I would imagine that this will barely deter experienced players from going with 0 ADV scouting.. For me I normally do 0 ADV with 16-20 in HS scouting.. When I do a trade I either trade for ML talent or trade for a prospect that I viewed during the amateur draft..  I rarely give up something of value for a prosepct that I have no scouting on.. I think the only way they can make ADV more useful is if it affected how many prospect you can view and the accuracy of the projections prior to them signing.. 

Am patient and curious enough to see these in action before judgment, but I feel like not giving players some sort of grace period (either a higher change limit than $4M or an outright reset a la new owner) to realign budgets for a new game experience is a mistake. And I say that as someone with $8M or so in ADV across all my teams already.

If people start using adv, what will they cut? For me the number one reason to do 0 adv is that there are just too many other places I'd rather spend the money. I have no idea what I'll cut if I start using money for adv.

As one of the first 0 ADV users, I'm fine with it.   I've enjoyed that extra 20m for 20+ seasons in my long-time worlds.   I'll suffer for a few seasons, maybe, thru the learning curve of the new guidelines. 


Edit:  Actually it's almost 30 seasons in MG/Coop. 

Posted by mrincubus on 5/7/2015 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Am patient and curious enough to see these in action before judgment, but I feel like not giving players some sort of grace period (either a higher change limit than $4M or an outright reset a la new owner) to realign budgets for a new game experience is a mistake. And I say that as someone with $8M or so in ADV across all my teams already.

Just curious, why would you spend $8 on adv? That's way too low to get accurate projections. At that point, you're basically just wasting $8 aren't you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Sort of defeats the purpose of using $$$ to scout domestic/IFA if you know their currents.  

I disagree.  MILB is littered with players that looked good coming out of HS/College but just never reached their projected ceilings.  So someone could roll the dice on a 62 college player with a first round pick, and have him top out at 69.

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/7/2015 4:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mrincubus on 5/7/2015 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Am patient and curious enough to see these in action before judgment, but I feel like not giving players some sort of grace period (either a higher change limit than $4M or an outright reset a la new owner) to realign budgets for a new game experience is a mistake. And I say that as someone with $8M or so in ADV across all my teams already.

Just curious, why would you spend $8 on adv? That's way too low to get accurate projections. At that point, you're basically just wasting $8 aren't you?

Irrelevant at this point

True.

I've got 6 teams now. I guess I'll try raisin the adv on 3 of them and leave the other 3 alone and see which ones do better.

Posted by jamesp469 on 5/7/2015 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Sort of defeats the purpose of using $$$ to scout domestic/IFA if you know their currents.  

I disagree.  MILB is littered with players that looked good coming out of HS/College but just never reached their projected ceilings.  So someone could roll the dice on a 62 college player with a first round pick, and have him top out at 69.

You're trying to compare MLB to HBD on a base level.   That's a mistake.

The purpose is to get owners to invest money in different categories.    By showing the current ratings of undrafted/unsigned prospects, you discourage that.   I'd roll the dice on 62 rated college players to put 10-20m somewhere else.   But, if I'm basing it only on projected ratings, I have to put that money in college scouting so my projections are reasonably accurate.

Posted by jamesp469 on 5/7/2015 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Sort of defeats the purpose of using $$$ to scout domestic/IFA if you know their currents.  

I disagree.  MILB is littered with players that looked good coming out of HS/College but just never reached their projected ceilings.  So someone could roll the dice on a 62 college player with a first round pick, and have him top out at 69.

I can promise that the worst thing the "fix" could do is make a lot more 1st round "busts".
Then you may as well just spend nothing at all on the draft and let the other guys gamble.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by themergerguy on 5/7/2015 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by overeasy on 5/7/2015 3:43:00 PM (view original):

• A new, fuzzier projected rating system will be introduced for high school, college and international scouting.*

This is the one that seems like the most concerning.  How fuzzy are we talking?  Do we suddenly start drafting first rounders or paying big money to IFAs and have them turn out to be busts even with high draft or IFA scouting budgets?

Hopefully, it's A-F or 1-8 instead of exact numbers.    1 would 88-100, for instance, instead of 93.

I don't think we're talking about seeing a future HOFer, with high ADV, and having a LoA career.

That would cause a lot of people to either quit or just punt player development.   And that would be the death of HBD.

Are you saying 1 = 88-100 EVEN FOR YOUR OWN PLAYERS?

I mean there's a heck of a lot of difference between 88 and 96...

Projections, yes.

If you disagree, I'm sure you know that Mark McGwire wasn't a 95 power on a scouting report out of HS.

Gotcha. I thought you meant even for current ratings.

I'd be fine with what you are proposing here for projections.

The plus side of 1-8 or A-F would be no more "None of my guys reach their projections" complaints.

I will also be in the camp of 'Wait and see' how this works before I start altering my budget strategy. This should breathe some fresh air into HBD though.

Great that they are making efforts to improve HBD.  Even if they turn out to create equal or greater problems, I'm all for trying.  Any changes can be reversed or changed again if they don't work out.

My concern is one of these changes is going to further the advantages people get from brute force & more time on the game, vs making the game more about strategy.

If I'm understanding this correctly, we'll still all be able to get historical ratings for every player if we want them and have 15-30 minutes to spare once a season.

Bring up a screen (such as Trade Proposal) that shows current ratings of players on other teams.  Screen print, copy/paste, or export.  Do that once a season, and you've got every player's ratings every season.

If development patterns vary, this many not be terribly valuable.  My assumption is if development patterns will vary or can be more impacted by coaching and such, they wouldn't bother to try to hide former rating numbers from us.

Thus, GMs who know how to write code that screen scrapes data and load it into a spreadsheet and have been in a world for several seasons may have an even bigger advantage than they do today.

If development is really going to vary (ex., late bloomers, 1st round busts, some 5th round picks become starters, etc.) and it's going to be impacted by thing we can control (coaching, training & medical budget, playing time, playing at appropriate level, making the MinL playoffs, etc.) then wouldn't the game be better if GMs could learn from each other? 

For example, wouldn't it better if a new GM, or someone with just 1 team who's been playing for a while, could see that coaching really helps?  Or that higher draft budgets results in a better chance of drafting an ML player in the middle rounds or a stud in the 1st round? 

If it's all hidden, most of us will never have a large enough sample set to figure out what works and what's a waste of time and resources.  So the game because more about guessing.  Like coaching hiring is today.