Home | Webstore
Latest News: - OOTP 15: Update #5 Released! - OOTP 15 Released! - FHM 2014: Version 1.6.19 Available! - iOOTP Baseball 2014 for iOS Available NOW! - Beyond the Sideline Football Announced! - Title Bout Championship Boxing 2.5 released!

OOTP 15 Released - Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Out of the Park Baseball 14 > OOTP 14 - General Discussions

OOTP 14 - General Discussions Discuss the new 2013 version of Out of the Park Baseball here!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-27-2013, 09:51 AM   #1 (permalink)
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 333
Thanks: 7
Thanked 63x in 43 posts
Morale Changes

While I know morale can be a killer in more ways than this, this is the most glaring one to me.

2 guys who play 1B one left handed 1 right handed. They both want to be in the starting lineup. They platoon both get around 400ish AB's between Games, PH ect. Yet both are unhappy with not starting because they arent on all the depth charts as starters vs LHP and RHP

Some guys should be happy in a platoon role without having to be a "bench" player. Adding in more different expectations to help keep our players happy would be fun.

And before someone says turn morale off, I want morale on thats why the suggestion
sc_superstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank you for this post:
Cryomaniac (01-27-2013)
Old 01-27-2013, 10:36 AM   #2 (permalink)
All Star Reserve
 
Cinnamon J. Scudworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 793
Thanks: 103
Thanked 313x in 188 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc_superstar
Yet both are unhappy with not starting because they arent on all the depth charts as starters vs LHP and RHP
I've found that as long as they are starting against RHP, players who expect to be in the starting line-up are generally happy regardless of what's going on in the "vs. LHP" line-up.

But yeah, I agree that it might be nice for "platoon" expectations to be differentiated from "bench" or "starter" especially for right-handed batters.
__________________
"Sometimes, this is like going to a grocery store. You’ve got a list until you get to the check-out stand. And then you start reading People magazine, and all this other [stuff] ends up in the basket."

-Sandy Alderson on the MLB offseason

Last edited by Cinnamon J. Scudworth; 01-27-2013 at 10:38 AM.
Cinnamon J. Scudworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank you for this post:
Cryomaniac (01-27-2013)
Old 01-27-2013, 11:12 AM   #3 (permalink)
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scarberia-land of bungalows and strip malls
Posts: 8,904
Thanks: 1,883
Thanked 2,227x in 1,376 posts
Treat it like real life. Not everybody can be 100% happy and no manager or GM would ever promise happiness. Also keep in mind you may have injuries and the source of any unhappiness may go away. I've won WS with 2/3 of the team being unhappy. Talent wins in the end.

Some players are impossible to please. This guy wanted to bat 3-4-5 in my lineup so he was unhappy for all 13 seasons he played for me while batting 1st or 2nd. I'll take that production any time.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Cheers

RichW
RchW is offline   Reply With Quote
Thank you for this post:
stannis (01-27-2013)
Old 01-27-2013, 11:19 AM   #4 (permalink)
Minors (Rookie Ball)
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Thanks: 11
Thanked 21x in 13 posts
I do agree that the morale system could be more sophisticated, although to some extent the unpredictability/incomprehensibility does a half decent job of mapping how diva-ish some RL players can (seem to) be. Maybe if there were an expectation of playing, say, 1/2 of a team's PAs, i.e. more than a bench player but fewer than a full starter, it would help with both platoons, and managing fourth outfielders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW View Post
Treat it like real life. Not everybody can be 100% happy and no manager or GM would ever promise happiness. Also keep in mind you may have injuries and the source of any unhappiness may go away. I've won WS with 2/3 of the team being unhappy. Talent wins in the end.

Some players are impossible to please. This guy wanted to bat 3-4-5 in my lineup so he was unhappy for all 13 seasons he played for me while batting 1st or 2nd. I'll take that production any time.
Not to hijack, but that guy is remarkably similar to a player I had the same problem with: a high OBP, low power guy who wanted to bat middle of the lineup but was clearly better suited to leading off. I put him at #1 and watched his morale plummet until he wouldn't re-up with me...but perhaps there were other factors at work.
stannis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:55 PM   #5 (permalink)
All Star Reserve
 
CobaltJays's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 538
Thanks: 32
Thanked 62x in 24 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by stannis View Post
Maybe if there were an expectation of playing, say, 1/2 of a team's PAs, i.e. more than a bench player but fewer than a full starter, it would help with both platoons, and managing fourth outfielders.
I really liked how Eastside Hockey Manager handled this. Whenever you would acquire a player, you would indicate what role you expected him to fill. It seemed to work quite well.

I'd like to see OOTP adopt something similar. For example, when offering a contract to a free agent, it would be nice to indicate whether he was expected to be a full- or part-time player, or minor league depth. It would help to avoid situations where a player is unhappy with his playing time, and it might also let free agents be a bit more selective when signing with a team. A player may opt to go to a team offering him a spot in the starting lineup instead of one only offering a spot on the bench.
CobaltJays is offline   Reply With Quote
6 thanks for this post:
Cryomaniac (01-27-2013), discodude5 (02-05-2013), Fyrestorm3 (01-27-2013), MrDov (01-27-2013), nebradska (01-27-2013), Tyler87898 (01-27-2013)
Old 01-27-2013, 03:16 PM   #6 (permalink)
All Star Starter
 
Fyrestorm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tampa Bay, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,975
Thanks: 1,312
Thanked 1,769x in 806 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CobaltJays View Post
I really liked how Eastside Hockey Manager handled this. Whenever you would acquire a player, you would indicate what role you expected him to fill. It seemed to work quite well.

I'd like to see OOTP adopt something similar. For example, when offering a contract to a free agent, it would be nice to indicate whether he was expected to be a full- or part-time player, or minor league depth. It would help to avoid situations where a player is unhappy with his playing time, and it might also let free agents be a bit more selective when signing with a team. A player may opt to go to a team offering him a spot in the starting lineup instead of one only offering a spot on the bench.
This is a great idea. This could also eliminate the problem of a FA signing a deal with a team that already has an All-Star at his position, and then getting mad that he's not playing. In real life, that FA probably wouldn't have signed the contract because he'd be able to know that he was going to be a backup.
Fyrestorm3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 04:32 PM   #7 (permalink)
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scarberia-land of bungalows and strip malls
Posts: 8,904
Thanks: 1,883
Thanked 2,227x in 1,376 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CobaltJays View Post
I really liked how Eastside Hockey Manager handled this. Whenever you would acquire a player, you would indicate what role you expected him to fill. It seemed to work quite well.

I'd like to see OOTP adopt something similar. For example, when offering a contract to a free agent, it would be nice to indicate whether he was expected to be a full- or part-time player, or minor league depth. It would help to avoid situations where a player is unhappy with his playing time, and it might also let free agents be a bit more selective when signing with a team. A player may opt to go to a team offering him a spot in the starting lineup instead of one only offering a spot on the bench.
It's already half implemented whenever you sign a contract or an extension. That field should be opened up when you acquire a player.
__________________
Cheers

RichW
RchW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 04:51 PM   #8 (permalink)
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scarberia-land of bungalows and strip malls
Posts: 8,904
Thanks: 1,883
Thanked 2,227x in 1,376 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3 View Post
This is a great idea. This could also eliminate the problem of a FA signing a deal with a team that already has an All-Star at his position, and then getting mad that he's not playing. In real life, that FA probably wouldn't have signed the contract because he'd be able to know that he was going to be a backup.
Not sure I'd like that to influence players too much. I may want to trade or to move an existing player to another position but I'm not going to do that before I sign the FA I want. I agree with the general point of it affecting negotiations but not to the point of FA rejecting deals.
__________________
Cheers

RichW
RchW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 06:42 PM   #9 (permalink)
All Star Starter
 
Fyrestorm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tampa Bay, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,975
Thanks: 1,312
Thanked 1,769x in 806 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW View Post
Not sure I'd like that to influence players too much. I may want to trade or to move an existing player to another position but I'm not going to do that before I sign the FA I want. I agree with the general point of it affecting negotiations but not to the point of FA rejecting deals.
But in that case, you'd tell the FA that you were signing him as a starter. In the example I mentioned, you'd be acquiring the FA with the intent of making him a backup, but in OOTP as it stands, there's no option for telling him that. Players who think they should be in the starting lineup look at every contract as if they're going to be starting.
Fyrestorm3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 09:04 PM   #10 (permalink)
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scarberia-land of bungalows and strip malls
Posts: 8,904
Thanks: 1,883
Thanked 2,227x in 1,376 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3 View Post
But in that case, you'd tell the FA that you were signing him as a starter. In the example I mentioned, you'd be acquiring the FA with the intent of making him a backup, but in OOTP as it stands, there's no option for telling him that. Players who think they should be in the starting lineup look at every contract as if they're going to be starting.
I meant the opposite. Perhaps I said it badly.

I would not like an FA to be scared off by an incumbent. I would never trade an existing player before I signed his intended replacement. I think that happens IRL too. No intent on my part to make the FA a backup, unless that was the purpose of the signing.
__________________
Cheers

RichW

Last edited by RchW; 01-28-2013 at 09:07 PM. Reason: Clarification
RchW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 09:47 PM   #11 (permalink)
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 333
Thanks: 7
Thanked 63x in 43 posts
But every player knows if there is an all-star at that position, signing with that team means their likely to be a bench/platoon player, the team may sign the guy with the intention of trading the incumbent, but the player signing doesnt know this either
sc_superstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 10:09 PM   #12 (permalink)
All Star Starter
 
Fyrestorm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tampa Bay, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,975
Thanks: 1,312
Thanked 1,769x in 806 posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW View Post
I meant the opposite. Perhaps I said it badly.

I would not like an FA to be scared off by an incumbent. I would never trade an existing player before I signed his intended replacement. I think that happens IRL too. No intent on my part to make the FA a backup, unless that was the purpose of the signing.
Maybe I said it badly lol.

We're talking about a feature that would allow you to specify the role you intend to give to a FA (backup, starter, platoon, etc.). In your example, you have an All-Star player at the FA's position that you intend to move once you acquired the FA. So, you would be able to tell the FA that you intend to make him a starter, and probably improve your chances of signing him.

In my example, I'm signing the FA without the intent to move the All-Star starter, and I'd be able to specify to that FA that he is being signed as a backup, thus avoiding the morale drop that comes from signing someone who expects to start (he either wouldn't sign, or would be okay with being on the bench).

In neither case is the FA scared off solely by the incumbent, because the purpose of the contract negotiations is laid out on the table.

Last edited by Fyrestorm3; 01-28-2013 at 10:11 PM.
Fyrestorm3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2013 Out of the Park Developments