Suggestions for solitaire play

LiuzhouLue · 08-21-2011, 06:34 PM

I play solitaire OOTP as a general manager. This colors my suggestions for OOTP improvements. But, I think my suggestions would be appreciated by others, if implemented. I have separated the suggestions into three categories. The categories overlap to some degree.

1) Speed of play:
a) cache results so, when returning to recent page, don't have to redo search for trade partners, scouting, etc.
b) easier navigation of box scores - back and forward to day before's, next day's box scores; up and down to other box scores on same day.
(Then, after auto-playing for a week or so, it would be much more convenient to review the game results. Now, one has to leave the box score view in order to select another box score to view. This takes time but has no game value.)
c) show superscripts on all player lists, so don't have to return to transactions page to view them.
d) superscript first year players (ineligible for trades)
(This eliminates the "inclusion, dialog box, removal" of first year players when building trade packages. This takes time but has no game value.)
e) when switching to another trading partner, retain offered player package
(Then one wouldn't have to reconstruct the trade package for each potential trade partner. This takes time but has no game value.)
f) allow display of entire roster on initiate trade page
(Then one would not have to change the viewed team in order to put together a trade package involving players from more than one level. This is somewhat obviated if trade packages remain in tact when switching to a new potential trade partner.)

2) Convenience of play
a) sort, filter and search by any criterion: pro years, options used, contract size, remaining years, rule 5 eligibility, etc.
(This would not only be a great convenience, it would speed my play tremendously.)
b) sort, filter and search by organization, add organization to view options.
(I do not trade within my own division. It would be nice if I could choose "not in San Diego organization", or "not in NL West", etc. as a filter or search criterion. Also, would be convenient to exclude one's own organization.)

3) Quality of play
a) complete overhaul of trading system.
- should be able to shop packages of players and money (draft picks, if applicable)
- should receive responses with packages of players and money (draft picks, if applicable)
- should be able to shop almost anyone and get responses, even if it is just cash or "future considerations"
- add "future considerations" feature to help finalize trade agreements
- $1,000,001 should not be a magic number
(Now, an offer of players and $1,000,000 will often be rejected, even in exchange for a player inferior to any in one's offer. But, offer $1,000,001, and, one can keep one's own players, include many more players from the trading partner, and have a deal. That's a lot for a dollar.)
- magic number should be salary of player(s) in trade, if any magic number at all
(paying the salary of the "overpaid veteran", or anyone else, should make a difference in trade negotiations.)
- nearly every team should respond on all difficulty scales (e.g. - unrealistic that there would be no response to shopping Tulo)
b) allow review of trades between computer teams during solitaire play (annoying to have Tulo for Pedroia turned down, and then see Pedroia traded straight up for Jamie Carrol )
c) have explanation of trade motivations (dumping salary, rebuilding, need pitching, loading up for stretch run, need catcher to make superstar catcher expendable, etc.)
d) range of difficulty for trading should be narrower and more realistic.
e) more realistic lineups on days subs start; perhaps allow "sub in same slot" option
f) allow viewing of lineup and statistics on same line
(I find this very helpful when making my lineups. Viewing the statistics of only the players in the lineup, on the same line as the players, would be preferable to current system of having stats in a different part of the screen and not isolated from the statistics of players not [yet] in the lineup.)
g) players' ratings should be spread more evenly between 20 and 80, especially if one is pouring a lot of money into scouting the minor leagues or amateurs.

OOTP Baseball is a great game. But, for my purposes, 12 is not that different from 11. 12 may be worse than 11 if one considers all of the bugs that were introduced. For instance, even the most recent update has a broken help system, unless it is just me. No offense, but I can't see purchasing another upgrade until the trading aspect is vastly improved. This is because that aspect of the game is so central to my style of play. As it is, I have to put too many handicaps on myself and have to go through too many gyrations in order to find a trading partner. (Don't ask. It is not important.)

Anyway, thanks for a great game. Let the flames begin!
LiuzhouLue

Poweshow · 09-05-2011, 04:18 AM

I'm in love with pretty much everything mentioned.

LiuzhouLue · 09-07-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poweshow

I'm in love with pretty much everything mentioned.

Thanks for the reply. And, many thanks for the love.

Orcin · 09-07-2011, 02:21 PM

Great post. I have many of these same ideas running through my mind as I play, especially your comments about trading. I would really like to offer the other GM a package of players and cash in the trade window and have him come back with a counter-offer so I can gauge his interest.

UWHabs · 09-08-2011, 12:45 PM

I concur with this. I'd also like to see more displayed in the trade screen:
-Let me sort the players and filter. So maybe I want to trade away guys for prospects, I want to filter by all guys with a minor league contract. I had one case where I added a AAA prospect (like 22 year old) to a deal, and then only realized after that he was a former #1 pick signed to a 4.5M a year deal. It's not always obvious by the cash amount in the deal. Or give me a filter to show all 3+ star prospects at any level in the org.

-Definitely agree on the "keep the players there by default" and "shop multiple players". That's one thing that EHM did well, I could put a bunch of guys in an offer and "Offer to All" (similar to the shop player feature). Each team would come back with a package for me. Or if I didn't do that, if I'm shopping 2 guys as a package, I could at least go team to team and quickly add guys from their team to see if it was reasonable, instead of re-adding my guys.

My only other thing I'd say is that trades should be less add and remove players, and more back and forth over a few days. Especially in the off-season, I doubt that teams can negotiate a 6 player for 4 player deal in an afternoon. It would be awesome if it were more like I throw the 3 guys from my side and 2 guys from their side to the deal, then I submit it. They come back and ask for more from my side, or less from their side, or whatever. We should still keep some of the same current feedback we get, but tone it down. So it should range from "I doubt this will work" to "Hmm..."

08-21-2011, 06:34 PM	#1 (permalink)
LiuzhouLue Bat Boy Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Liuzhou, China and Portland, ME Posts: 2 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6x in 1 post	Suggestions for solitaire play I play solitaire OOTP as a general manager. This colors my suggestions for OOTP improvements. But, I think my suggestions would be appreciated by others, if implemented. I have separated the suggestions into three categories. The categories overlap to some degree. 1) Speed of play: a) cache results so, when returning to recent page, don't have to redo search for trade partners, scouting, etc. b) easier navigation of box scores - back and forward to day before's, next day's box scores; up and down to other box scores on same day. (Then, after auto-playing for a week or so, it would be much more convenient to review the game results. Now, one has to leave the box score view in order to select another box score to view. This takes time but has no game value.) c) show superscripts on all player lists, so don't have to return to transactions page to view them. d) superscript first year players (ineligible for trades) (This eliminates the "inclusion, dialog box, removal" of first year players when building trade packages. This takes time but has no game value.) e) when switching to another trading partner, retain offered player package (Then one wouldn't have to reconstruct the trade package for each potential trade partner. This takes time but has no game value.) f) allow display of entire roster on initiate trade page (Then one would not have to change the viewed team in order to put together a trade package involving players from more than one level. This is somewhat obviated if trade packages remain in tact when switching to a new potential trade partner.) 2) Convenience of play a) sort, filter and search by any criterion: pro years, options used, contract size, remaining years, rule 5 eligibility, etc. (This would not only be a great convenience, it would speed my play tremendously.) b) sort, filter and search by organization, add organization to view options. (I do not trade within my own division. It would be nice if I could choose "not in San Diego organization", or "not in NL West", etc. as a filter or search criterion. Also, would be convenient to exclude one's own organization.) 3) Quality of play a) complete overhaul of trading system. - should be able to shop packages of players and money (draft picks, if applicable) - should receive responses with packages of players and money (draft picks, if applicable) - should be able to shop almost anyone and get responses, even if it is just cash or "future considerations" - add "future considerations" feature to help finalize trade agreements - $1,000,001 should not be a magic number (Now, an offer of players and $1,000,000 will often be rejected, even in exchange for a player inferior to any in one's offer. But, offer $1,000,001, and, one can keep one's own players, include many more players from the trading partner, and have a deal. That's a lot for a dollar.) - magic number should be salary of player(s) in trade, if any magic number at all (paying the salary of the "overpaid veteran", or anyone else, should make a difference in trade negotiations.) - nearly every team should respond on all difficulty scales (e.g. - unrealistic that there would be no response to shopping Tulo) b) allow review of trades between computer teams during solitaire play (annoying to have Tulo for Pedroia turned down, and then see Pedroia traded straight up for Jamie Carrol ) c) have explanation of trade motivations (dumping salary, rebuilding, need pitching, loading up for stretch run, need catcher to make superstar catcher expendable, etc.) d) range of difficulty for trading should be narrower and more realistic. e) more realistic lineups on days subs start; perhaps allow "sub in same slot" option f) allow viewing of lineup and statistics on same line (I find this very helpful when making my lineups. Viewing the statistics of only the players in the lineup, on the same line as the players, would be preferable to current system of having stats in a different part of the screen and not isolated from the statistics of players not [yet] in the lineup.) g) players' ratings should be spread more evenly between 20 and 80, especially if one is pouring a lot of money into scouting the minor leagues or amateurs. OOTP Baseball is a great game. But, for my purposes, 12 is not that different from 11. 12 may be worse than 11 if one considers all of the bugs that were introduced. For instance, even the most recent update has a broken help system, unless it is just me. No offense, but I can't see purchasing another upgrade until the trading aspect is vastly improved. This is because that aspect of the game is so central to my style of play. As it is, I have to put too many handicaps on myself and have to go through too many gyrations in order to find a trading partner. (Don't ask. It is not important.) Anyway, thanks for a great game. Let the flames begin! LiuzhouLue

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-05-2011, 04:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
Poweshow Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bay Area Posts: 131 Thanks: 12 Thanked 6x in 5 posts	I'm in love with pretty much everything mentioned.

09-07-2011, 02:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
Orcin All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 950 Thanks: 147 Thanked 226x in 134 posts	Great post. I have many of these same ideas running through my mind as I play, especially your comments about trading. I would really like to offer the other GM a package of players and cash in the trade window and have him come back with a counter-offer so I can gauge his interest.

09-08-2011, 12:45 PM	#5 (permalink)
UWHabs Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 198 Thanks: 3 Thanked 66x in 38 posts	I concur with this. I'd also like to see more displayed in the trade screen: -Let me sort the players and filter. So maybe I want to trade away guys for prospects, I want to filter by all guys with a minor league contract. I had one case where I added a AAA prospect (like 22 year old) to a deal, and then only realized after that he was a former #1 pick signed to a 4.5M a year deal. It's not always obvious by the cash amount in the deal. Or give me a filter to show all 3+ star prospects at any level in the org. -Definitely agree on the "keep the players there by default" and "shop multiple players". That's one thing that EHM did well, I could put a bunch of guys in an offer and "Offer to All" (similar to the shop player feature). Each team would come back with a package for me. Or if I didn't do that, if I'm shopping 2 guys as a package, I could at least go team to team and quickly add guys from their team to see if it was reasonable, instead of re-adding my guys. My only other thing I'd say is that trades should be less add and remove players, and more back and forth over a few days. Especially in the off-season, I doubt that teams can negotiate a 6 player for 4 player deal in an afternoon. It would be awesome if it were more like I throw the 3 guys from my side and 2 guys from their side to the deal, then I submit it. They come back and ask for more from my side, or less from their side, or whatever. We should still keep some of the same current feedback we get, but tone it down. So it should range from "I doubt this will work" to "Hmm..."