Adding (poached) ballparks...
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:40 pm
The idea of adding a few ballparks to ATG that we can "poach" from other player sets has been brought up. I can certainly add a few with an upcoming batch of new cards, but let's go over a few things first.
- First, obviously, which parks? Our available choices come from fewer sources than the player cards do, since the '70s and '80s games have mutant, decade-averaged parks, and FantaSim doesn't have parks at all, so we're left with [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/1969/draft/draft_ballpark.html]1969[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2001/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2001[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2002/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2002[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2003/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2003[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2005/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2004[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2005[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2007/about/ballparks.html]2006[/url]... and from the central site: [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/about/ballparks.html?pool_id=2010]2007-2010, 1986, 1999, Back to the '90s[/url] (use the pulldown to switch between sets).
I think about 5 or so parks from this selection would be a good number to add. Let's be sure there's a good reason to add them, i.e. there aren't already a lot of similar parks in ATG. One specific request I've received recently from The Rabid Wolverines is Wrigley '86.
- There was [url=http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=627080]a short thread posted a few months ago[/url] where the idea of adding new parks was discussed, and in it I noticed there were 2 or 3 of you who were not totally in favor of it. I didn't see reasons given beyond "I think there are enough parks already", but if there are more compelling arguments, I'm listening, as always. Otherwise it does appear that the majority of you are in favor of these minor additions.
- We won't be exploring fully customizable "designer parks" at this time because that's just a bit too radical for now.
- First, obviously, which parks? Our available choices come from fewer sources than the player cards do, since the '70s and '80s games have mutant, decade-averaged parks, and FantaSim doesn't have parks at all, so we're left with [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/1969/draft/draft_ballpark.html]1969[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2001/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2001[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2002/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2002[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2003/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2003[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2005/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2004[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/draft/draft_ballpark.html]2005[/url], [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2007/about/ballparks.html]2006[/url]... and from the central site: [url=http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/about/ballparks.html?pool_id=2010]2007-2010, 1986, 1999, Back to the '90s[/url] (use the pulldown to switch between sets).
I think about 5 or so parks from this selection would be a good number to add. Let's be sure there's a good reason to add them, i.e. there aren't already a lot of similar parks in ATG. One specific request I've received recently from The Rabid Wolverines is Wrigley '86.
- There was [url=http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=627080]a short thread posted a few months ago[/url] where the idea of adding new parks was discussed, and in it I noticed there were 2 or 3 of you who were not totally in favor of it. I didn't see reasons given beyond "I think there are enough parks already", but if there are more compelling arguments, I'm listening, as always. Otherwise it does appear that the majority of you are in favor of these minor additions.
- We won't be exploring fully customizable "designer parks" at this time because that's just a bit too radical for now.