[TToI Online Game Support] Request for improvements
franco : February 27, 2008 08:03 AM

What improvements would you like to see in Barnstorming or the site?

Currently, I am working on adding relief pitchers, stolen bases, and health for position players. Accessing player stats is difficult with my current web hosting package but it may happen eventually.

Any other ideas or suggestions?

Franco

# of edits: 1
Last edited: February 27, 2008 08:03 AM

jcarwash31 : February 27, 2008 09:18 AM

I guess I would like 2 bench spots for infielders, like one for corner infielders and one for middle infielders. I keep trying the free agent thing to upgrade my middle infielders but I always end up with another OF or 3B.

Lemondrop : February 27, 2008 09:18 AM

It would be nice if you could show what direction we are moving. Maybe show that a zip code is 52.2 miles SW of the current location. Something like that.

I would love to be able to lookup my players stats.

I've only found one birthplace so I'm still stuck on level 2. More birthplaces would be great.

Ford Fricks Asterisk : February 27, 2008 09:55 AM

Lemondrop: I realize these aren't exact solutions to your questions, but...

I usually keep a couple of tabs open when moving my team... one for google maps, and one to look up zip codes and other info. So I move my team according to the map rather than the list of nearby zip codes. Your idea would be more convenient, but at least you can head in a definite direction if you look map first.

I've found a half-dozen birthplaces so far. It seems to me that if they're a rather famous Hall of Famer, their birthplace will show up (I don't really know how many there are). When you reach a new state, you might want to look up who was born there... just do a quick scan of the hits or wins column. Finding minor league teams is probably the quickest way to increase your team level, though.

Franco...

I'd like to hear if people would be interested in having an injury factor in the game (I think we can do this without over-doing it). This would be one way to incorporate the bench, although I was thinking along the lines of jcarwash31, that in order to do so, teams would probably have to have both a middle infield and corner infield backup.

I'd also like to see errors worked into the game... and I don't know anything about the simulator, but it seems that pitchers go crazy with walks sometimes.

*

jcarwash31 : February 27, 2008 10:11 AM

I actually use My Maps on Google to track my progress. I color code it too so I know which cities I picked up by moving there, which cities I won in a challenge, and which cities I lost in a challenge.

Some sort of interactive map on here would be hella-sweet, but I have no idea what kind of resources that would take. I'd imagine it'd be a pain in the ass.

franco : February 27, 2008 10:21 AM

I would love to add an interactive map but, as you speculated, the server resources are far beyond what I have available to me. I'll have to try your My Maps method for my team.

Franco

Swampudlian : February 27, 2008 10:38 AM

This one might even be against the concept of the game entirely, but the Tree Huggers, in their quest to have a semi-decent outfielder, have Ed Kirkpatrick, a somewhat decent-hitting catcher, and recently picked up Sandy Alomar, who doesn't hit for much average or OBP, but has nice power. For now, one is catching and the other is DH... But I'd like to see if I can swing a trade with another team looking for a good-hitting catcher in exchange for a better-hitting outfielder.

Any thought to whether teams will be able to swap players in the future?

Ford Fricks Asterisk : February 27, 2008 10:52 AM

I'm thinking that in this league of "syndicate ball" that might be a dangerous idea.

(Also, I kind of like finally being in a league where I'm not hounded by e-mails from other owners who want me to trade my value for their garbage)

*

# of edits: 1
Last edited: February 27, 2008 10:53 AM

franco : February 27, 2008 11:02 AM

My concern with trades is that someone could start several teams and trade all of the good players over to one team and then abandon the others. Incorporating a league review or point system to regulate it may be possible but it would be a lot of work for one person.

Franco

jcarwash31 : February 27, 2008 11:09 AM

I think a better solution for that would be to be able to add a free agent for a specific position (C, OF, IF (corners and middle if added)). So, for Swampudlian, he could release a player and then choose to randomly receive another OF. Then you would have a slightly better chance of improving the positions you are trying to improve.

Swampudlian : February 27, 2008 12:17 PM

Good points all... Yeah, I can see why no-trade makes sense. I do like jcarwash's idea.

And I guess I'm too honest for my own good... I never even remotely thought of trading one of the excess catchers to the Pill Poppers (my alter ego) for an outfielder.

# of edits: 1
Last edited: February 27, 2008 12:18 PM

franco : February 27, 2008 12:44 PM

This could work. You could have the option of selecting a specific position with the trade off of increased credits. In the beginning, you can spend 50 credit to generally improve your team but once you've added some good players you can spend 100 (maybe) credits to get more specific.

Franco

Swampudlian : February 27, 2008 12:55 PM

Maybe 60 or 70? 75? To take the instance of searching for a decent hitting outfielder, I'd hate to piss away 100 credits and wind up with, let's say, 2007 Cameron Maybin... Or order up a shortstop and get 1968 Ray Oyler. You get my drift.

Ford Fricks Asterisk : February 27, 2008 01:16 PM

I'd vote for 100... twice the price of a general pick-up. Definitely don't think it should be less than 75. Besides, I've certainly wasted more than two transactions trying to add something of general use. My experience has been that enough of the players qualify at multiple positions that I can usually make most things work out anyway.

After last week, when I dumped a reliever -- not because he was the worst guy on my roster, but because he was useless as a reliever -- and picked up a guy with an era of 15.00, I've learned to have a sense of humor about it.

*

franco : February 27, 2008 01:31 PM

I enjoy finding players that had good season but aren't exactly star players which is why I like the randomness of the free agents. I've had to release Hall of Famers before because they weren't as good as the guy that I just got. Meanwhile, my SS sucks. It's like scouting a new young player, you never know what you're going to get... a career minor leaguer or a batting champion.

The scenario that I would like to avoid, is making it too easy to build up a team of all-stars and Hall-of-Famers which would discourage new people from playing if they know they are going to get crushed.

Franco

# of edits: 1
Last edited: February 27, 2008 01:32 PM

jcarwash31 : February 27, 2008 01:48 PM

I like the randomness too for those same reasons. I just would like the option of narrowing the pool of players to randomly pick from to a certain position. I think a higher fee is more than fair.

Right now I have 5 corner infielders on my roster. One guy can play both 1st and 3rd, another only 1st, and the other three only 3rd. Of my 4 3rd-basemen, I have one at 3rd, on at 1st, one at BI, and the other as reserve. The other 1st-baseman is at DH. Today I actually released a decent 3B and received another one.

I also like getting players from the 1800's with names like Dude Esterbrook.

Ford Fricks Asterisk : February 27, 2008 02:04 PM

With any luck, maybe one day you can have Dude team up with Seem Studley.

*

franco : February 27, 2008 02:14 PM

I was thinking of starting a team and trying to make the roster exclusively 19th century players. I'm sure I could get some cool names on that roster. That would probably be the first team to get Babe Ruth and then I would have to release him.

Franco

Swampudlian : February 27, 2008 02:26 PM

Here's to a team having Dude Esterbrook, Seem Studley, and Jack Glasscock (who was actually a very good player in his day... If such an option were available at the time, I'd bet he would have been one of those "just not quite good enough" HOF candidates).

Swampudlian : February 27, 2008 02:29 PM

Oh, and, yeah, if the consensus is for 100 points for a position-specific free agent pickup, so be it... Far be it from me to rock the boat. And it wouldn't necessarily need to be a guy who is (again, to use my example) primarily an outfielder, but rather anyone with enough appearances to qualify at that spot.

Which brings something up... What is the minimum, anyways? I've tried to slot some guys in with 1 or 2 appearances and the system rejects it... Is the minimum 3 games? 5?

franco : February 27, 2008 03:46 PM

In order to qualify at a position, the player only has to play one game at that position. Do you remember what players were involved when you got the rejection?

Any hitter can DH. Relievers have to have more G than GS and starters have to have at least one GS.

Franco

# of edits: 1
Last edited: February 27, 2008 03:49 PM

biggie pharma : February 27, 2008 03:51 PM

On the Pill Poppers, I just now tried to move the following around: Dick Reichle (OF-93, 1B-2) to Reserve, George Hall (OF-77, 1B-1) to Bkup Infield, and Trenidad Hubbard (various OF totalling 28) to Bkup Outfield. Got the "invalid role" message. I think it was a different alignment before, but still was the assignment of George Hall to BI that screwed things up before.

franco : February 27, 2008 04:01 PM

I just checked the code and while I thought that it was set at greater than or equal to 1, it actually says greater than 1. I don't remember if the was my intention or if I just typed it wrong. I'll have to check my notes tonight.

Franco

biggie pharma : February 27, 2008 04:04 PM

Yeah, off the top of my head, I think I had another situation that worked in such a way that I knew that 2 appearances gets it done, but 1 doesn't.

Swampudlian : February 28, 2008 09:50 AM

Currently there's a drop-down menu on standings to do the standings by fans, wins, w/l%, RS avg, RA avg, etc. ... Can you do a double drop-down, and have the other option of last 1 day, last 2 days, last week, last month, all time? Or something like that?

I've often thought of any day's moves as "well, if I can just keep picking up 2-3K fans in each move, that'll be 25,000-ish for the day." Might be nice to see which teams are hot/cold for the last week or month, too.

franco : February 28, 2008 10:11 AM

That's entirely doable. I should have time in the next week or two to add that.

Franco

_rcc94_ : March 4, 2008 10:59 PM

I'd like to go back to the idea of having potential players have a minimum number of games before they could be drafted. I just picked up Ed Taylor (1903) who had a whopping 1 game with only 3 innings. Of course he does have a 0 ERA and 0 Hits, so I think I'll try him out to see how he does in action - if he can actually be used.

No - he can't (at least as a starter). Time to roll the draft die again.

# of edits: 1
Last edited: March 4, 2008 11:02 PM

franco : March 5, 2008 07:52 AM

While one of my goals has been to draft Eddie Gaedel, I'll concede that players with a handful of at bats should be eliminated. But what should the cutoff be? I'm thinking 25 plate appearances for position players and 10 innings for pitchers.

Players in the 25-100-ish PA range will soon have conditions placed on them that will cause their health to decrease faster than full time players. But it will also allow teams to have good players who may not be "big names" such as Mickey Klutts.

Any thoughts?

Franco

Swampudlian : March 5, 2008 10:57 AM

I know I recently drafted a very good year from Tim Bogar, but it was with such deficient at-bats that his health was listed as "F" the minute I picked him up.

Maybe go with the idea of more site points again? Maybe eliminate all players with less than 25 AB for hitters, 10 IP for pitchers, and if you use the normal 50 points for an acquisition, you could get anybody. Bump it up to 100 points, you're guaranteed to get 200 ABs or 40 IP (just throwing out random numbers here - adjust as you wish). Combine that with the previous idea for position specificity, and you can get a certain position, but no usage guarantee for 100 points. It'll take 150 points to get a guy qualifying at a certain position and who also has a minimum number of ABs/IPs.

Prof.Whoopie : March 5, 2008 05:12 PM

I haven't been on this site long, so I don't know how good my idea is. I was thinking of organizing all the players into "tiers." Hall of Fame type ones at the top, scrubs at the bottom. As many tiers as necessary in between. Then, if you spend 50 credits, you might have a 50% chance of drafting a career nobody, and maybe 1% or less of getting a 1927 Babe Ruth. The other 49% can be filled out with the percentages from the other tiers. However, if you bumped up the cost to 150 credits, your chance of getting someone bad could be closer to 30%, with more in the middle, and then maybe a 2% chance of getting the 1968 Bob Gibson. You can keep bumping up the price and improving your chances. Feel free to change any numerical figures to whatever you want.

I don't know if this is even remotely feasible, but it sounded like a good idea to me when I thought of it. But what do I know?

Swampudlian : March 6, 2008 09:09 AM

I think that's a decent idea, but... Is there an actuary in the house?

Ford Fricks Asterisk : March 6, 2008 02:04 PM

Just my personal preference, but...

Tournament games:

Playing a best of three in a 16-team tournament seems a little busy to me (maybe it's just me... or should I say Ovaltine?). I could see why maybe someone wouldn't want to make the effort to travel to a tournament site where they're likely to get bounced after just one somewhat random game, but maybe a couple of alternatives that would be more tournament-like:

Do a 16-team tournament with a losers bracket, so that it's double-elimination, or keep the best of three format but in some smaller 8-team tournaments instead.

*

biggie pharma : March 6, 2008 09:18 PM

There's certainly a long history of double-elimination brackets in baseball at many levels... Sounds good to me.

jcarwash31 : March 7, 2008 08:05 AM

Double-elim would be fun. I like that idea better than the best of 3 format

biggie pharma : March 7, 2008 08:47 AM

OK, now I have no idea how the game simulator works, and far be it from me to tell you how to do things, but nobody can tell me this is realistic:

play,6,1,foxan01,??,,S9
play,6,1,giambja01,??,,D7.1-H
play,6,1,goossgr01,??,,S6.2-3
play,6,1,tayloda01,??,,S8.3-H;1-2
play,6,1,ginteke01,??,,HP.2-3;1-2
play,6,1,beckeri01,??,,63
play,6,1,phillda01,??,,53
play,6,1,myattgl01,??,,53

Uh... Bases loaded, nobody out, and two groundouts on the infield with the putout at first base result in no further runs? This is far from the first time I've seen it, just haven't complained before. Today, I complain more on behalf of Red Ruffing, who had to pitch 14 innings, but could have finished with 9 if the Pill Poppers had actually plated a run (or 2?) in this situation.

Swampudlian : April 3, 2008 11:09 AM

Hey, saw the new and improved rankings, with last 7 days and last 30 days. Well done.

franco : April 3, 2008 11:40 AM

I plan on adding more soon, including more breakdowns by periods. Some of the data wasn't being saved in a manner that was conducive to that so they will have effective dates, such as the "Fans by Move" and "Fans by Game" rankings.

Franco

nutting14 : August 4, 2008 08:52 PM

How do you use a relief pitcher? I don't think mine have gotten into a game yet.

franco : August 5, 2008 08:54 AM

That part of the game isn't finished yet. For now, the starters pitch complete games. Hopefully that will be improved soon.

Reply (You must be logged in)

Click here to log in