I think this is the most important aspect of keeping people interested in the game. If you are the Pittsburgh Pirates of the league and never realistically have a chance to win, what fun is it?
Bob
May 23, 2002 at 11:57AM View BBCode
Thanks for the feedback, guys -- keep the ideas coming. DougPaz, I agree with you on the free agent thing -- first come, first served may not be the best way to go. Maybe it could work like this. Once a player becomes a free agent (either by not getting drafted or by being waived by a team), he remains in the free agent pool for 3 days during which time anybody can place a claim for him. After 3 days, if multiple teams have placed a claim for the player, the one with the worst record gets the player. Granted, this won't go a long way to improving weaker teams (since the FA pool contains pretty weak players), but it is more realistic than first come, first served.
tysonlowery
As for protecting players, there is something in baseball that I might be able to put in. You know how each team protects 40 guys, and then if another team wants an unprotected guy they can claim them but have to keep them on the major league team all season? That might be a good rule to put in. Or how about if a player is above a certain age, or has enough experience, he can't be sent to the minors without first clearing waivers. I'd have to add a Disabled list to make this fair, but I think those are two rules that are actually in MLB that could help.
May 23, 2002 at 02:47PM View BBCode
I like some of these ideas. My goal for the draft was to create 6-8 good players, but I'm not sure if I've accomplished that. I think I may have to do some finagling to make that happen every draft.As for protecting players, there is something in baseball that I might be able to put in. You know how each team protects 40 guys, and then if another team wants an unprotected guy they can claim them but have to keep them on the major league team all season? That might be a good rule to put in. Or how about if a player is above a certain age, or has enough experience, he can't be sent to the minors without first clearing waivers. I'd have to add a Disabled list to make this fair, but I think those are two rules that are actually in MLB that could help.
tysok
One thing that has annoyed the hell out of me is the players improving. For instance I have a guy that can run, throw and field really well, but hits with all Ds. He's improved 11 times, but 8 of those were in speed, range, and arm. This guy shouldn't be practicing these areas! I want this guy in the batting cages learning to hit! :)
Or I have another guy that can hit leftys really well, and the only improvements he's had are against leftys. Why isn't he hitting against a righty?
Now here is a solution. It may also work to the end of improving teams finish farther down the list.
Each year, in the draft, there's another round. This round is for coaches. A hitting coach, a pitching coach, and a fielding coach. The worst team takes the first pick etc.
Do you have a team that can't hit lefty pitching and it's really working against you? Pick up a hitting coach and keep a lefty pitcher in the minors and your chances of improving against leftys goes up.
Or maybe your pitchers have no abilities, a pitching coach can work on the mechanics and the chances of the pitcher improving goes up.
If your team can't field or throw a fielding coach would make the chance of improving there go up.
You may even get more detailed and have hitting coaches that lean more toward making contact, or getting your bat speed up so you have more power.
A pitching coach may lean toward making the pitcher more economical, giving more endurance, or the delivery style picking up more velocity.
In this way a GM/Manager can more "focus" his players. If a 3B or SS doesn't have any range what is he doing in the batting cages? We're going to stick you at 3rd and make you lay down and eat dirt until you figure out how to move to your left and get that ball.
One other thing that bugs me is your major league players don't improve throughout the year. Baseball is a game of adjustments, if your pitcher isn't getting guys out, or walking people, he should be able to make an adjustment giving him more control... a 20 year old playing at the major level may suck at contacting the pitch, but the more he sees the more he should improve. He shouldn't improve as much as a minor league guy just practicing, but his chance to improve should exist. Also an ability to put a coach on the majors may help a team that got dealt diddly in the draft.
There's more to come, but I must work now. :)
May 23, 2002 at 03:53PM View BBCode
I put some thought into this last night, and have come up with several things. Would probably need to add code to make some work right, so it wouldn't be an instant plan.One thing that has annoyed the hell out of me is the players improving. For instance I have a guy that can run, throw and field really well, but hits with all Ds. He's improved 11 times, but 8 of those were in speed, range, and arm. This guy shouldn't be practicing these areas! I want this guy in the batting cages learning to hit! :)
Or I have another guy that can hit leftys really well, and the only improvements he's had are against leftys. Why isn't he hitting against a righty?
Now here is a solution. It may also work to the end of improving teams finish farther down the list.
Each year, in the draft, there's another round. This round is for coaches. A hitting coach, a pitching coach, and a fielding coach. The worst team takes the first pick etc.
Do you have a team that can't hit lefty pitching and it's really working against you? Pick up a hitting coach and keep a lefty pitcher in the minors and your chances of improving against leftys goes up.
Or maybe your pitchers have no abilities, a pitching coach can work on the mechanics and the chances of the pitcher improving goes up.
If your team can't field or throw a fielding coach would make the chance of improving there go up.
You may even get more detailed and have hitting coaches that lean more toward making contact, or getting your bat speed up so you have more power.
A pitching coach may lean toward making the pitcher more economical, giving more endurance, or the delivery style picking up more velocity.
In this way a GM/Manager can more "focus" his players. If a 3B or SS doesn't have any range what is he doing in the batting cages? We're going to stick you at 3rd and make you lay down and eat dirt until you figure out how to move to your left and get that ball.
One other thing that bugs me is your major league players don't improve throughout the year. Baseball is a game of adjustments, if your pitcher isn't getting guys out, or walking people, he should be able to make an adjustment giving him more control... a 20 year old playing at the major level may suck at contacting the pitch, but the more he sees the more he should improve. He shouldn't improve as much as a minor league guy just practicing, but his chance to improve should exist. Also an ability to put a coach on the majors may help a team that got dealt diddly in the draft.
There's more to come, but I must work now. :)
hcboomer
Regardless of how it's done, the idea of taking some of the randomness out of the improvements seems worthy of more consideration.
May 23, 2002 at 04:25PM View BBCode
There may be a simpler way of "focusing" player improvements. Perhaps instead of just being able to put 5 coaching points on a player, there could be an option of putting coaching points on specific categories for a player. If you were still working with the same 5 coaching points, for instance, maybe you put four of them on hitting, or more specifically power, or something like that. A pitcher could specifically work on his control. This could better reflect an organizational "philosophy," but more importantly it might just allow teams to plot ahead a little, determine where their major league team is weak and what kind of help would be needed a season or two down the road.Regardless of how it's done, the idea of taking some of the randomness out of the improvements seems worthy of more consideration.
tysok
And since the coaches all would disappear and be redrafted the next season, the team that WAS worst may now be a little higher in the rankings and the best coach would go to another team.
Also a lot can be brought into play with coaches.
But it seems that the basic ideas here are good. A waiver wire on players that are headed to the minors, protected men would create a "free agent" type atmosphere (A guy on the bench for one team should jump at a chance to play everyday on another), and creating more of a chance that bad teams can improve, by focusing or coaching.
As for upping the talent level too much letting bad teams improve more, I think if you can do it right, the pitchers should be improving at somewhat the same rate as the hitters, so you have good pitching against good hitting, and next year you may have great pitching against great hitting.
You may also consider allowing people to dump their whole team. If they really suck just dump it, have ABE randomly remake the team based on the average teams makeup maybe. I know if you have BAD pitching you'll lose, but you could take the average skills of those pitchers, mix them up and come out with some decent pitching. That may be something as well, allowing them to Remake the team so they end up with the same players, same average stats, but a little different so they have a new chance... tag the team with an (R) in front of it that has to be carried for the next 2 seasons or so... I would think that may be enough to allow the worst teams to have a kind of "fresh new start".
May 23, 2002 at 06:27PM View BBCode
Aye, that would be a great leap over what it is now. I brought the "coaches" in so as to allow the worst teams to improve the most. This wouldn't hurt the good teams since the randomness of the improvements would be in effect, and still improve about as much as they do now. But it would help the worst team by increasing the ability to improve.And since the coaches all would disappear and be redrafted the next season, the team that WAS worst may now be a little higher in the rankings and the best coach would go to another team.
Also a lot can be brought into play with coaches.
But it seems that the basic ideas here are good. A waiver wire on players that are headed to the minors, protected men would create a "free agent" type atmosphere (A guy on the bench for one team should jump at a chance to play everyday on another), and creating more of a chance that bad teams can improve, by focusing or coaching.
As for upping the talent level too much letting bad teams improve more, I think if you can do it right, the pitchers should be improving at somewhat the same rate as the hitters, so you have good pitching against good hitting, and next year you may have great pitching against great hitting.
You may also consider allowing people to dump their whole team. If they really suck just dump it, have ABE randomly remake the team based on the average teams makeup maybe. I know if you have BAD pitching you'll lose, but you could take the average skills of those pitchers, mix them up and come out with some decent pitching. That may be something as well, allowing them to Remake the team so they end up with the same players, same average stats, but a little different so they have a new chance... tag the team with an (R) in front of it that has to be carried for the next 2 seasons or so... I would think that may be enough to allow the worst teams to have a kind of "fresh new start".
knoxville
i dont mind if the league has to be reset, altho i have gotten attached to my team too. :) but hey accidents happen and such is life. i still think the game is coming along great and cant wait to see it with all the improvements and stuff that are still yet to come.
May 23, 2002 at 08:44PM View BBCode
i like the coach idea. there was another idea too that i saw in another game... it had an option to put points into an area that was for keeping veterans from declining in skill as rapidly by way of conditioning and drills. that might be kind of bad because then i guess the regular declining rate would have to be dropped to help the curve... otherwise guys would be around forever.i dont mind if the league has to be reset, altho i have gotten attached to my team too. :) but hey accidents happen and such is life. i still think the game is coming along great and cant wait to see it with all the improvements and stuff that are still yet to come.
andrew
I think the best ideas are-
1)Make the top 5-8 draft picks big league ready. This is not realistic but just yesterday Mark Prior of Chicago struck out 10 in his first career start after just being drafted last year.
2)Career ending injuries. A great example i saw in another post is Mark McGuire. he went down in his prime and it didn't even kill his team because it allowed Albert Puljos to play at first everyday.
3)"Focused" coaching points. Focusing the coaching points may not help teams improve quicker but would be a nice overall feature.
May 23, 2002 at 11:46PM View BBCode
I know I'm not part of the beta testing but because these changes may eventualy effect my dynasty team I figured I would air my thoughts.I think the best ideas are-
1)Make the top 5-8 draft picks big league ready. This is not realistic but just yesterday Mark Prior of Chicago struck out 10 in his first career start after just being drafted last year.
2)Career ending injuries. A great example i saw in another post is Mark McGuire. he went down in his prime and it didn't even kill his team because it allowed Albert Puljos to play at first everyday.
3)"Focused" coaching points. Focusing the coaching points may not help teams improve quicker but would be a nice overall feature.
dawgfan
- I think the idea of a dispersal draft of sorts, kind of like a revised Rule 5 draft with maybe 25 guys protected instead of 40 could work. Let teams draft in reverse order of their finish in the standings. By protecting 25 guys, it would mean teams either lose some prospects from their minor-league team or a major-league player. You probably wouldn't get a superstar from this, but someone that might be a fringe contributer on a pennant-winning team could become a valuable player for a struggling team. I would suggest this be held after the off-season retirements and regular draft so that you improve the chances of better players being exposed. I think this is the right balance of helping poorer teams improve without overly penalizing successful owners.
- I'm more sold on the idea of being able to specify a focus of coaching points improvements rather than introducing a coach feature. I don't think you should be able to concentrate solely on one area, but rather if you select "contact hitting" as your focus, a majority of your improvements would happen in that area with other improvements also possible. I think this more accurately reflects how improvements happen in reality. From an implementation standpoint, perhaps a java dropdown menu could be added to the minor league screen with options like contact hitting, power hitting, range, speed, control, endurance, etc.
- I support the idea of having a few impact players in the draft so that lowly teams get some immediate help each season, but it needs to be balanced by good older players declining or retiring. The overall talent-level needs to stay balanced otherwise you just get grade-inflation as we saw in the last beta-league - a guy rated C+ overall in 1950 was a bench contributor at the major-league level; by 1953 or so, he was barely worth having on the your minor-league roster. Perhaps in the interest of competitive balance, good older players on winning teams would be more inclined to retire than those on losing teams. While I think adding career-ending injuries would add to the realism of the game, I don't think it works too well from a game design standpoint - in order to be fair it would have to be done without the bias of whether the player is on a good or bad team, and imagine the frustration of an owner on a poor team losing his best player to injury. Better, and less painful, is balancing the talent level through age-determined decline and retirement.
May 23, 2002 at 11:59PM View BBCode
There's some interesting ideas in this thread. My thoughts:- I think the idea of a dispersal draft of sorts, kind of like a revised Rule 5 draft with maybe 25 guys protected instead of 40 could work. Let teams draft in reverse order of their finish in the standings. By protecting 25 guys, it would mean teams either lose some prospects from their minor-league team or a major-league player. You probably wouldn't get a superstar from this, but someone that might be a fringe contributer on a pennant-winning team could become a valuable player for a struggling team. I would suggest this be held after the off-season retirements and regular draft so that you improve the chances of better players being exposed. I think this is the right balance of helping poorer teams improve without overly penalizing successful owners.
- I'm more sold on the idea of being able to specify a focus of coaching points improvements rather than introducing a coach feature. I don't think you should be able to concentrate solely on one area, but rather if you select "contact hitting" as your focus, a majority of your improvements would happen in that area with other improvements also possible. I think this more accurately reflects how improvements happen in reality. From an implementation standpoint, perhaps a java dropdown menu could be added to the minor league screen with options like contact hitting, power hitting, range, speed, control, endurance, etc.
- I support the idea of having a few impact players in the draft so that lowly teams get some immediate help each season, but it needs to be balanced by good older players declining or retiring. The overall talent-level needs to stay balanced otherwise you just get grade-inflation as we saw in the last beta-league - a guy rated C+ overall in 1950 was a bench contributor at the major-league level; by 1953 or so, he was barely worth having on the your minor-league roster. Perhaps in the interest of competitive balance, good older players on winning teams would be more inclined to retire than those on losing teams. While I think adding career-ending injuries would add to the realism of the game, I don't think it works too well from a game design standpoint - in order to be fair it would have to be done without the bias of whether the player is on a good or bad team, and imagine the frustration of an owner on a poor team losing his best player to injury. Better, and less painful, is balancing the talent level through age-determined decline and retirement.
tysok
The idea of the coach is basically the same idea as the "focus". This certain coach would *lean* more towards contact hitting or hitting in general. The better the coach the more they learn, but improvements in other areas still happen. One example might be to take Barry Bonds and Ted Williams, although they both do well in each area to some degree. Bonds can teach you how to get that bat speed up, how to work out so you get the most power... but his ability to help you make contact is far less than Williams, who can teach how to see the ball, watch it in, hit to the opposite field, hit behind the runner, etc.... Yet both will get better in other areas as well. Going for power you get stronger, stronger arm. Contact hitting requires you going with the pitch itself, reaction time creates range....
Either way would be a big improvement, but with just the "focus" part it wouldn't be such a help to bad teams. By having coaches a struggling team can get help where they need it, and improve a little faster. With it being in a draft style, the bad teams get the first pick, thereby the better coaching.
It's a big fix, and maybe not the right one, just sounds good to me. :) The "focus" would be a GREAT addition in my opinion though.
May 24, 2002 at 01:36AM View BBCode
Having older players on bad teams less likely yo retire actually makes some sense. He wants to get to the world series, or postseason so though his knees hurt all the time he comes out for one more try etc...The idea of the coach is basically the same idea as the "focus". This certain coach would *lean* more towards contact hitting or hitting in general. The better the coach the more they learn, but improvements in other areas still happen. One example might be to take Barry Bonds and Ted Williams, although they both do well in each area to some degree. Bonds can teach you how to get that bat speed up, how to work out so you get the most power... but his ability to help you make contact is far less than Williams, who can teach how to see the ball, watch it in, hit to the opposite field, hit behind the runner, etc.... Yet both will get better in other areas as well. Going for power you get stronger, stronger arm. Contact hitting requires you going with the pitch itself, reaction time creates range....
Either way would be a big improvement, but with just the "focus" part it wouldn't be such a help to bad teams. By having coaches a struggling team can get help where they need it, and improve a little faster. With it being in a draft style, the bad teams get the first pick, thereby the better coaching.
It's a big fix, and maybe not the right one, just sounds good to me. :) The "focus" would be a GREAT addition in my opinion though.
dawgfan
While this is an additional way to draw the lesser teams closer to the pack, it adds yet another potential layer of drafting strategy to the offseason routine, and it doesn't really follow real-world logic.
That's why I prefer the idea of just adding the ability to focus improvements in specific areas without adding the coaches. It would likely be easier to implement, it would be a little more straightforward for users, and it follows reality a little better.
Just my opinion of course...
May 24, 2002 at 02:06AM View BBCode
I agree that the coaches idea would be essentially the same as adding "focus" to the existing coaching points. The main difference seem to be the idea that some coaches would be better than others, and selecting them via a draft system would give lesser teams a bonus.While this is an additional way to draw the lesser teams closer to the pack, it adds yet another potential layer of drafting strategy to the offseason routine, and it doesn't really follow real-world logic.
That's why I prefer the idea of just adding the ability to focus improvements in specific areas without adding the coaches. It would likely be easier to implement, it would be a little more straightforward for users, and it follows reality a little better.
Just my opinion of course...
andrew
Another idea that I like that i saw posted is major leagers realizing improvements throughout the season. I know they improve after the season but it would be more realistic if they improved throughout the season. This is probably a hard change to make but would be nice.
May 24, 2002 at 02:17AM View BBCode
One thing that could come up as a problem with rewarding last place teams is this. If some team finds themselves 20 games out at midseason but they are still not in last place they may just promote minor leagers and let their team tank it. the only reason this does not happen in real life is the media and the fact that the season takes a long time to finish. in sim dynasty there is no media and the season is fairly short in real time.Another idea that I like that i saw posted is major leagers realizing improvements throughout the season. I know they improve after the season but it would be more realistic if they improved throughout the season. This is probably a hard change to make but would be nice.
dawgfan
I'm not sure that this isn't somewhat realistic - teams that aren't in the races by mid-season often promote minor leaguers to guage their ability to play and speed their development. The fact that playing at the major-league level improves players more than using coaching points in the minors in this game should be incentive enough for owners to want to at least play guys with future potential rather than pure scrubs. If an owner tanked a season by playing scrubs with no future, they'd be doing themselves a disservice by wasting the opportunity to improve their younger players quicker.
May 24, 2002 at 02:48AM View BBCode
Originally posted by andrew
One thing that could come up as a problem with rewarding last place teams is this. If some team finds themselves 20 games out at midseason but they are still not in last place they may just promote minor leagers and let their team tank it. the only reason this does not happen in real life is the media and the fact that the season takes a long time to finish. in sim dynasty there is no media and the season is fairly short in real time.
I'm not sure that this isn't somewhat realistic - teams that aren't in the races by mid-season often promote minor leaguers to guage their ability to play and speed their development. The fact that playing at the major-league level improves players more than using coaching points in the minors in this game should be incentive enough for owners to want to at least play guys with future potential rather than pure scrubs. If an owner tanked a season by playing scrubs with no future, they'd be doing themselves a disservice by wasting the opportunity to improve their younger players quicker.
Pages: 1 2