Yes, it forces you to spend money scouting the players you hope to acquire.  Insanity. 

Posted by mchales_army on 5/26/2015 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by indy_angels on 5/26/2015 2:18:00 PM (view original):
But what is wrong with that. Everyone who saw Kris Bryant play in college knew he was going to be good. But not exactly how good. I think there is still value in using the scouting budget to understand exactly how good; solid ML starter, All-Star or HOF.

No.

I 100% agree it isn't "realistic", BUT in order to make the game more realistic as a whole this was a necessary change.

as Mike pointed out, McGwire didn't have a 90PWR rating coming out of school. We have actual hard data to work with, which is unrealistic in itself.

What they have done is to make the am draft and IFA pool a bit more of a crap shoot the further away from 20 scouting you spend, which makes the game way more realistic.

So, in order to make the game more realistic, they add a feature that is unrealistic? I thought the ultimate object of this sim was to try and make it as realistic as possible. To introduce unrealistic features in order to achieve realism seems contradictory to me. To artificially force owners to spend money where they don't want to eliminates the freedom to run your franchise as you want.

Dude are you seriously STILL arguing that running 0ADV and very low amateur draft scouting budgets but STILL acquiring BL talent is REALISTIC?

SERIOUSLY??

Posted by mchales_army on 5/26/2015 2:44:00 PM (view original):
During Free agency I can see who is bidding and who isn't. I can see how many are offering max deals, and I can look at coaching budget to determine if they can outbid me on a tie-breaking pitching or bullpen coach.

There isn't any real life team that knows that kind of detail about their opponents and neither should we.

You can see who is bidding in FA? That's news to me. All I get is a message saying they are either happy with my offer or that I have been outbid. Doesn't tell me who's doing the bidding. That's something you have to figure out based on the info available. If you know a way to tell who is definitively bidding on FAs and who is offering max deals, please share.

Go to the trade screen and it will show a team's payroll for this current season as well as the next 4.

Go to the "franchise budget analysis" page and pull up "ALL" + current season. Subtract the difference between the # shown on trade screen from the # shown on Analysis screen, and the difference equates to how much in FA bids that owner has out there.

Posted by rockindock on 5/26/2015 4:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by indy_angels on 5/26/2015 4:07:00 PM (view original):
And yes, this type of information is available. (Baseball America) Here is the prospect money each team has to spend


CLUB SIGNING BONUS POOL
Astros $17,289,200
Rockies $13,989,800
Diamondbacks $12,816,100
Braves $10,684,100
Rangers $9,099,900
Yankees $7,885,000
Dodgers $7,781,700
Reds $7,777,900
Brewers $7,743,800
Giants $7,515,500
Pirates $7,392,200
Twins $7,388,700
Cardinals $7,387,600
Cubs $7,236,100
Indians $7,234,200
Royals $7,206,700
Tigers $7,114,300
Phillies $7,058,500
Orioles $6,850,400
Marlins $6,766,400
Rays $6,591,300
Red Sox $6,223,800
Athletics $5,444,100
Blue Jays $5,411,000
White Sox $5,347,500
Angels $5,050,100
Mariners $4,186,900
Nationals $4,102,700
Padres $3,671,200
Mets $3,587,800

And every team can exceed their budgets! I said this earlier. There is a fine if they do but it is allowed.

And with a finite budget, we cannot. The static budget is the biggest difference between HBD and RL, but obviously necessary to approximate a level playing field.

Posted by mchales_army on 5/26/2015 11:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/26/2015 10:59:00 PM (view original):
What about giving each world the choice to make budgets visible or invisible?

That way people can have it the way the like it. Each world can vote on whether they want the information to be available or hidden. That way, If you prefer to see it, you can join a world that shows it. If you think it ruins the strategy, join a world that hides it.

They have for a very long time hinted at giving worlds much more flexibility as far as running what they themselves termed "theme leagues".


I feel like this ought to be the #1 priority on ADMINS to do list. 

The more commissioner toggles they can program into the architecture the better the game will be going forward.

They are losing customers hand over fist, and in a time when normally worlds filled fairly easily, they are at 30+ worlds and a dozen or more have 8+ openings.

IMO if you focus on the ability to create different themes and make the enforcement/limits adjustable by the commissioner it is a win/win, and starts creating interest.

IMO, this is a great idea. It would allow owners to join leagues that are amenable with the way they like to play. Right now, private league rules are basically unenforceable and are not backed by admin.

Clear, consistently enforced private rules are always backed by admin.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 10:18:00 AM (view original):
He's 67-24 with a 127m payroll this season.

And when his team collapses will he bail and leave a total train wreck for the next owner. Would make it very difficult to find someone to take over a team like that, leading to a league that would possibly sit for ages waiting to fill.

Posted by alleyviper on 5/27/2015 12:20:00 PM (view original):
So tie current ratings to scouting. Your scouting is low then the current ratings you see are going to be less accurate.

Or instead of accuracy, you need to invest more in scouting to see more ratings. Only 4m HS scouting? Great, you see his VsL and his P3 and P4. 0 scouting? No currents at all. 12 scouting? P1-4, both splits. etc.

If you tie current accuracy to ratings, maybe have the inaccuracy less severe. If you're invested at 10m then the current ratings are pretty close to accurate, now you just need to hope you're making the right call on projections. If you're at 0 then sure, you can't count on the currents to be accurate at all.

Or, again, make player growth more dynamic. Static player growth is why you were comfortable taking those guys, you knew what to expect with how they'd grow regardless of their projections because when you've played this game long enough it becomes second nature. If you were less certain how they would grow, their current ratings would play less a role in your decision to draft them.


There are so many ways to skin this cat beyond just a kneejerk of removing currents and calling it a day.

I like this idea a lot. Tying currents to scouting $$ would eliminate the absolutes of the current situation, making current ratings dependent on the quality of the scouting. This is more realistic to me than applying this logic to projections.

Posted by joshkvt on 5/28/2015 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Clear, consistently enforced private rules are always backed by admin.

Not in my experience.

Posted by mchales_army on 5/28/2015 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Go to the trade screen and it will show a team's payroll for this current season as well as the next 4.

Go to the "franchise budget analysis" page and pull up "ALL" + current season. Subtract the difference between the # shown on trade screen from the # shown on Analysis screen, and the difference equates to how much in FA bids that owner has out there.

Fine. That shows you who is bidding ,but not who they are bidding on. You still don't know who is bidding against you. It gives you some info, but is by no means definitive.

It hasn't happened often, but every time I've tried to remove an owner over MWR, it's been backed by admin. If you can cite the rule broken, show evidence that it's been broken, and the owner can't respond by citing other owners who were given a pass for breaking the same rule, you're set. If you say "This guy's tanking" it's not enough.

Rules have to be clear: "Owners have to try to win at the ML level or face consequences" or "Teams must maintain their minor leagues" are unenforceable.
"Owners must win 55 games in a season or 120 over 2 seasons or be removed" or "Teams must not have 0(0) pitchers appear in 2 consecutive minor-league games at any level or be removed" are enforceable.

Posted by torrone on 5/28/2015 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/28/2015 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Go to the trade screen and it will show a team's payroll for this current season as well as the next 4.

Go to the "franchise budget analysis" page and pull up "ALL" + current season. Subtract the difference between the # shown on trade screen from the # shown on Analysis screen, and the difference equates to how much in FA bids that owner has out there.

Fine. That shows you who is bidding ,but not who they are bidding on. You still don't know who is bidding against you. It gives you some info, but is by no means definitive.

If you're bright enough to make accurate projections based on accurate Current, you're bright enough to figure out on whom and how much other owners are bidding.

Posted by torrone on 5/28/2015 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 10:18:00 AM (view original):
He's 67-24 with a 127m payroll this season.

And when his team collapses will he bail and leave a total train wreck for the next owner. Would make it very difficult to find someone to take over a team like that, leading to a league that would possibly sit for ages waiting to fill.

It's Cooperstown and an owner who has been around forever.   As commish, I'm not concerned about the doomsday scenario you present.