Suggestions: Game/League Setup Options

[Dogzilla]

I would like to see nations have a numerical weighting (like how we can currently set weights in the names.txt file) instead of a simple 0-5.

This would give much finer control over player nationalities.

medium-low.

[Dogzilla]

It would be nice to have more than 40 name sets.

medium-low.

[Dogzilla]

I would like to have a seperate nations.txt file for each league within a universe.

This would enable players to customize their universe in detail, complete with regional leagues, etc.

medium-low.

[Raidergoo]

Processed.

[Le Grande Orange]

Suggestion:

Allow the number of games in spring training to be selectable.

Reason:

Right now, the game always sets up a 24-game spring training schedule. For leagues playing shorter seasons, this is too many spring training games. A league playing a 96-game regular season schedule shouldn't be playing 24 spring training games. Conversely, for a major league, 24 games is actually a bit too short, since the majors generally play 30-34 spring training games.

Making the number selectable allows the number of spring training games to be more precisely tailored to the particulars of individual leagues.

Priority:

Medium.

[enuttage]

Suggestion:

Allow for the separate scheduling of the All-Star game.

Reason:

Can't currently do it, and it's a PITA, especially for non-traditional league setups with fewer or more games.

Priority:

Medium.

[Le Grande Orange]

Following on from the above...

Suggestion:

Allow for some additional formats for All-Star Games.

Reason:

All-Star Games, especially in the minors, have used a variety of formats over the years. It'd be nice to be able to recreate some of these different formats. Here are some of the different ways All-Star Games have been done:

• AL affiliates in a league vs. NL affiliates in a league
• Team leading league on a specified date plays an All-Star team made up of players from the remaining teams in the league.
• League is divided into two geographical areas and an All-Star team represents each area (useful for leagues with one or three divisions)
• All-Star team of a minor league plays a major league team
• A "Classification" level All-Star Game where all the players from all the minor leagues in that classification are in the game, with one team representing AL affiliates and the other NL affiliates
• The All-Stars from one league play the All-Stars from another league (e.g. the California League vs. the Carolina League, the Texas League vs. the Mexican League, etc.)
• Two All-Star Games are held (like in MLB from 1959-62)

Priority:

Medium/Low

[Cryomaniac]

Suggestion
I'm pretty sure this has already been mentioned, but allow us to change how tiebreakers work, both for individual games and the end of the season.

Reason
There's a few ways it could be done, and some variation in real life over the years. I'd like to be able to limit regular season games at 12 or 15 innings for example, and maybe even post season (have a replay system like in soccer?). I'd also like to cahnge how it works if more than 2 teams are tied at the end of the regular season (or make a 2 way tie be a 3 or 5 game series). Eg if it was a 3 way tie, I'd have it broken by having each team play the others 3 times, and the best record advances / wins the division.

Priority
Medium

[koohead]

Suggestion
To have the ability to designate players to a winter league that is played after the regular season for minor league "all stars" or a developmental purposes.


Reason
Better replicates real-world MLB configuration and gives young developing players a chance to play more games.


Priority
Low

[koohead]

Suggestion
Allow for league min/max ages outside of feeder leagues. Also game engine needs to better handle players that feel they are too old for the regular majors but would still compete in a Senior league until they are 45 or so.


Reason

Adds ability for players past their prime to continue playing in an independant league.


Priority
Low

[koohead]

Suggestion

Add configuration options so that minor leagues can have roster restrictions. For example, Rookie leagues should not have 25 year old players that have played multiple seasons. Same for short A. Beyond age restrictions, this suggestion is more for "experience" restrictions by league or level.


Reason

Prevents AI from stocking low minors with players who have lots of experience.

Priority
medium to medium-high

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by koohead

Suggestion

Add configuration options so that minor leagues can have roster restrictions. For example, Rookie leagues should not have 25 year old players that have played multiple seasons. Same for short A. Beyond age restrictions, this suggestion is more for "experience" restrictions by league or level.

Just to expand on the above, service limits are how the minor leagues, going back a very long way, have handled the kind of players on their rosters. There have been three kinds of player classes in the minors over the years: rookies (those in their first year of service or who are below a certain service threshold), veterans (those with more than a specified number of years of experience), and general players (those who are neither rookies nor veterans).

In most minor leagues today, it's such player classes via service limits which determine the distribution of players on the roster. In the Midwest League, for example, the roster rules state that clubs can carry no more than three veterans (defined as a player with more than five years of service). The independent Can-Am League uses roster rules which state that clubs must carry a minimum of five rookies (defined as those playing in their first season) and a maximum of four veterans (defined as players with four or more years of previous service).

Such service limit usage would do much to reduce the number of older players in the lower level of the minors since in the real world those leagues don't allow players on the roster to have more than two or three years of previous service. Age limits could be included also, but mixing age and service limits in one league I expect might be too much for the AI to competently handle. Service limits on their own seem quite doable to me though.

So, to turn all of the above into a specific suggestion...


Suggestion:

Allow leagues to have specified service limits in terms of the players clubs must carry on their rosters during the season.

Reason:

This is how the minors work in the real world, and have for a long time.

The options involved would look something like this:

Minimum number of rookie players to be carried on roster: (select number)
Definition of rookie player: (select years of previous experience)
Maximum number of veteran players to be carried on roster: (select number)
Definition of veteran player: (select years of previous experience)

So, for example, you could choose to have a league require clubs to carry a minimum of four rookies, with a rookie then defined as a player with 1 or less years of experience, and carry a maximum of five veterans, with a veteran then defined as a player with 6 or more years of prior experience. The rest of the roster would consist of players who are neither rookies nor veterans — bearing in mind that since the minimum number of rookies to be carried is four, clubs could of course choose to carry more than that.

Or, you could choose to require clubs in a league to carry a minimum of six rookies, with a rookie defined as a player with 0 years of prior service (in other words, he's playing in his first pro season), and carry a maximum of three veterans, with a veteran defined as a player with 5 or more years of previous service. The rest of the roster would then consist of players who are neither rookies nor veterans (and as before, clubs could choose to carry more than the minimum number of rookies if they wanted).

Or, of course, you could set both the number of rookies and veterans required to zero and the league would operate without any service restrictions. And so on.

Priority

HIGH.

[pstrickert]

Suggestion:

Provide an option to replay a historical World Series (or a best-of-7 series between two "great teams of the past").

Reason:

It would be one more fun option to choose from (in addition to full season, short season, or exhibition game). The drama of a best-of-7 series can be quite intense.

Priority:

Low

[redsoxford]

Suggestion

Add affiliation history to minor league teams

Reason

If a minor league team changes affiliation throughout time there is nothing recorded in the team's history to say which Major League team it was affiliated to for that season. Would be nice to be able to see team stats based on 'owner'

Priority

High - it only requires the addition of a Uint32 field to the team history for the structure.

[Lou Wuerfelball]

I like to play with one league, no divisions. I like the team with the best record to be named the champion, no playoffs. As things stand right now this is not possible. Even with Playoffs disabled the wildcard standings are displayed and if 2 teams finish in a tie for second place at the end of the season, they will play a meaningless extra game. The League Champion will be correct, but that meaningless game to decide a wildcard that doesn't exist is something I can't ignore. I love to play with fictional players and do so with one league makes it so much easier to learn the players. Thanks for listening to my Babble.

[Le Grande Orange]

Suggestion

Allow tiebreaking scenarios at the end of a season to be determined in one of three manners by the user.

Reason

If customizable playoffs make it into the next version in some fashion, then the question of tiebreakers is going to become very important. As it is at the moment OOTP only does an okay job at handling them (it still does not handle three-way ties correctly, for example, and split-season ties also have some issues).

Priority

Medium

Even if the different options as described below aren't incorporated, at the very least the game should properly conduct three- and four-way ties. Ties in leagues which use the split-season format should also be properly handled.



The Proposal in Detail

For fictional leagues, the game would continue to use the single-elimination system for tiebreaking playoff games, i.e. a two-way tie would be broken by a single game, etc. (Historical leagues should use the actual methods used by each league in each season — see the appropriate suggestion in the Historical Leagues Suggestions thread.)

The user would have three options in regards to handling ties, each of which have been used in real-world baseball leagues :

1) Always hold a playoff game, even if both teams have already qualified for the post-season.
2) Only hold a playoff game when a playoff berth is at stake.
3) Never hold a playoff game; use non-game tiebreakers instead.

To show an example, a single division league where the top four teams qualify for the post-season has the following final standings ("x-" indicating a playoff berth and "*" tied clubs):

x-NEW 92 61 .601
x-MON 82 71 .536
* SYR 77 74 .510
* JER 77 74 .510
  BAL 75 77 .493
  TOR 74 79 .484
  BUF 73 80 .477
  ROC 59 93 .388

Under option 1, even though SYR and JER have already qualified for the post-season, they'd still play a single tiebreaking playoff game to determine which team was the third place team and which the fourth.

Under option 2, there would be no playoff game since SYR and JER are already in the post-season. However, had the final standings looked like this...

x-JER 89 64 .582
x-ROC 84 67 .556
x-BUF 82 72 .532
* NEW 81 73 .526
* SYR 81 73 .526
  BAL 68 85 .444
  MON 64 88 .421
  TOR 63 90 .412

...then there would be a tiebreaking playoff game, since two teams are tied for the final post-season slot.

Under option 3, there would be no tiebreaking playoff games held under either example standings. Instead, non-game tiebreaking methods are used to resolve all ties.

The steps used would be as follows:

A) Better head-to-head record.
B) Better record within the division (if applicable).
C) Better record within the league (if applicable).
D) Better record over the last half of the season.
E) Better record over the last half of the season plus one game (if still tied, then the process continues with one additional game being added until the tie is broken).

If a league played a 140 game schedule, then for Step D it would mean comparing the tied clubs' records over the last 70 games of the season. If still tied, then the records over the last 71 games of the season would be compared. If still tied, then it's the record over the last 72 games of the season, and so on.

The tiebreaking playoffs are, admittedly, a small detail, but it's the kind of small detail which is good to get correct. Any questions as to how a particular tiebreaking playoff scenario should work, be it a three-way tie or a tie in a split-season league, just ask me.

[Le Grande Orange]

Suggestion

Allow the user to select what type of qualification level they want to use for determining the league leaders in hitting or pitching categories.

Reason

Currently, MLB uses 3.1 PA/gm and 1.0 IP/gm to determine its hitting and pitching leaders, respectively. But in the minors the values are 2.7 PA/gm and 0.8 IP/gm. Furthermore, in earlier years the majors used 400 AB for a season as the qualification level for hitters and 10 CG for pitchers. Given these differences, it would be nice if the OOTP player could choose for each league what kind and number to use as their league leader qualification value.

Priority

Low



The Proposal in Detail

I would suggest it work by allowing the user to first pick which category they want to use for qualification, then enter the threshold number needed for the season.

For hitting, the categories would be: Plate Appearances, At Bats, Games Played.
For pitching, the categories would be: Innings Pitched, Complete Games, Games Pitched

So, to set the method used currently for hitters in the majors, you'd select Plate Appearances and then enter 502 as the threshold number . For pitchers, you'd select Innings Pitched and enter 162.

To recreate the qualifications used in the majors in 1947, for hitters you'd select At Bats and enter 400 as the threshold number, while for pitchers you'd select Complete Games and enter 10.

(The alternative way of setting the number would be to use a per-game average rather than a season total, but I felt the season total number an easier number to work with and understand.)

[Le Grande Orange]

Suggestion

Allow the user to select what type of qualification level they want to use for determining what constitutes a rookie player.

Reason

Currently, the majors use a threshold of 130 AB, 50 IP, or 45 days on a roster prior to Sept. 1st. But before 1971, a different threshold was used: 90 AB and 45 IP (the number of days on a roster was the same). So, to reflect these kinds of real-world variations, it would be nice if for each league the qualifications as to what constitutes a rookie could be set.

Priority

Low.



The Proposal in Detail

For setting the rookie qualification levels for a given league, there would be an "At Bats" setting, an "Innings Pitched" setting, and a "Previous days on a roster before late-season roster expansion" setting. For each you'd just enter the desired number.

There'd also be the option to use either just the statistical numbers alone, the roster days number alone, or use both the stats and roster days numbers together.

[Biggio509]

I have looked through the whole thread so I hope this hasn't been suggested already.

Suggestion:

Adv. A leagues and A leagues. Adv. rookie and rookie leagues.

Reason:

Each major league team has a slow A and A team. Adv. A is for those better players at the A level who may not be ready for AA. Slow A is for less advanced players. In real life California, Carolina, and Florida state leagues are all leagues where teams send better prospects. New A players are mostly put in the South Atlantic and Midwest leagues. The AI makes no distinction being that A ball is just A ball.

In the rookies the pioneer league is just like a short A league. The Appalachian is and isn't. However, both are classified as advanced Rookie leagues. 22 teams have a rookie league and a SA team. The other 8 have a rookie league and a SA team. The Pioneer league I believe is all organizations with no SA team. The Appalachian is more tricky in that some teams have SA teams and some do not. So classifying it as short A doesn't really work.

Anyway being able to classify rookie and short a leagues are advanced or regular would add a little more realism and perhaps help player development.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Suggestion

Allow the user to select what type of qualification level they want to use for determining what constitutes a rookie player.

Reason

Currently, the majors use a threshold of 130 AB, 50 IP, or 45 days on a roster prior to Sept. 1st. But before 1971, a different threshold was used: 90 AB and 45 IP (the number of days on a roster was the same). So, to reflect these kinds of real-world variations, it would be nice if for each league the qualifications as to what constitutes a rookie could be set.

For historical leagues it may be important to put age limits as well. Prior to the new rules there was an age limit on rookies. That changed due to changes in H2B visas. Baseball is extremely international now. The rules were not a simple age limit though. I think was something like no more than 5 players over 21 and no more than two of those players over 25. I may not be accurate on that but I do know age was an issue but there was a maximum age. Although a max. age might be close enough and you can do that under the current system.