PureSim 2008 Design Discussion thread

[CBeasley37]

Has anyone suggested a new in game scoreboard yet?
 
Like many other Puresimmers, I like to play out every game.
I just thought it would be cool to have a modern looking electronic scoreboard in game, or perhaps a
older scoreboard like the one at Fenway or Wrigley.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[bobsayah]

>>> Once a player signs a major league contract (e.g. the first time they are placed on the 40 man roster they can no longer be assigned a minor league contract salary level).

Just re-reading your ideas on this, and I'm wondering: How is it that a player's initial major league contract (salary and # of years) gets determined?

[looneyluden]

ORIGINAL: CBeasley37

Has anyone suggested a new in game scoreboard yet?

Like many other Puresimmers, I like to play out every game.
I just thought it would be cool to have a modern looking electronic scoreboard in game, or perhaps a
older scoreboard like the one at Fenway or Wrigley.

Fantastic idea.

Speaking of visual improvements. I wonder if any of the re-done screens by (forgive me if I'm wrong), Padrefan, will be built into the next game.

[PadresFan104]

PanzersEast did the screens you are probably referring to, though I do have a couple of my own on my site. His are the bomb though...

[Amaroq]

ORIGINAL: bobsayah

>>> Once a player signs a major league contract (e.g. the first time they are placed on the 40 man roster they can no longer be assigned a minor league contract salary level).

Just re-reading your ideas on this, and I'm wondering: How is it that a player's initial major league contract (salary and # of years) gets determined?

Currently?

Currently, players build for themselves a "contract demand", by assessing their performance and skill level against the other players in the league. They either give a discount or charge a premium for a long-term contract, adjusting the 'demand' either down or up accordingly. They also offer a discount the deeper you get into the initial draft.

AI teams seem to end up with a fairly random contract length for their initial-draft players.

Human teams, of course, can sign every player to a five-year contract, if they want.

I suspect that the initial-draft contract demands are significantly lower than the contract demands players make the second and subsequent years.

There are constants in the .XML file which you can play with to adjust the contract demands based on different factors.

..

In fact, that might be a good '2008 project', to make the initial-draft AI more competitive:

1. AI initial-contract length based on a matrix of quality and age:
- Rounds 1-10: All players demand major-league contracts. Top players, even aged veterans, get a minimum of two years, and top players under the age of 30 get a 5-year-contract.
- Rounds 11-20: As the player skill declines, the contract lengths come down a bit - aged players are down to 1-year-contract, with middling-age players on 2 to 4, and young players still on a 5-year deal. Players under 21 who are not 'major league quality' in their current ratings get a minor-league deal.
- Rounds 21-30: We're into the marginal players. At this point, anybody over the age of 28 gets a 1-year-deal. Younger players get a deal based on their youth potential, with high-potential youngsters still getting five years, but most middling youth getting two to four. Players under 23 who are not 'major league quality' get a minor-league deal.
- Rounds 31-40: Only players whose current ability would see them on their side's 25-man Opening Day roster get a major-league contract; most of those are for one or two years, though a younger player might still see three to five. Most players are signed to a minor-league deal.
- Rounds 41-60: Again, only players adjudged into the 25-man Opening Day roster get a major-league contract. Anybody signed to a major-league contract at this point gets one year. Most players sign a minor-league deal.

I suspect what you'd see with this is
- AI teams would have less than 40 major-league-contracts entering the initial Spring Training.
- NO big-name free agents would enter the first free agency pool.
- Most first-year free agents would be middling/marginal players (as IRL)
- AI teams would tend, like the human teams, to improve over the first five years of the game.
- Unless the AI teams are sufficiently agressive about re-signing players, the sixth-year free agency will have a lot of players available.
- However, most teams will still have major-league talent at most positions, thanks to their maturing players originally signed to minor-league contracts.

[BryanK]

Some quick thoughts on the financial system, as transplanted from another thread:

Not sure if the financial model is one of the areas that's open to polish, but I think it's one of the areas in Puresim that could use a tune up. A while back I was thinking about this, and I think I have a relatively elegant solution:
1: Inflation occurs each year as modeled by GDP growth or, alternatively, increases average MLB salary.
2: Players demands for salary are determined internally as a % of total unspent dollars in the market. (e.g. 10 teams each with $7 million to spend means that there is a total pot of $70 million)
...i: Part of % calculation is players greed rating
...ii: Part of % calculation is player's performance over past few years
3: A team's maximum willingness to pay is expressed as a % of dollars that team has available
...i: Part of % calculation is the team's next best option on the FA market or internally
...ii: Part of % calculation is the team's need at that position
4: Teams will start bidding at the player's demand level if: player% x total FA dollars < team% x team FA dollars
5: Players will reduce their % figure if no one makes an offer within a given period
6: Players will increase their % figure if multiple teams make *comparable* offers within a given period

Not perfect, but it's a move toward a market economy... which would give Puresim a clear advantage in financial realism. Would something like this be feasible?

[orton1227]

Sorry if this has been mentioned...but I'd like to see more in-game options.&nbsp; I'd like to see PbP tell us the runner is tagging up and that the ball is in shallow or deep right, etc.&nbsp; Just think through all the manager decisions in a real game and apply them to Puresim.

[orton1227]

I'd like the interface to be a little more reader friendly.&nbsp; Kind of like a website.&nbsp; The current interface seems a little thrown together.

[puresimmer]

ORIGINAL: orton1227

I'd like the interface to be a little more reader friendly.  Kind of like a website.  The current interface seems a little thrown together.

Can you give me some screens that are specific examples, and what you'd like to see changed? I'd love to get as much feedback on improving the interface as possible.

- Shaun

[orton1227]

ORIGINAL: puresimmer

ORIGINAL: orton1227

I'd like the interface to be a little more reader friendly. Kind of like a website. The current interface seems a little thrown together.

Can you give me some screens that are specific examples, and what you'd like to see changed? I'd love to get as much feedback on improving the interface as possible.

- Shaun

I'll give a better answer tomorrow, but off the top of my head here are some thoughts:

1 - drag and drop lineup, rotations, etc.
2 - keep it simple. for example, when loading an association, I'd like to see my team's screen first. On that screen it'd be great to see a who's hot, who's not in one section - the division standings in another - the next game with probable starters somewhere else - a news flash box with the top 10 news stories.

2a - On the top or bottom (of left or right) of the screen, I'd like to see buttons:
...for roster management (setting lineups, rotations, look at minors rosters, trade screen, free agents, etc.)
...for finances (ticket sales, breakdown of salaries, etc)
...for scheduled games that day
...for standings
...for stats
...for news
...for calendar.

3 - I'd like to see more stuff put into an options screen (with the options button in an inconspicuous location like top-right corner). Modifications for logos, parks, unis, etc would go in here).

let me try to think up some more stuff tomorrow and/or refine these suggestions.

[bittersweet]

Is there a way to tweak the AI to do a better job with lineup creation. I am a person who likes doing historical replays. After the Association is created, you have to go in and check every team. There usually are either a situation where a batter is a cleanup hitter but is batting somewhere else in the lineup.

I know you can do the player lock feature and that is very helpful. It is a tedious process to have to go and check each team. When using real players, would it be possible to import the most common lineups. I have a databae that has both as played lineups and most common lineups. Something like that would help you be able to create an association and then start playing.

Would it be possible at the end of a historical season, for example 1964, to have the players draftd or reassigned so that the rosters matched up with the actual 1965 rosters. I know I could create a 1965 association, it would be nice to be able to this the other way. I think you can do that with Out of the Park Baseball.

On the game screen, I would like it if I had the option to change fonts, screen colors, etc. A new scoreboard would be great.

I just purchased a football game called Second and Ten. When a player makes a TD or interception or something big happens, his picture appears on the screen for 3-4 seconds and then disappears. It would be cool to have an infielder or outfielder's picture appear if they made a great fielding play or threw a runner out at the plate.

Thanks for making a great game and continually looking to improve the product.

[PadresFan104]

As a bigtime SAT fan, I enthusiastically second your photo suggestion!!!

Al

[orton1227]

Okay here's some real thoughts.&nbsp; I mentioned the interface before, and while that needs a bit of updating, for me I don't think it's as important as gameplay.

In my opinion I'd like to see more put into gameplay.&nbsp; Examples:

Just think through what a real manager has to think thru every at-bat and then implement them into the game:

If my team is in the field:
1.&nbsp; Is the batter a pull hitter, opposite field hitter or does he sprinkle it out? (It'd be nice to have a graphic in the batter's player card showing this).&nbsp; I'd like to shift my infield/outfield if he's a dead pull hitter.

2. Where does the batter like his pitches?&nbsp; And what pitches does he like?&nbsp; Is he a low-and-inside fastball guy?&nbsp; Depending on what he likes, I'd like to be able to tell my pitcher to keep the ball up and stick with breaking balls.

3. I'd like the option to tell my pitcher to scuff the ball or spit on it and risk getting thrown out or suspended.

At the plate:
1. I'd like to know what pitches the pitcher favors so I can be looking for them.
2. I'd like the ability to try to pull the ball or go opposite field.

These are examples.&nbsp; Some already may be implemented.&nbsp; But it's a start I guess.&nbsp; Not all is necessary.&nbsp;

I realize that a lot of people love the sim aspect of this game, whereas I prefer the managerial and GM aspects of baseball text-sims.&nbsp; So that's kinda my reason behind these suggestions.


Oh yeah...drag and drop.

[puresimmer]

ORIGINAL: lynchjm24

I should have started by saying I'm happy to be hearing about PS 08.

Is the draft going to be an area where there is work done? I think that after the financials there is a huge opportunity to improve the game in this area. The FOF 2007 draft is amazing, that would be a great model to steal ideas from.

What features of it do you like? Is it the pace, where you can see what other teams are doing? Note, I have FOF 2007, so I can certainly dig in if you point me to some areas you think I maybe should have a look at.

Thanks.

[lynchjm24]

ORIGINAL: puresimmer
What features of it do you like? Is it the pace, where you can see what other teams are doing? Note, I have FOF 2007, so I can certainly dig in if you point me to some areas you think I maybe should have a look at.

It's fun to watch what the other teams do. Being able to research the draft pool before it starts makes it more interesting once the draft begins. The interview process is tremendous. Having a limited number of players where you can get more defined information would be a nice addition. Having more of a fog of war in the draft where the precise ratings aren't known, but then sharpening those numbers by 'personally scouting' instead of 'interviewing' might be a nice addition.

It seems that text-sim players love drafts, and while the baseball draft is different then football or basketball is, it would still be a nice addition if there was more 'to it'.

I think an overall worthwhile addition would be having the AI use all their picks every year and then having undrafted players turn to scrubs and super scrubs. It really takes the teeth out of the draft when players who go undrafted continue to develop and sit in free agency. You can ignore the draft outside of the first round and still come up with lots of top prospects by plucking them out of free agency.

If every player who didn't get drafted turned to a superscrub and never developed after the draft I think that would be huge, it would solve the problem of players coming out of nowhere, and it would also solve some of the issues with players who are in the minors for 5 years, then disappear to reappear in the major leagues 3 or 4 years later because they continued to develop while they sat in the free agency pool.

Even if the game was more like the OOTP draft and only created exactly as many players as needed in the draft that would be huge. Then those players would be 'legitimate' and the other players generated to keep the AI out of cap trouble and meet the rosters requirements could all be scrubs/super scrubs.

I don't know if it bothers anyone else, but I hate having hundreds and hundreds of free agents available, having the holes in their performance records is frustrating.

[puresimmer]

How about if I severely curbed player development for players that were not signed to an organization? That feels a little less brute-force to me.

[Amaroq]

Wow, so many great ideas in this thread.

On the UI:

ORIGINAL: orton1227
I'll give a better answer tomorrow, but off the top of my head here are some thoughts:

1 - drag and drop lineup, rotations, etc.
2 - keep it simple. for example, when loading an association, I'd like to see my team's screen first. On that screen it'd be great to see a who's hot, who's not in one section - the division standings in another - the next game with probable starters somewhere else - a news flash box with the top 10 news stories.

2a - On the top or bottom (of left or right) of the screen, I'd like to see buttons:
...for roster management (setting lineups, rotations, look at minors rosters, trade screen, free agents, etc.)
...for finances (ticket sales, breakdown of salaries, etc)
...for scheduled games that day
...for standings
...for stats
...for news
...for calendar.

3 - I'd like to see more stuff put into an options screen (with the options button in an inconspicuous location like top-right corner). Modifications for logos, parks, unis, etc would go in here).

let me try to think up some more stuff tomorrow and/or refine these suggestions.

I do agree with this; and I'm not convinced that the argument "game play is more important than UI" holds; EA seems to be living proof that the opposite is true: appearance makes first impressions. Most reviewers are writing from their first impressions, and many customers are making a buy/no-buy decision based on their first impressions from the demo.

UI is more important than the average developer thinks it is.

Drag-and-drop certainly is the modern "intuitive" interface.

In juggling a pitching and bullpen 'rotation', I often want to be able to 'put player X between players A and B', rather than 'swap X with A' as the current UI allows.

A unified colour scheme would help with this. Currently we have more different 'looks' than I can count - the main UI is one colour scheme, the game screen is another, the roster-management screen a third, the player card is a fourth, the almanac is a fifth, the minor-league management screen a sixth, the trade screen a seventh, the options dialog an eighth, PSPN a ninth, and I'm sure I've missed others. Consistency is key; the current version feels hodge-podge and 'programmer art' in places.

Less pop-up dialogs would help: I think most things can be presented as takeovers to the 'main screen' area, which would make them feel more integrated and less 'interrupting'. In many cases, going 'main screen' would give you more screen real estate as well, letting you either present more data or use

A consistent always-visible set of the most-used buttons would be excellent additions:
- lineup management screen
- scheduled games that day
- minor-league management screen
- standings
- team home page (front office)
- news
- trades
- free agents
- stats
are the screens I go to most often, probably in order of importance; association home and main game screen I almost never use.

Cut out some of the rarely-used screens, if you can identify them. (Do we need 'stats' and 'almanac'? Do we need the 'lineup' and 'rotation' screens if we have the 'modify lineup' screen?)

Going straight to something about my team, whether that's the 'team front office page' or orton's 'team home page' would be ideal for single-player mode; I'd expect only somebody logged in to a multi-player game in commissioner-mode wants to go to the 'association home page'.

FM-07's customizable "manager home page" screen is a brilliant concept well executed, and probably worth modifying to fit your game's needs, as orton suggested: showing injuries, who's hot/not, division standings, last 3 + next 5 games, news.

The updates I'd like to see to the minor-league management screen I've described elsewhere.

Little things like getting the 'team' stats correct (sum of actions taken for this team this season, rather than sum of players currently on the team) would help.

The in-game management screens still have some of the 'clunky' interface elements I've described elsewhere as well, such as the 'locked' 'please put in a new pitcher' mode which prevents a double-switch, etc.

Some screens don't re-load when you come 'back' from dialogs, which can leave them showing incorrect data (e.g., if I modify the roster from a player-card, the roster-management screen should reload when I come back to it).

No screens currently 'remember' sort order. I'd like to see multi-sort, e.g., the ability to specify two or three columns worth of 'sort', and for each screen to 'store' my preferred sort order for that screen (based on what I was showing the last time I showed it).

Career totals and sortability on the retirements screen would be huge.

Its not 'fun' work, the way game-play is, but that change list would go a long way towards making this the most accessible, easy-to-pick-up game in the genre.

ORIGINAL: bittersweet

I just purchased a football game called Second and Ten. When a player makes a TD or interception or something big happens, his picture appears on the screen for 3-4 seconds and then disappears. It would be cool to have an infielder or outfielder's picture appear if they made a great fielding play or threw a runner out at the plate.

Very late-eighties.

I think the ball animating around the park would be a bigger addition, e.g., the 'ball hit to shortstop, ball flips to second base, "Out at second!", ball whips to first base, "Safe at first!"' animation.

[Amaroq]

On historical play:

ORIGINAL: bittersweet

Is there a way to tweak the AI to do a better job with lineup creation. I am a person who likes doing historical replays. After the Association is created, you have to go in and check every team. There usually are either a situation where a batter is a cleanup hitter but is batting somewhere else in the lineup.

I know you can do the player lock feature and that is very helpful. It is a tedious process to have to go and check each team. When using real players, would it be possible to import the most common lineups. I have a databae that has both as played lineups and most common lineups. Something like that would help you be able to create an association and then start playing.

Would it be possible at the end of a historical season, for example 1964, to have the players draftd or reassigned so that the rosters matched up with the actual 1965 rosters. I know I could create a 1965 association, it would be nice to be able to this the other way. I think you can do that with Out of the Park Baseball.

Those would both be huge improvements for historical simmers.

bittersweet, have you tried the 'team affinity mode'? It should help with that second addition.

Shaun, I wonder if there are people who really want this to be a MANAGER game, rather than a GM game? It sounds like, for both these requests, there's a subset of historical simmers who don't really want the 'alternate history if I were the GM' experience, but want the 'I wonder if I'd managed the real lineups every year, if I could have done better' experience?

Maybe there's a mode there: re-import the players every off-season, no draft, no free agency, (maybe no 'trade' mode, or that historical 'trade' mode we talked about) but continue to track their game-generated stats on the player cards and almanac?

[Amaroq]

ORIGINAL: lynchjm24

It's fun to watch what the other teams do. Being able to research the draft pool before it starts makes it more interesting once the draft begins. The interview process is tremendous. Having a limited number of players where you can get more defined information would be a nice addition. Having more of a fog of war in the draft where the precise ratings aren't known, but then sharpening those numbers by 'personally scouting' instead of 'interviewing' might be a nice addition.

It seems that text-sim players love drafts, and while the baseball draft is different then football or basketball is, it would still be a nice addition if there was more 'to it'.

I think an overall worthwhile addition would be having the AI use all their picks every year and then having undrafted players turn to scrubs and super scrubs. It really takes the teeth out of the draft when players who go undrafted continue to develop and sit in free agency. You can ignore the draft outside of the first round and still come up with lots of top prospects by plucking them out of free agency.

If every player who didn't get drafted turned to a superscrub and never developed after the draft I think that would be huge, it would solve the problem of players coming out of nowhere, and it would also solve some of the issues with players who are in the minors for 5 years, then disappear to reappear in the major leagues 3 or 4 years later because they continued to develop while they sat in the free agency pool.

Even if the game was more like the OOTP draft and only created exactly as many players as needed in the draft that would be huge. Then those players would be 'legitimate' and the other players generated to keep the AI out of cap trouble and meet the rosters requirements could all be scrubs/super scrubs.

I don't know if it bothers anyone else, but I hate having hundreds and hundreds of free agents available, having the holes in their performance records is frustrating.

I definitely agree with lynchjm's main points here.

I want to research the draft pool before it starts.

I like FOF's time presentation, as it builds suspense. I love having come up with some form of sort order for the draft pool, so I can see who my top prospects are, get attached to the idea of owning them, and then getting frutstrated when the team two picks in front of me takes the guy I really want.

Drag-and-drop 'order' for the prospects, I would actually use.

I fully want the AI to make a selection with every pick of the draft (especially now, where they'll be signed to minor-league contracts, so there isn't a risk of the AI going 'over budget' on their minor-leaguers.

I want the AI to be willing to go to Spring Training with too many players, and 'cut' down after Spring, which is the way that I play.

EA's NHL Hockey 2006 had a pretty neat 'draft scouting' mechanic, actually - players are rated 'A' through 'F' in each of five key areas - for us, it would probably be 'Hitting', 'Power', 'Speed', 'Defense', 'Potential' for a hitter - with a color code to indicate how accurate that information is. It gets better as the season progresses, so you get more and more accurate information as time goes on, but you rarely have 'perfectly accurate' information on a single player in all five categories.

Real MLB scouts use the 2-8 scale for this; that might be worth doing to everyone, *even* the players who use the 100-point scale for 'known' players.

Like lynchjm, I really dislike having the hundreds of free agents who haven't played an inning even in the minors aspect - severely curbing the development of players who don't have a team, and increasing the aging impact on players who don't have a team, would go a ways. (Basically, make it 'getting innings at ANY level of the minors is required for a youngster to improve, or to stave off aging past age 30 or so).

You might also address this by having players who aren't signed to a team be much more aggressive about retiring.

And, what about having the draft in June? I'll post that in its own thread.

[puresimmer]

ORIGINAL: Amaroq

{clip}...I'm not convinced that the argument "game play is more important than UI" holds; EA seems to be living proof that the opposite is true: appearance makes first impressions. Most reviewers are writing from their first impressions, and many customers are making a buy/no-buy decision based on their first impressions from the demo.

UI is more important than the average developer thinks it is.

Drag-and-drop certainly is the modern "intuitive" interface.

In juggling a pitching and bullpen 'rotation', I often want to be able to 'put player X between players A and B', rather than 'swap X with A' as the current UI allows.

A unified colour scheme would help with this. Currently we have more different 'looks' than I can count - the main UI is one colour scheme, the game screen is another, the roster-management screen a third, the player card is a fourth, the almanac is a fifth, the minor-league management screen a sixth, the trade screen a seventh, the options dialog an eighth, PSPN a ninth, and I'm sure I've missed others. Consistency is key; the current version feels hodge-podge and 'programmer art' in places.
...{clip}

I agree totally. PureSim's UI most certainly reveals it's historical progression (ahem).

I've spent the last few days triaging the myriad of things I'd like to improve and I'm currently suffering from the "Where do I start?" kind of paralysis

Part of me wants to do nothing but UI refinements for PureSim 2008, the other part wants to introduce new idioms like the 40 man roster etc. Of course it's not totally an either-or situation, but it's pretty close when one considers the only time I get to work on the game is vacations and weekends (can anyone tell I've been on vacation this week?)

Obviously, it's human nature to gravitate to the stuff I would rather do, but maybe PS 2008 should be the year of the UI refining and code tightening. The game certainly already has a ton of features that for sure can't be argued. Of course when I say UI refinements, I don't simply mean new graphics. I mean things like improving the draft experience, roster management interface, lineup management interface, better reporting output and customization options, improved navigation etc.

It's something I need to really think about hard. The other issue there is would that warrant purchasing a new version of the game?

I have to admit, sitting down and planning a new season of PureSim is probably the hardest part of the whole cycle given the constraints I must operate under: Legacy encumbrance, lack of time, 1 man team etc.

The other option I might consider would be skipping this Baseball season so I could take my time.