Posted by srunstro on 6/7/2021 4:00:00 PM (view original):
It seems like there is a fairly obvious answer to the ballpark diversity vs. realism conflict that people are pointing out. Both arguments have valid points to me, so can we have both?

In the current list of ballparks, there are many real stadiums but also a bunch that seem to have been invented by WIS:

• WhatifSports Field - Santa Fe, NM
• Bessire Ballpark – Madison, WI (named after WIS developer Paul Bessire)
• Boon Stadium – Jackson, MS (named after WIS developer Kyle Boon)
• Conte Yard – Cheyenne, WY (named after WIS developer Joe Conte)
• Welch Park - Hartford, CT (named after WIS developer Mike Welch)
• Eble Park – Huntington, KY
• Mustain Stadium – Burlington, VT
• Razavi Field - Sioux Falls, SD
• Vaniglia Stadium - Santa Cruz, CA
• Watkins Field – Dover, DE

Why not update all the real ballparks to use the current park factors, but retain some of these fake stadiums with more extreme park factors?

Would this keep everyone happy?

I'm content with the changes as is, but I think the above is a good idea. Give the owners that like the extreme parks a choice to continue with them.

It interesting that the mexico city stadium plays so neutral considering the elevation is probably 2000 feet higher than Denver. Maybe it's a dome? Or has huge foul territory?

Since some International stadiums have been added it might be interesting to add a few more Korean & Japanese stadiums so a world could have a Korean and/or Japanese division or possibly a complete league of teams from one or both of these countries.

I wonder who gets to come up with the new design and colors of the new cities. That would be real fun to come up with color schemes and logos of teams. Cuba could be turquoise, yellow, and red, with a big swirling C and and outline of the country.
London could be pewter, red, and blue with a logo of big Ben in an L motif.
Tokyo could be red and green with logo of the Setting sun and stylish T...
Korea could be logo of SK and blue red white blends. Sure would be neat to design them.

I''ll echo several of the comments. I'd be in favor of historical parks. I'd be in favor of working in more existing Asian parks. And I'm wholeheartedly in favor of using the fictional parks to fill in the gaps on more extreme park factors. We absolutely should have a healthy variety in our parks, including a sufficient number of extreme parks.

I would also like to see the option of old, defunct stadiums -- such as:

1. Polo Grounds: Left Field: 279 ft Left-Center: 450 ft Center Field: 483 ft Right-Center: 449 ft Right Field: 258 ft
2. Ebbetts Field: Left field: 348 ft Left-center: 351 ft Center field: 399 ft Right-center: 344 ft Right field: 297 ft
3. Schibe Park (Philly): 331 feet (101 m) to right field, 334 to left, and 468 to the square corner in center.
4. Griffen Field: (Final) Left Field – 388 ft (L. Center – 360 ft Center F. – 421 ft R. Center – 373 ft Right Field – 320 ft

Want a really extreme park? Try the Huntington Avenue Grounds, the first home fo the Boston Red Sox and one of the parks that hosted the first World Series.

LF: 350 feet
L/CF: 440 feet
CF: 530 feet (635 feet as of 1908)
RF: 280 feet (320 feet as of 1908)

Park factors would be really odd, since it was only used during the Deadball Era and therefore no HRs down the RF line.

Posted by rbedwell on 5/27/2021 1:32:00 AM (view original):
Why are there two different Miami ballparks?

Because the Marlins played their 2 World Series at Dolphin Stadium before they opened up Marlins Park about 15 miles south.

What divisions would Seoul, Tokyo, and London be eligible in? I'd guess they're all able to be in the north, but what about east and west divisions?

Strictly by latitude and longitude, London should certainly be North and East; it's both north and east of any existing city. Seoul, on the other hand, is at the same latitude roughly as Richmond, VA; and Tokyo about the same as Raleigh, NC. By current logic that would make them both South and East, or possibly East only.

I'd love to see all the logos updated...crowdsourced. There are some really bad ones in the game. Set whatever parameters are needed for the logos and let the community have at it.

I really like this change. In real life, park factors do change over time and it is great to see this. The only downside I see is in how this will affect private leagues with extreme park rules. For example, a league with a competitive balance rule that has banned -4/+4 parks could see very few teams that may now be homeless in order to comply with the other league rules. This is not the end of the world - teams can move, accepting that change is inevitable, leagues can refine their rules (grandfather clauses, transition agreements, etc).

What will happen with the Scottsdale team?

As someone who enjoys building teams in extreme parks, I'd say we need more extreme parks, not none. Disappointing.

What will happen to minor league parks? Many teams have changed their minor league affiliates.