This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
If my RP ends up at SS once every 10,000 innings, I'm not going to pee my pants.    As I said before, and even the OP agrees, you can't program every possible situation into a simgame. 
7/1/2010 2:57 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
I'm all for USEFUL upgrades.   I'm just failing to see any suggestions I feel are worthwhile.  And you're right, that is too bad.    You'd think, with all the geniuses on this site, that one would make a good suggestion every now and then. 
7/1/2010 3:00 PM
I'm still waiting for the update that will allow us to change the hat color from the generic white.  Of all things on this site that annoy me, that is the worst.   

And to continue the discussion, I think it would be in the best interest of the game if WifS made minor tweeks to the engine to improve logic and address stupidness in the code (which they actually do, if you ever read the update thread).  As far as that goes though, I don't know what is minor and what is a major programming change.  There have been many times I have set out to do something and found out the solution is far more complicated than I thought.  In this case, there is a reason position players don't change positions in a game and I bet you anything it is because it is a major programming change.  So what may seem like a simple fix (don't ever bring my RP in at SS) is really the first in a long chain of events that cause unintended consequences.
7/1/2010 3:30 PM
Yeah, that would not qualify as "useful" in my book.   I couldn't care less about hat color. 

In all honesty, I think moving players around would be a really difficult change unless we had extensive substitute options.   Think of it like the PH grid except for each position.   Even then, if you had 12 SS options, which I would assume would be the first in the defensive spectrum, it would seem like a nightmare.   Player C would be third on your list and still in the game so he'd move to SS leaving 3B open.  But 3B would be behind CF and 2B so they would not move even though they are 3 and 4 on the 3B list.   RF is 4th on the list so he'd move to 3B.   LF moves to RF, 1B moves to LF, C moves to 1B and DH moves to C.   And, if you don't have anyone left on the bench, where do they start?
7/1/2010 3:50 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/1/2010 3:00:00 PM (view original):
I'm all for USEFUL upgrades.   I'm just failing to see any suggestions I feel are worthwhile.  And you're right, that is too bad.    You'd think, with all the geniuses on this site, that one would make a good suggestion every now and then. 
All these "non-USEFUL" suggestions start adding up though, Mike. You give a little here, a little there and in a vacum it doesn't seem so bad (or so I have gathered from your general point of view). These little things are all quite unrealstic though, and when you begin to look at the big picture, you see a good deal of flaws in the engine/game/system that could be adjusted. A game like this should be constantly evolving in an effort to be the best product it can be. Sure, the process won't always be perfect. It just seems short-sighted to be so complacent with a product that has the potential to be much better.
7/1/2010 5:03 PM
As I've said several times, they can't program every little possibility and they shouldn't attempt to please individuals at the cost of possibly displeasing everyone else. 
7/1/2010 6:23 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/1/2010 6:23:00 PM (view original):
As I've said several times, they can't program every little possibility and they shouldn't attempt to please individuals at the cost of possibly displeasing everyone else. 
It's not about pleasing an owner or two. In fact, it's not about indivivdual owners at all. That would not be the big picture, Mike. You can never please all the people, all the time. One would hope they wouldn't be satisfied with an inferior product, though. One would also hope that progress is more important then complacency.
7/1/2010 7:41 PM
I see a vocal few making suggestions/complaints.  They would be individuals and that would not be big picture.   You seem confused.   Are you stoned again?
7/1/2010 7:55 PM
It's your comprehension, Mike. I don't expect you to get it. Your ego is probably in the way. It's not even a shot against you. You really seem to have trouble understanding things....or more that you'd prefer to see them in a certain fashion that further fuels your ego. There are TONS of suggestions that go through their ticket process daily. Get your head out of the sand and look around you. Change is good.
7/1/2010 8:11 PM
There are tons of ****** suggestions that go through the ticket process daily.  And there are plenty of ****** suggestions that are made on these boards daily.   The fact that it's a suggestion does not make it good.  This is where you seem to get confused.
7/2/2010 6:52 AM
but there are two types of crappy suggestions.  There are the ones that are truly crappy - "I want yellow hats instead of white!" - and there are ones that are good suggestions but just too much to implement for the value they bring back, i.e. not bringing a RP in at SS.  In MikeT's defense (like he needs or wants it) he is against both types of crappy suggestions.  Changing just to change is not always the best idea.
7/2/2010 7:58 AM
I'm not necessarily against not bringing in a RP to play SS.    I just don't think it happens that frequently and I think it's a nightmare to program so I expect it would produce some horrible results while they tweak it over and over again.    For something that happens once a season(or never in 14 seasons), I'm not interested in the horrible tweaking results.
7/2/2010 8:19 AM
but according to pstrnutbag44, you hate Obama.  
7/2/2010 9:05 AM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.