Ootp5 Patch 5.10 Released

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
I think it's worth it. there are a lot of little things (career minor league stats) that I've been wanting for a while.

I still wish I could put the OOTP4 interface on this bugger, but, on the whole, 5 worth the $35 to upgrade to me.

dola - worth the ~$26 to upgrade today.

Thanks.

Is there a Demo available. I looked but didn't see anything.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by couriers
Thanks.

Is there a Demo available. I looked but didn't see anything.

no demo. not yet anyway.

[korme]

couriers, you can buy it, and if you don't like, return it within 7 days.

That's kinda demo-like.

Excellent. Thanks again.

EDIT: just bought it, wish me luck on getting any sleep for the rest of the week.

[Senator]

I have not had time to play, but tonight I thought I would load this up and give it a few hours of my time.

It is taking me a little time to get used to the interface, but everyone seems to give it high marks.

One thing you guys might help me with. In the old version, your guys who are going to be free agents show up at the bottom of the roster page. Then, when you feel like it, you right click the guys, then sign or don't sign.

Where are the upcoming free agents on your team located now? I am missing something. Thanks.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Senator
I have not had time to play, but tonight I thought I would load this up and give it a few hours of my time.

It is taking me a little time to get used to the interface, but everyone seems to give it high marks.

One thing you guys might help me with. In the old version, your guys who are going to be free agents show up at the bottom of the roster page. Then, when you feel like it, you right click the guys, then sign or don't sign.

Where are the upcoming free agents on your team located now? I am missing something. Thanks.

actually, there's a pretty significant number of people who aren't too thrilled with the interface.

upcoming free agents are now in your front office, player salaries section (definitely, not having them in a convenient place anymore is a big negative on the new interface).

[astralhaze]

You can still access it in the roster screen, but you have to sort it by contract. It's a pain.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by astralhaze
You can still access it in the roster screen, but you have to sort it by contract. It's a pain.

Yeah go to roster - (ALL) - Salary Info. It doesn't sort them correctly and it's kind of annoying. I've found myself running the Possible Free Agents report from League News lately.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
I'm with you. I love the regulation/promotion idea. If you can't compete, go to a lower division. It is the essence on free market play.

I agree. There's nothing better than winning promotion in the last game of the season ( which I know from experience ) except for staving off relegation in the last game of the season ( which I also know from too much experience ) and both pale next to staving off relegation on the last game of the season by defeating the c*(!suckers who beat you 2-0 at home and who expected to clinch a playoff berth by default but who will be sitting at home just like you are after you stunned their cocky butts 1-0 on a 58th minute penalty.( but this has NEVER happened to me either way so the point is moot. ).

No, I don't like the "unfairness" but the implementation is superb IMHO.

[klayman]

Originally posted by Axxon
I agree. There's nothing better than winning promotion in the last game of the season

I agree as well. And this applies not only to the computer game, but to watching soccer in real life. It's equal to the 7th game of a playoff series. And soccer has a novel concept that most north american leagues fail miserably at...a regular season that actually means something.

[Ksyrup]

I understand the competition aspect, but for me, it greatly diminishes the idea of a league. I think a league consists of teams that compete against each other on a yearly basis. I know that I would lose a lot of interest in a league where the teams kept changing every year.

There's something to be said for continuity, especially when looking at a league in historical context. Baseball history would not be the same if the Yankees had dropped out of the league prior to the mid 1910's, or the Braves or Phillies had been dropped (the Braves almost were in the mid 30's) from the league. Or the Cubs, or the Red Sox, etc. Every team, money or no money, has its lean periods and its successful periods. That's what makes a sport's history great, to be able to look back and see the patterns for each team.

IMO, it would not be fun to look back at history, and say, "Oh yeah, by 2002, the NFL was sick of the Bengals and Cardinals sucking it up, so they were dropped from the league and Gary, IN and LA were given teams. Those teams failed to do anything, so by 2009, they were replaced by Mexico City and Toronto...." And so on. It's much more fun and interesting to see, in 2115, that the Bengals finally made the playoffs after 125 years of last place finishes.

As for the "meaningless season" argument - to each his own. I'm one of those people who can, and will, watch a Cardinals/ Bengals week 15 matchup, or a Tigers/ Rangers August game. I love the games of baseball and football, not just games between the best teams in each league. And every league, no matter how many or few games there are during the season, is going to have games between teams that no one particularly cares about. It has to happen.

So while I acknowledge that there are people who feel that way, the issue is largely lost on me because I enjoy the games, no matter who is playing.

[Axxon]

Ksyrup;

I feel where you're coming from man but remember this. I am a die hard life long Buccaneer fan. I was 12 years old when we won a franchise and we were the laughing stocks of the league for 20 or so years. While I cannot speak for Bengal Fans I can certainly say that I would have preferred us to to drop to a league where we could at least be respectable ( and would cost tightass Culverhouse a lot of revenue than be league jokes year after year aftter year while his riches grew.

I'd imagine Bengal fans might just agree. As long as the league makes mediocrity profitable a lot of fans are going to suffer. Penalties, in many cases harsh ones, bind soccer fans together in ways we could only dream of. Just ask a Leeds fan

[Ksyrup]

Well, in reality, football is not a league in which relegation would work. There really are no minor leagues, since all of the "minor" leagues are different. Baseball and hockey could theoretically work, but I imagine dropping a NY team for performance reasons and substituting in a Montana team would have dire consequences for ANY league, in terms of TV contracts, attendance, jersey sales, etc. How does this kind of stuff playin Europe? how would a Fox-equivalent deal with losing a big market for a small market?

I think it is much more of a mindset than anything else. Very few Americans would care much about a "minor" league team, certainly not a team from another city. You have fans of minor league teams in the areas in which those teams are based, but could you imagine anyone in Florida buying a Portland Sea Dogs jersey, even if they got moved up to the majors? the mets in the minors would have millions more fans, which means millions more money.

North American leagues have done such a good job promoting themselves as the best of the best, that I think they would kill the product to permit other teams to join their leagues. Think of it this way, competition is a zero sum game - when one team wins, another has to lose. So some teams HAVE to be at the bottom of the standings every year. That doesn't mean they aren't good enough for the league, they are just the worst in the league. Being the best minor league baseball team doesn't necessarily mean that team could compete in the majors.

[klayman]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I understand the competition aspect, but for me, it greatly diminishes the idea of a league. I think a league consists of teams that compete against each other on a yearly basis. I know that I would lose a lot of interest in a league where the teams kept changing every year.

There's something to be said for continuity, especially when looking at a league in historical context. Baseball history would not be the same if the Yankees had dropped out of the league prior to the mid 1910's, or the Braves or Phillies had been dropped (the Braves almost were in the mid 30's) from the league. Or the Cubs, or the Red Sox, etc. Every team, money or no money, has its lean periods and its successful periods. That's what makes a sport's history great, to be able to look back and see the patterns for each team.

I see your point. But I think your missing the aspect that the league is a whole entity, not several different ones. Just because you drop from the EPL to the 1st Division doesn't prevent a team from competing in the league. In fact, there are enough cups and tournaments, so that these teams continue to compete against each other years after being separated. I'd say that football has just as great a history as baseball does, if not greater.

In essence, in the English League for example, it's been the same 50 to 60 teams competing against each other for the last 80 years. And understand that there has been about the same 12 teams (if not more) playing against each other in the EPL since its inception. How's that for continuity?

IMO, it would not be fun to look back at history, and say, "Oh yeah, by 2002, the NFL was sick of the Bengals and Cardinals sucking it up, so they were dropped from the league and Gary, IN and LA were given teams. Those teams failed to do anything, so by 2009, they were replaced by Mexico City and Toronto...." And so on. It's much more fun and interesting to see, in 2115, that the Bengals finally made the playoffs after 125 years of last place finishes.

I'll ask you what the difference is between being the laughing stock of the NFL for 125 years before making the playoffs, and spending 125 years in the lowest division of your league before rising up to get promoted to the top flight?

To me, they are relatively the same thing. I just happen to think it's more exciting to watch a team you follow drop from the top flight, and fight their way back there. I follow two teams in the English league, Liverpool and Hereford. One has been in the top flight of football longer than I've been alive, and the other has continually been relegated until they are no longer playing in the league. It's still great fun for me looking back on the history of both clubs, champions or losers.

I also contend that by pushing out the teams that can no longer compete effectively at their current tier, you increase the competition throughout the league, which is always a good thing.

As for the "meaningless season" argument - to each his own. I'm one of those people who can, and will, watch a Cardinals/ Bengals week 15 matchup, or a Tigers/ Rangers August game. I love the games of baseball and football, not just games between the best teams in each league. And every league, no matter how many or few games there are during the season, is going to have games between teams that no one particularly cares about. It has to happen.

So while I acknowledge that there are people who feel that way, the issue is largely lost on me because I enjoy the games, no matter who is playing.

Again I see your point. My comment was more directed at the NBA and NHL regular seasons, although the increase in playoff teams between both the MLB and NFL diminishes the importance of their regular seasons, IMO.

I, however, can hardly stand to sit through a meaningful baseball game, never-mind one between two cellar dwellers in late August. Hell, I can barely stand to watch the Cubs play a game, and I've followed them since I was a little boy. On the other hand, I doubt that you would be much interested in watching a late season EPL match against two mid-table teams, where as I get up at 6:00am on a Saturday to do it. So I guess we are just polar opposites of our respective sports...I doubt either one of us would be able to convince the other of the merits of their sport anytime soon. I wouldn't mind you trying, however, if you don't mind me trying

[Wolfpack]

I had thought about advancement/relegation with baseball myself. The thing would be that all 30 current teams would still be "the Major Leagues", it's just that they would change Leagues/Divisions every year based on standings. The notion I had was to break the current major leagues into three separate leagues of ten teams that had no interleague play (162/9=18 games/3=6 series per opponent). Advance and relegate two teams for each division each year.

The obvious catch is how do you determine playoff teams in such an arrangement since the traditional best-of-the-best is determined with the World Series playoffs rather than who finishes first in the best division as it is in soccer. Do you just take the three league champions plus one wild card or have a fixed number of slots reserved in a six- or eight-team playoff for each division based on difficulty (i.e. "premier" division gets more playoff slots reserved since they are the harder league to play in).

[klayman]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
How does this kind of stuff playin Europe? how would a Fox-equivalent deal with losing a big market for a small market?

I'm not really sure. I'd say that because the major markets generally have more than one team, and that because the leagues are much smaller regionally, that there isn't as big an effect as there would be here. It's tough to say, though, what losing a team like Manchester United would do the TV rights of the EPL. I assume there would be negative consequences.

I think it is much more of a mindset than anything else. Very few Americans would care much about a "minor" league team, certainly not a team from another city. You have fans of minor league teams in the areas in which those teams are based, but could you imagine anyone in Florida buying a Portland Sea Dogs jersey, even if they got moved up to the majors? the mets in the minors would have millions more fans, which means millions more money.

I agree. The only difference is that there is much more support for soccer in Europe than there is for any sport here. Even minor soccer teams draw higher crowds than minor teams do here. Again using the example of Man U, if they dropped to the first division, they would be much like the Mets in your example. Tons of money and millions of fans, they wouldn't stay there long.

Being the best minor league baseball team doesn't necessarily mean that team could compete in the majors.

It also doesn't mean that you can't compete in the majors either, and isn't that what this is all about...competetion?

[klayman]

Originally posted by Wolfpack

The obvious catch is how do you determine playoff teams in such an arrangement since the traditional best-of-the-best is determined with the World Series playoffs rather than who finishes first in the best division as it is in soccer. Do you just take the three league champions plus one wild card or have a fixed number of slots reserved in a six- or eight-team playoff for each division based on difficulty (i.e. "premier" division gets more playoff slots reserved since they are the harder league to play in).

I think you'd have to break it up a bit different. If you continued to relegated to the lowest division, you shouldn't be given a playoff spot when you win said division.

I've always like the Cup tournaments. Just like the NCAA basketball tournament. I don't see why you couldn't have the same sort of thing in baseball, or any sport. Winning the league is winning the league, and you can take pride it that itself. And from a lower division, you can look forward to competing in a higher level next year. But winning the tournament is something totally different, and another goal to strive for that any team can accomplish.

But I've threadjacked here long enough...I think the original idea of the post for some discussion on a patch for some {shudder} baseball game

[Ksyrup]

I think I see what the issue is. In order to do this in baseball, for example, you'd have to essentially expand the majors to twice its current size and set up different levels (leagues) within it. Seeing as though most people feel that the baseball talent pool is already diluted enough as it is, I don't think it would fly here. Having 60 teams in the "majors," including the Toledo Mud Hens, etc., would lower the quality of baseball. It makes much more sense now that I understand how it works, but given that, I also see that it is even less likely to work.

Same thing with football, although it would be even worse, because you'd have to essentially create 30 more teams, rather than move them up from a minor league. The quality would suck.

I think you can chalk up the European model to supply and demand. It is obviously so popular, that people would rather have 60 teams to root for/against in some fashion, with a lower quality of product (just based on the idea that the more players, the more scrubs), rather than 30 teams with the best talent. That is a testament to soccer's popularity than I cannot deny. but I think we are so use to it the way it is here, and have such concerns about the ability to support the teams that exist today, that doing something like that would never be possible.

BTW, for anyone, is this model followed in other professional sports in Europe, or is it a soccer-only thing? I'm just curious. I know there are professional basketball leagues, are they set up in this manner? Or cricket?

[klayman]

I think European Hockey follows the same principle, but I'm unsure about that or any of the other sports.

I agree with you that it wouldn't be accepted here, but I disagree with the fact that you think it wouldn't work. I think this type of system (including the transfer system) would save hockey in my country, for example. I think it allows small market teams to compete effectively. I think the same could be said of baseball, but you are right, the fans would never accept it.

[Joe Stallings]

Don't mean to shift the focus too much of the direction of this (very good) thread, but Draft Dodger said:

actually, there's a pretty significant number of people who aren't too thrilled with the interface.

I am sure I've missed discussion on this, but would love a "refresher" on what some of the issues are so we can evaluate them and respond as necessary.

Joe

[Ksyrup]

I think the buttons versus drop-down menu issue is the one I hear most often. Frankly, I don't mind it as is.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Joe Stallings
Don't mean to shift the focus too much of the direction of this (very good) thread, but Draft Dodger said:



I am sure I've missed discussion on this, but would love a "refresher" on what some of the issues are so we can evaluate them and respond as necessary.

Joe

Joe, without question THE most frustrating interface issue for me is the lack of "memory" when sorting. For example, if I'm looking at all the Free Agents, I might first sort by the number of stars, then I'll sort by SP endurance. It would be SO much better if the sort would "remember" the last sort--in otherwise, it should present all SP's with C endurance, in order of the number of stars they have. Most games' sort functions (and of course Excel) have it done this way. As it stands, there's no way to do a "double-sort" as I've mentioned. That's my biggest interface beef.

Also, because of the ability to sort by stars, the General Ratings/Info screen is the fastest way to look at the top players on any given team. But again, when I switch from team to team, it goes back to the "Batting Stats Set 1" screen again, rather than "remembering" the last screen from the last team I was looking at.

Those two things jump out right off the bat. If I think of others, I'll let you know.

[Anrhydeddu]

I didn't understand that comment as well since I perceive that 90% of the interface is just like OOTP4. But as I have come to believe, anyone can get used to an interface (and become second-nature), no matter how different. Some, I guess, just do not like change.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I didn't understand that comment as well since I perceive that 90% of the interface is just like OOTP4. But as I have come to believe, anyone can get used to an interface (and become second-nature), no matter how different. Some, I guess, just do not like change.

Well, my problems are things that have always existed. It is just the opposite. There are things I'd like to see change that haven't changed.

[Anrhydeddu]

But I do have a suggestion. When searching for players by ratings, could you please have all of the positions OFF by default? 99% of the time, I am searching for players in one position and I am having to click off 11 other button control every single time I enter (or go back to) that screen. On that same screen, could you switch the order of the movement/control/stuff to the same order as we see it for the player (e.g., 7/6/5)?

[John Galt]

I don't know about other people, but my problems with the interface have been:

Stat sorts and preferences aren't sticky. The two places where this is a pain for me are in trades where I like to go to my team and sort by salary info and go to the other team and sort by general ratings. I do that everytime I go to trade and it gets to be tedious for each player I enter. The other place that is a pain for me is on my own team stats. I prefer to view batting stats 2 as my default but have to choose it each time.

I also think the email and news features would be nice if they weren't hidden in menus. It isn't that I don't know where it is - it is just a pain to have to go through a routine after each batch of simmed games. Normally, I go to my team, read any email, go to the league, look at the news, I look at my upcoming schedule, go back to my team and look at any players that are sucking, look at my transactions screen to see if any players are ready to move up to the majors (I let the computer handle the minor league promotions because that would make this process even more tedious), and finally I may change my lineups and/or rotations (which involves using the depth chart and lineup functions for each of 4 possiblities). In all, routine maintenance on my team takes too much tedious time. Ideally, there would be some sort of uber-background screen that would have all the relevant information. One corner may have a list of emails with subject headings that you could click on (including a notification when a AAA player is ready for the majors!!), one corner could have trade offers or messages from other teams about interest (I think these should be separated from emails but don't have to be), the current standings for my division could be along the side, the performances of my starting pitchers and positions players could be in the center, a 3rd corner would have a list of upcoming opponents, and key league news could be displayed in another corner with subject headings. I really think there is more than enough room for all this information with a normal sized font if the space was utilized efficiently. Right now, the interface has so much wasted space that you have to enter a ton of menus just to access basic info.

Also, I would like the interface to default to a player's requested salary and have up/down arrows to change the dollar amounts and/or years (it could remain blank for players who don't specify - although I still think that isn't realistic). Some of us just don't like using keyboards as much.

I'm sure there are other things, but these really stick out to me.

I haven't had time to play the new version, so if anything I requested has been done, please ignore it.

Thanks for reading.

[Anrhydeddu]

Ben, I agree with you. I just read into the criticisms that some folks didn't like see things in different areas.

[Ksyrup]

From a completely selfish perspective, the only thing I'm concerned with about this game - aside from the little things - is the lack of stolen bases. This is going to be my pet peeve until something is done about it. I can't stand simming deadball era baseball games, with 9 HR leading a league, and seeing the top base stealer at 38. It's killing me!

Anyway, I only posted this here because Joe is reading!

[Anrhydeddu]

Ksyrup, that's not too far off from reality. In the AL from 1907-1911 (the years I checked), the top HR hitter was between 7 and 11, in the AL. As far as SB, there was one player (Cobb, Collins) getting 60-80 but the 5th best is usually in the low 40s or high 30s. I think when you import from Lahman, there are no player strategies so the league leaders would be about where the Era settings would suggest.

[Ksyrup]

Anrhydeddu, the problem is that no one is getting close to even 60 SBs a year, regardless of era, league settings, etc. I posted this over at .400 - I have now simmed approximately 225 years over the course of 4 or 5 test sims since the game was first released, and the most SBs from any player - and this includes historical players like Cobb, Henderson, and Brock, as well as fictional players - is 61.

Having a guy get 50 SBs in a year is like a guy getting 80 in real life. The game is simply defaulted to the "current" power-dominated game of baseball. I wasn't quoting the HR totals to suggest they were inaccurate, I was pointing them out to show that during a time in baseball when power was low, teams used speed to score runs. In my replays/fictional careers, they are doing neither, or a little of both, but not enough of either to make it accurate or even realistic. If teams can't slug to bring home runs, they will certainly try other methods to score, but that isn't happening.

[Draft Dodger]

Joe,

check these 2 links...
Poll for biggest disappointment in the game

Poll for biggest improvement

kind of interesting - the interface is both the most improved and 2nd biggest disappointment.

in general, I would say the interface looks nicer (html reports and skinnability are plusses), but, functionally, isn't quite as useful as OOTP4.

switching from toggle buttons to the stylish new drop down menus in areas like roster screens is a step backwards, IMO - it's harder to use. the team transaction screen has a lot more info, but, again, IMO is much more cluttered and much tougher to read at a glance (this would be easily resolveable, I think, by moving things around here). not having a list of contracts due to expire anymore on the roster screen is also a big loss.

I could probably come up with more if I had the game in front of me - I'm no graphic designer (facepacks don't count), but I think there's several instances where screen real estate could be better utilized. YMMV, of course.

[Killebrew]

The new UI requires the user to do more work to get to the same info OOTP4 had, so it is not a matter of people simply disliking change. That said, OOTP5 does provide more info than OOTP4.

[Killebrew]

Dola

Originally posted by Draft Dodger

switching from toggle buttons to the stylish new drop down menus in areas like roster screens is a step backwards, IMO - it's harder to use. the team transaction screen has a lot more info, but, again, IMO is much more cluttered and much tougher to read at a glance (this would be easily resolveable, I think, by moving things around here). not having a list of contracts due to expire anymore on the roster screen is also a big loss.

Yes, yes.

[Lazy Eye]

Where is the section located that changes whether it stops the sim to inform you that you have email, a no hitter is close, someone is hitting for 3000 ect....?

[Ksyrup]

From the schedule screen, its the drop down to the far right (not sure of the title) that lets you sim a day, week, month, or season. Below all that it says "Sim Options."

[Lazy Eye]

thank you

[Joe Stallings]

OK, thanks for the feeback. I will make sure Markus takes a look at this thread, and we will try to address some of these in a future update.

JMS