Alright Boyz, Here We Go!!!! (OOTP 2007 release thoughts!!!)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

NO!!!! There's only one status - On the block. When a guy is on the block, trying to change his status on that screen DOES NOT WORK. It appears to be a one-way street, as ridiculous as that may seem. I just tried it again, and the guy is still on the block.

I have the game open right now, and I just put someone on the block and took him off by right clicking on his name --> trade options --> set status to "available". I checked the block after putting him on, then checked it after putting him off, and he was gone.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

You might enjoy giving the scouts a try. They can be a pain/overwhelming at first, but once you assign them some tasks, you can pretty much set them on autopilot and they will file their reports at scheduled intervals and, as an enjoyable aside, you can send a few to scout for new talent in different areas and pick up some undrafted signees. Find and signing undiscovered talent is a nice touch for me, as it it makes OOTP2007 go from a strict sim to more of a game.

I read the scouting threads at OOTP and I'm pretty unimpressed by some of the results.

Does the AI actually 'discover' players in this version, or is it still a huge human advantage?

[Young Drachma]

I think scouting from 6.5 was pretty cool, with scouting reports and stuff. We should bring that back. I think that's one of those things that you can tell was really taking over by the SI way of doing things, with scouting being how it is now and so, it's not as refined as it once was -- not that it worked great before, but still.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I read the scouting threads at OOTP and I'm pretty unimpressed by some of the results.

Does the AI actually 'discover' players in this version, or is it still a huge human advantage?

I cannot answer that with certainty. I have seen players with histories that show nothing prior to signing a contract with a team (rather than being drafted or acquired from a foreign league), but I'm not sure there is anyway to know if they were overlooked in the draft or what.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I read the scouting threads at OOTP and I'm pretty unimpressed by some of the results.

Does the AI actually 'discover' players in this version, or is it still a huge human advantage?

I can confirm that they do, I just looked at an AI shortstop, 25 yrs old, no draft history, discovered in Dominican Republic.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I have the game open right now, and I just put someone on the block and took him off by right clicking on his name --> trade options --> set status to "available". I checked the block after putting him on, then checked it after putting him off, and he was gone.

I'm not making him available, I'm putting him on, and then taking him off, the block.

So wait, you're telling me that to put a guy on the block, I set his status to "on the block." Then to take him off the block, I set his status to..."available"?!!!! At the very, VERY least, I should be able to take a guy off the block the same way I put him on. And now that you explain how you did that, I guess I don't even understand what the difference is between "on the block" and "available."

Yes, all of my complaining about how counter-intuitive this game is has been completely unwarranted...

[Ksyrup]

Putting aside the ridiculousness of the design (again), I played 2 seasons last night and had a great 1912 season with my Tigers. Despite a slow start and losing Ty Cobb for 10 months in August (while hitting .424!), my Tigers overcame the STL Browns to win the AL pennant, then put on a dominating performance in the WS to sweep the Pirates. In 4 games, my starting pitchers allowed 1 earned run.

I'm just praying Cobb comes back OK in mid-1913. So far, in 10 seasons (1903-1912), I've been to 7 WS, winning 3 of them. I hope I don't continue to be THAT good as I replay history, although the Tigers of that era were pretty good IRL. The team that has been even more dominant than the Tigers so far is Cincinnati. I played them in 5 of my WS appearances, losing the first 3 then winning the next 2. They've been to 8 WS, I think - 6 in a row before the Pirates won it in 1912.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not making him available, I'm putting him on, and then taking him off, the block.

So wait, you're telling me that to put a guy on the block, I set his status to "on the block." Then to take him off the block, I set his status to..."available"?!!!! At the very, VERY least, I should be able to take a guy off the block the same way I put him on. And now that you explain how you did that, I guess I don't even understand what the difference is between "on the block" and "available."

Yes, all of my complaining about how counter-intuitive this game is has been completely unwarranted...

Without double checking this in the game, is it possible that "On the block" is a check-marked menuitem, thus by clicking it a second time you're removing the check-mark?

[Coder]

Dola: figured it out..

"Available" means not on the block, but open for offers
"Untouchable" means not on the block, and not open for offers
"On the block" means just that.. on the block and open for offers

So you basically switch between those three

[Ksyrup]

I don't have the game open, but I don't recall ever seeing a check mark associated with any of those items. When you right-click on the player, you get a menu of things you can do. One of those is trade options or something like that. When you slide the mouse ovw that, you get about 5 action items. There are no check marks, you just choose what you want to do. And when you've done one of those things - like place a player on the block - and you go back to that same item on that same player, nothing has changed. There is no "remove player from block" choice. And according to Bigglesworth, he has successfully removed a player from the block by clicking the "set status to available" item. I haven't tried that, since that wasn't even in my thought process for how you would take someone off the block.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Coder

Dola: figured it out..

"Available" means not on the block, but open for offers
"Untouchable" means not on the block, and not open for offers
"On the block" means just that.. on the block and open for offers

So you basically switch between those three

So available is the default setting, in essence? Everyone is "available?" See, that doesn't make much sense to me, either, since by making it an action item, it seems like something one is required to choose in order to make someone available. Maybe I'm just not "getting it," but I don't see "available" as being a default, nor do I understand how "available" is what I'm supposed to choose to take someone "off the block."

I appreciate you figuring that out, but that's just bizarre.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So available is the default setting, in essence? Everyone is "available?" See, that doesn't make much sense to me, either, since by making it an action item, it seems like something one is required to choose in order to make someone available. Maybe I'm just not "getting it," but I don't see "available" as being a default, nor do I understand how "available" is what I'm supposed to choose to take someone "off the block."

I appreciate you figuring that out, but that's just bizarre.

This is basically the same setup as in FM. Perhaps an actual checkmark would have been more indicative though. You can see the current status of all players in the "Contract & Status" subscreen of the player-card. The label is "Trade Availability"

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Coder

This is basically the same setup as in FM. Perhaps an actual checkmark would have been more indicative though. You can see the current status of all players in the "Contract & Status" subscreen of the player-card. The label is "Trade Availability"

Not to be too much (more) of an ass, but what player card are you referring to - the HTML or the SION? Or both?

To be honest, I don't think I've ever even looked at a screen called "Contract & Status" - not that I would expect to look there for something related to trading, anyway.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm just praying Cobb comes back OK in mid-1913. So far, in 10 seasons (1903-1912), I've been to 7 WS, winning 3 of them. I hope I don't continue to be THAT good as I replay history, although the Tigers of that era were pretty good IRL. The team that has been even more dominant than the Tigers so far is Cincinnati. I played them in 5 of my WS appearances, losing the first 3 then winning the next 2. They've been to 8 WS, I think - 6 in a row before the Pirates won it in 1912.

K, that's why I asked about the financials and caps earlier. It's never been that hard to do in OOTP which is why I have always played with a house rule that AI teams have no cap while I have to remain under the top payroll in the league. Additionally, I make sure all teams have maximum cash to spend at the beginning of the season (several ways to do that).

When I read about "historical" finances in v2007, I thought that it is as stupid as playing with a recalc. It is essential that the AI not only have a level playing field but that you don't have any aritifical advantage over them. Otherwise, you'll win the pennant 3/4 of the time and the WS 1/2 the time (as oppose to a more balance 1/2, 1/4 which makes it more competitive while keeping it fun to keep going). The one thing you can't avoid is how easy it is to rebuild since we will always have an advantage over the AI is getting bargains at each position. That by itself makes being (and staying) a winning team easy but by setting house rules, that makes being a champion a little more challenging.

[Ksyrup]

I guess maybe I don't understand what the historical finances mean. I thought it was just a league-wide adjustment to make sure finances are in-line with what they would have been back in the day (i.e., no million dollar players in the 20s), as opposed to specific team finances based on what the team's finances were IRL. I thought the AI was controlling the specifics, based on attendance, market size, performance, number of popular players on team, etc. If it's not, then that's not what I wanted.

Just anecdotally, I've noticed that my owner seems to increase my budget only when I meet or exceed expectations. For instance, in 1911 I finished 2nd and he kept my payroll the same. I won it all the next year, and it increased $20K. If that's not how the game is controlling the AI teams, then I'm confused. What does market size, performance, attendance, etc., have to do with anything?

If you're telling me that the As are going to restrict their payroll iafter 1914 because IRL Mack sold off all of his stars, then I need to change these setting quickly. Maybe I need to read the manual more carefully about that function, because my understanding of it might be all wrong. Crap.

[Ksyrup]

If anyone has any input/answers to the historical league financials question, I'd like to know. Looking at the manual, it's still vague, at best. Since it's included between the "adjust league strategy" and "adjust legal totals modifiers" options, I assumed that "import adjusted financial settings" was a league-wide adjustment, not team-specific. The description says that it uses "a set of historical financial data...to realign your league finances after each season with actual historical numbers." That still doesn't tell me if it is done on a team or league basis.

Anyone?

[dcg12]

Ksyrup
I believe it is done league wide. Markus explained at one point that if you watch finances in the 1920's as power hitters start to emerge you will see salaries go up as will ticket prices and media and merchandise income but in 1929-30 things will go back down as the great depression hits.

I think there is a text file that the game uses that can be viewed which shows the calculations for every year.

[Ksyrup]

OK, that's what I thought. I'm not sure if Bucc's understanding is different than mine, or whether, even given that understanding, he thinks there is some inherent edge we get. Basically, I'm staying within my budget, which I think is in and of itself a house rule, since I'm playing in Commissioner Mode and can otherwise disregard my owner's input.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So wait, you're telling me that to put a guy on the block, I set his status to "on the block." Then to take him off the block, I set his status to..."available"?!!!! At the very, VERY least, I should be able to take a guy off the block the same way I put him on. And now that you explain how you did that, I guess I don't even understand what the difference is between "on the block" and "available."

Yes, all of my complaining about how counter-intuitive this game is has been completely unwarranted...

I just want to put out there that I found this particular feature pretty intuitive. Maybe it was from experience with a past game though.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I just want to put out there that I found this particular feature pretty intuitive. Maybe it was from experience with a past game though.

I think it must be your familiarity with FM (I assume). A simple "on the block" and "off the block" function is intuitive to me. Having to set someone to "available" when I DON'T want to try to trade them doesn't make sense to me.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I just want to put out there that I found this particular feature pretty intuitive. Maybe it was from experience with a past game though.

agreed

[Ksyrup]

Care to elaborate? For me, this is just another example of how I am apparently on a completely different wavelength from the developers.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Care to elaborate? For me, this is just another example of how I am apparently on a completely different wavelength from the developers.

I didn't find it too odd. All your players are, by default, set as available meaning you'll listen to offers for them but you aren't actively trying to trade them. If you are going to actively shop someone you put them on the trading block. If you don't want to even listen to offers you set them to untouchable.

None of that is really un-intuitive to me. Where it can get confusing is when you move them from "on the block" to available. That sounds strange, but when you look at things from where they start and look at it in a way that "available" is the middle ground, then it makes a little more sense.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I didn't find it too odd. All your players are, by default, set as available meaning you'll listen to offers for them but you aren't actively trying to trade them. If you are going to actively shop someone you put them on the trading block. If you don't want to even listen to offers you set them to untouchable.

None of that is really un-intuitive to me. Where it can get confusing is when you move them from "on the block" to available. That sounds strange, but when you look at things from where they start and look at it in a way that "available" is the middle ground, then it makes a little more sense.

I guess I don't understand the need for the "available" default to begin with. Players don't need a status to be freely tradeable. They just are. Untouchable and On the Block change that "status." Having a clearly-defined "remove from" status option makes sense to me. Having Available as a stand-alone option on par with the other two just makes it look like it is a separate and distinct option, which just adds to the confusion.

Not to mention, the fact that Available is the default status is buried on page 360-something of the manual (I think the 500+ page manual is just a tad too big for consumption), and there's not even a connect-the-dots explanation that if you want to take someone off the block or untouchable, you would set them back to available.

It's almost as if someone put TOO much thought into the way things are set up, instead of just going with a straight-forward, easily understood system for doing a number of things in this game. This is just the latest in a series of head-scratchers to me. Even if I accept the way it is set up, it still begs the question of why someone would come up with such a tortured way to make people do something so easy. Kinda like taking away the quick-sim screen with the explanation that you can find all of that information on a screen 2 clicks and a scroll away.

[Buccaneer]

K, what I meant was in comparison to earlier versions where you had a static "salary point" that all teams followed. By not giving the AI any disadvantages because of market size, cash, TV revenues and minimizing small stadiums, I ensured the AI stayed fairly aggressive. Million dollar salaries for historical never bothered me because I'm not into historical replay and just use those as a definitive value of worth that remains constant through my career. When I saw that truer historical financials are the default for historical leagues, that turned me off. I know it could be changed back but like a lot of things, I didn't want to go through the hassle of doing so.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

K, what I meant was in comparison to earlier versions where you had a static "salary point" that all teams followed. By not giving the AI any disadvantages because of market size, cash, TV revenues and minimizing small stadiums, I ensured the AI stayed fairly aggressive. Million dollar salaries for historical never bothered me because I'm not into historical replay and just use those as a definitive value of worth that remains constant through my career. When I saw that truer historical financials are the default for historical leagues, that turned me off. I know it could be changed back but like a lot of things, I didn't want to go through the hassle of doing so.

It doesn't really bother me - at least at this point - because finances probably play a very small role in my game. I have no free agency, so about the only disadvantage the AI could have is not being able to make a trade because it would put the AI over budget. But I like the idea of the owner setting a budget and teams market size, etc., rising and falling based on performance.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It doesn't really bother me - at least at this point - because finances probably play a very small role in my game. I have no free agency, so about the only disadvantage the AI could have is not being able to make a trade because it would put the AI over budget. But I like the idea of the owner setting a budget and teams market size, etc., rising and falling based on performance.

I keep forgetting that you are not playing with FA. I can't imagine playing without it (same with drafting and trading) for those are by far the most fun elements of the game for me. Just like the artificial salary structure, it's irrelevant if they match real-life or not. The only "realistic" thing I want is how the different eras play out. Right now, I started in the 'Baseball Boom' (for the first time) and will switch to the 'Golden Age' in about 10 season to experience going from a hitter's league to a pitcher's league.

[Ksyrup]

I'm finding it to be a challenge, though, since I can't just throw money at who I want - I either get a goodplayer thanks to history, or I have to trade for them. And I'm finding I have to give up something to get something in most cases, so it's not just highway robbery masquerading as trading.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I guess I don't understand the need for the "available" default to begin with. Players don't need a status to be freely tradeable. They just are. Untouchable and On the Block change that "status." Having a clearly-defined "remove from" status option makes sense to me. Having Available as a stand-alone option on par with the other two just makes it look like it is a separate and distinct option, which just adds to the confusion.

I'm not sure I follow you. I think that 'Available' more than just looks like a distinct option, I think that it is a distinct option.

I think there is a difference in how we are perceiving the options. You say that they don't need a status to be freely tradeable, they just are that way. So what would you call it if they aren't untouchable or aren't on the block? Whatever it is you would call it, change it in your mind to 'Available'. In relation to my hometown team, the Phillies, Ryan Howard is untouchable, Jon Leiber is on the block, and Shane Victorino (along with most other players) is available.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm not sure I follow you. I think that 'Available' more than just looks like a distinct option, I think that it is a distinct option.

I think there is a difference in how we are perceiving the options. You say that they don't need a status to be freely tradeable, they just are that way. So what would you call it if they aren't untouchable or aren't on the block? Whatever it is you would call it, change it in your mind to 'Available'. In relation to my hometown team, the Phillies, Ryan Howard is untouchable, Jon Leiber is on the block, and Shane Victorino (along with most other players) is available.

The fact that it is an option at all suggests it is a status I could put a player on, since it is always on the screen as an option. But that's not really true, since all players are 'available' by default. It is an unnecessary option to be on the screen 24/7. Maybe it would have helped if the unnecessary options were greyed out - available was greyed out until I put a player on the block or untouchable, for instance. Then it would give me a hint as to the relationship between them. As it stands, it looks right now like I could open up any player and place them on 'available' status, when there's no reason to. And of course, there's absolutely no explanation that I would need to set someone back to available once they've been put on the block or untouchable (outside of you guys telling me that's how it is supposed to work).

In any event, I fully understand how this works now. My main gripe has been that it was ever done this way to begin with, but now that it has been explained, I'll be able to work with it. Like I said, this is just another area where the developers and I just don't see eye-to-eye. If I didn't love baseball so much, I would have given this game the same treatment I gave EHM and FM.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Maybe it would have helped if the unnecessary options were greyed out - available was greyed out until I put a player on the block or untouchable, for instance.

I know I suggested a checkmark, but perhaps even more inutitive would have been a dropdown box on the player-screen.. though that screen isn't built like that.

[Ksyrup]

The Action button is fine for that purpose (or right-clicking on the player's link), but the problem for me is really how it is laid out once you get to the choices. Ideally, I'd just do away with 'Available' and have Untouchable and On the Block options, with a "remove from" option for either one once you have set the guy to either status. If everyone is 'Available' by default, why is that status even necessary? I don't think I've ever seen a game where a player's default status exists as an option. It just is! In response to MB's question of what I would call a player not on the block or untouchable...I would call them players. I don't see a need for a status, since all players are freely tradeable by default. Making someone "available" suggests, to me, that the default is something other than available, and that in order to make someone available, I have to actually do something to enable that status. That's my entire point. It's confusing.

But anyway, we've beaten this into the ground, so here's my obligatory "despite the wackiness, I'm still enjoying the game" comment, so I don't get thrown into the "you hate this game and refuse to give it a chance" crowd.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But anyway, we've beaten this into the ground, so here's my obligatory "despite the wackiness, I'm still enjoying the game" comment, so I don't get thrown into the "you hate this game and refuse to give it a chance" crowd.

I'm beginning to actually like the game a little more. I've turned off scouting, personalities and morale.

I wish the player generation for the draft was better and that the AI would value the high talent MR's that are borderline starters. I wish that the AI would do a better job deciding who to keep in the minors. I wish that the game wouldn't slow so badly as the league gets older.

Those are really my only major problems right now. I do hope that future patches are more for tightening current features instead of adding more.

[Ksyrup]

I have scouting and personnel off. How do you turn off personalities and morale? I never pay attention to them anyway, so I don't know why I need them.

[Marc Duffy]

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=147316

We've made a beta version of the 2.0.2 patch available. This is work in progress as we'd like this patch to fix as many issues as possible

[Ksyrup]

Excellent. I'll give it a run through this weekend, I hope.

[Icy]

Here is the fix list:

Originally Posted by Marc Duffy

What's new in 2.0.2 - BETA BUILD 50

- Fixed AI changing lineups when managing in the minor leagues
- Fixed editing of contract extentsions
- Fixed editing of pro service time
- Fixed problems with historical fictional leagues
- Fixed problems with free agent offers in online leagues
- All-Star game boxscores are now always saved, regardless of the option settings
- Improved depth chart AI in leagues with incomplete minors
- The rule 5 draft no longer excludes players with more than 6 pro years
- Improved trade AI
- Tweaked the pitcher fatigue system
- Fixed MLB service time calculation
- The scrollbar position in the shop player page is now remembered
- Fixed problems after turning off commish mode
- Fixed off-field injury minimum year usage
- Team stats reports no longer include players with no games played
- Patch function will now remember when a patch has been installed and will not install it twice
- OOTP will not start when skins and certain skin files are missing
- styles.css will be reloaded when switching database
- When switching database, existing images will not be overwritten
- Fixed problems with age limits for created players
- Pitchers now warm up faster between innings
- Personnell contract extensions can now be edited
- Fixed problem with missing line breaks in transaction reports and other reports
- Fixed problems with unretiring players
- Online league file creation will optionally include new and changed images
- 1960 Major League schedule has the correct number of games now (154)
- Fixed several small bugs
- Updated the readme.txt files

[Huckleberry]

I just finished setting up my English Baseball League, patterned after English football, of course.

Teams were named after English football clubs. There are 20 teams at each professional level.

Here's some quick info:

League	Abbr	Level	Games	Start	Tot Tms	Div Tms	Gms	IntDiv Tms	Gms	Typ Ser	Mod/Gen	Split	AllStar	Ages	Roster	Rot
English Baseball Premier League	EBPL	Major	162	Mon 3/31	20	9	18	0	0	3	Mod	N	Y	N/A	25	5
English Baseball Championship	EBC	AAA	144	Thu 4/4	20	4	21	5	12	3	Mod	N	Y	N/A	25	5
English Baseball League One	EBL1	AA	144	Thu 4/4	20	4	21	5	12	3	Mod	Y	Y	N/A	25	5
English Baseball League Two	EBL2	A	144	Thu 4/4	20	4	21	5	12	3	Mod	Y	Y	N/A	30	5
English Baseball League Three	EBL3	S A	72	Tue 6/18	20	9	8	0	0	3	Gen	Y	Y	N/A	35	5
English Baseball Conference National	EBCN	R	72	Tue 6/18	20	9	8	0	0	3	Gen	Y	Y	N/A	40	5
Key Stage 4 Baseball League	KS4BL	HS	36	Tue 2/8	10	9	4	0	0	1	Gen/Mod	Y	N	15-16	20	2
Sixth Form Baseball National League	SFBNL	HS	38	Tue 2/8	40	19	2	0	0	1	Gen/Mod	Y	N	15-18	20	2
Sixth Form Baseball Royal League	SFBRL	HS	38	Tue 2/8	40	19	2	0	0	1	Gen/Mod	Y	N	15-18	20	2
English College Baseball League	ECBL	COL	56	Tue 2/8	16	7	8	0	0	2	Gen/Mod	N	N	19-20	25	3
English University Baseball League	EUBL	COL	70	Tue 2/8	40	4	6	15	3.07	3	Mod	N	N	19-22	30	3
Draft
Rounds	30
Create	60
Feeders	~50
Gen	~10

What are the odds this works as I'm imagining it? BTW, I've got logos and uniforms for the Premier League teams as well as my minor league teams.

[Buccaneer]

More soccerizing of a baseball game.

[Huckleberry]

I get tired of beating down the AI with real players, although I have a historical league going at the same time. It's kind of nice to take over the Astros (Colt .45s) and know that I won't let Morgan go and that J.R. Richard probably won't suffer a stroke.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I just finished setting up my English Baseball League, patterned after English football, of course.
What are the odds this works as I'm imagining it? BTW, I've got logos and uniforms for the Premier League teams as well as my minor league teams.

You could have just bought FM2007 and saved yourself a lot of setup time you know.

[MJ4H]

Does OOTP allow promotion and relegation automatically now? Because if so, awesome. Soccerizing more sports would be awesome since it has the best league setup in my opinion.

[Huckleberry]

I don't believe so. In my setup the minor league teams are affiliated.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Does OOTP allow promotion and relegation automatically now? Because if so, awesome. Soccerizing more sports would be awesome since it has the best league setup in my opinion.

Yes and no. You can accomplish relegation and promotion by manually changing your league structures on a yearly basis. But it's DIY.

[Huckleberry]

Can someone explain why the computer is offering contract extensions to my players?

[Ksyrup]

It probably has something to do with a screwy soccer rule you're trying to approximate.

Seriously, I don't know. Is this with the new patch?

[Huckleberry]

Yes. I just installed that patch.

[Huckleberry]

Nevermind. Apparently I wasn't actually the GM for the team. Even though I said to start as their GM. We'll see if it happens now.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I just finished setting up my English Baseball League, patterned after English football, of course.

Teams were named after English football clubs. There are 20 teams at each professional level.

I want to do this, too. Did you use their logos? Or did you ignore that and just move forward?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I want to do this, too. Did you use their logos? Or did you ignore that and just move forward?

nevermind. i saw that you did. It'd be awesome if you ever decide to release this.