5/11/2012 8:35 AM
Top 3, IMO, that aren't user-related issues:

1.  Coach hiring.  Savvy owners don't spend 2m on a hitting/pitching/bench coach because they don't have to.  There are 50 of them at any given time of BL-quality.   This creates a disparity between experienced/inexperienced owners that needs to be addressed.   Keep the rehire process as it is but, once that's over, all unhired coaches go into a pool with no positional/level/salary demands.   Let the owners sort out the levels and positions.   Cap salaries at 4m per coach(players have a max so coaches can) and make FI the most sought after job.  That will prevent jerks like me from hiring all the decent FI as BC so no one else gets one. 

2.  Advance scouting.   Savvy owners don't really need it.    Again, this creates a disparity between those who know and those who don't.  Change ADV to show projections for players NOT on a BL roster.   This would include HS, college, IFA and free agents.    The higher the ADV, the more accurate the projection.    HS/College/IFA budgets will determine how many players you see but will not tell you the quality of them.    IFA demands will need to be standardized(100k is a good starting point) so owners with low ADV won't be tipped off as to their quality.   Players on rosters can have projections based on ADV as it stands now.

3.  Player development.  I'd say it's pretty standard for almost all players.   Owners can make a small difference in maximizing(or completely wreck them) development but a good owner develops players in a pretty standard manner.   Provide some diversity.   At least three different patterns.    Have some develop early and max out 2-3 seasons into their careers(18, 6, 1, 0, 0 OVR).  Have some develop slowly and be late bloomers(3, 2, 2, 10, 8).   And keep some the same(11, 7, 4, 2, 1).    The more patterns the better but we need more than one.   Savvy owners can look at a 2nd/3rd year player they're considering in trade and say "This is what he's going to be" with pretty high accuracy.
5/11/2012 9:56 AM
Now that I think a little longer, #3 would be much effective if the patterns were greatly varied.   I used 25 and 5 years as the baseline.    There are any number of combinations to make that happen.   All of them would be fantastic.   5,5,5,5,5 or 10,5,0,10,0 or 15,3,0,6,1.    It would be great is a player currently at 47 but with a max potential of 90 had those 43 points(assuming full development which certainly wouldn't be guaranteed) with hundreds of possible development patterns.    Same for the 47 who has a max of 60.  That 47 who became a 56 after 1 season might have 4 points or 34 points of development left.   The owner who drafted him should know, the owner with 0 ADV will have no clue.   Sort of combines #2 and #3 to make both of them better.
5/11/2012 10:17 AM
I like these, especially 1 and 2.  Only thing is, if ADV is ever changed, I'd hope I'd be able to reset my ADV budget to whatever I'd like the first year, and not a max of 4.

I'd also add a "fix the hall of fame suggestion" but I've given up on that.
5/11/2012 10:26 AM
Well, it was a top 3.   As for ADV, I'd like a chance to reset mine also but, since I've taken advantage of the problem for over 3 years, taking a year to get it where I want it seems pretty just also.  
5/11/2012 12:08 PM
I think these three are big glaring holes in the game as it stands.  I even think your suggestions are worth while...I just wonder if you are speaking into the wind.  Where is patrick or the other guys to comment on this issue?
5/11/2012 12:11 PM
You "even think" my suggestions are worthwhile?

They're pure gold and should be implemented before COB today.
5/11/2012 3:09 PM
All great suggestions. They'd def improve the game.

Hello? Is anybody at WIS out there?
5/11/2012 3:35 PM
+1
+1
+1

As to #3, I think there should be some way of guesstimating what sort of player you've got, based on some combination of player patience/makeup. There should always be a reward for owners who put the time into studying the game's patterns.
5/11/2012 3:47 PM
It would be largely work in conjunction with ADV.    Let's face it, some people are going to run 0 ADV even if #2 was implemented.   They're going to punt the draft, IFA or both.  Which is fine.  But they'll attempt to trade their 33 y/o for a prospect if they find him redundant.   If they see a 3rd year player with the correct combination of patience, make-up and development, that's who they'll target.   And we both know that some are going to figure out the pattern/program if it's too simple.   Tying it to ratings that are visible makes it pretty simple.   
5/17/2012 6:42 PM
I suggest that WIS read the suggestions forum at least once a week and respond to suggestions like the ones in this thread. Nice job Mike!
5/21/2012 3:24 AM
I would agree with all of MikeT23 suggestions, especially the variable development. Great ideas!
5/22/2012 8:37 AM
i wish i was a savvy owner
5/22/2012 12:51 PM
I like these ideas.  I wonder what the site thinks?
5/23/2012 3:29 PM
I don't think there's any reason to expect that Fox/WIS is ever going to invest in improving HBD.

In 2+ years, I've seen a few changes to some screens.  And some new screens that I never use.  But nothing that addresses any of the obvious gaps in the game.

Support tickets are answered quickly, so I give them credit for that.  I've gotten some wrong answers from the first person to reply, but when I wrote back they were on it.  I don't always agree with their replies, but at least they do answer promptly, which is better than a lot of businesses I deal with.

It's fun to talk about possibilities.  Personally, I think the best shot we have at getting an improved version of HBD is for a few baseball geek programmers to play the game for a few seasons, read these forum posts for suggestions, lock themselves in a room for 6 months, and come out with a new game that borrows parts of HBD and improves upon the obvious flaws & gaps.

I know I'd give a new baseball simulation a try.  HBD is a very good game, but part of it are frustrating or repetitive.
6/5/2012 4:38 PM
#1

We have definitely made some very significant improvements, however the whole process is still time consuming and just not that fun. We are continually debating what will make it better. We have ideas, you guys have ideas, so when we make some internal decisions we will seek feedback from everyone on the issue. I feel that this is a pretty good start, however, I do not believe that it will relieve the disparity entirely. 

#2

At a high level we need to incorporate more variance. In other words, If you budget zero you should have almost no idea whatsoever how a player will pan out. The salary structure is a difficult challenge since right now the two values (ADV and demands) have no relation whatsoever. It could be interesting to see your ADV budget affect the salary you see but, then we would have to rewrite the entire response/offer logic. 

Just so you all know, the percentage of users that actually have 0 for the ADV budget is very small.

#3

These patterns already exist. They are not as straight forward as you are suggesting and the development algorithms take a lot more into account than you may realize.




of 3

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.