The problem with "busts" is simple.   Owners are tied to a world because they want to be.    I'm all for "Screw the tankers" but, in some worlds, the worst teams are generally fighting the MWR and are legitimately bad.    They'll get booted if they can't get better.   And the tankers can just pack up and move on if they get a couple of busts. 

Giving bad teams less of a chance to get better might create more transient owners and weaker teams at the bottom due to no continuity.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
The problem with "busts" is simple.   Owners are tied to a world because they want to be.    I'm all for "Screw the tankers" but, in some worlds, the worst teams are generally fighting the MWR and are legitimately bad.    They'll get booted if they can't get better.   And the tankers can just pack up and move on if they get a couple of busts. 

Giving bad teams less of a chance to get better might create more transient owners and weaker teams at the bottom due to no continuity.

How is any of that good?

If the incentive to tank goes away, because the draft becomes more of a crapshoot, then is a MWR even necessary at that point?

Another prediction: some players will leave. I don't think it will be a mass departure, and I think the game might even get stronger. But there will be a few who say "screw this" because they don't want to deal with the changes.

I didn't say it was good.   That's why I started with "The problem...."


Yeah, MWR will always be necessary.    Regardless of the level of the incentive to pick #1, it's incentive enough for some. 

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 7:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
The problem with "busts" is simple.   Owners are tied to a world because they want to be.    I'm all for "Screw the tankers" but, in some worlds, the worst teams are generally fighting the MWR and are legitimately bad.    They'll get booted if they can't get better.   And the tankers can just pack up and move on if they get a couple of busts. 

Giving bad teams less of a chance to get better might create more transient owners and weaker teams at the bottom due to no continuity.

How is any of that good?

If the incentive to tank goes away, because the draft becomes more of a crapshoot, then is a MWR even necessary at that point?

I don't think the incentive to tank will completely go away. It will just diminish a bit. For example, In mlb, the draft is a bit of a crapshoot, but you still get teams like the Astros and Twins who spend 4-5 years filling their rosters with losers and racking up top picks.

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/7/2015 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Another prediction: some players will leave. I don't think it will be a mass departure, and I think the game might even get stronger. But there will be a few who say "screw this" because they don't want to deal with the changes.

Some surely will. It happens every time, but it is a good change, and a long overdue one. 

As I posted earlier:

HOPEFULLY this new change coincides with a massive invite/promo sent to all of the many many great owners we've lost over the last two years because it got stale.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 7:35:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say it was good.   That's why I started with "The problem...."


Yeah, MWR will always be necessary.    Regardless of the level of the incentive to pick #1, it's incentive enough for some. 

Ah, I misread that as "the solution is simple". Often I am dumb like that...

Pretty much anyone who was winning and then doesn't is a candidate to leave.    They can blame it on the "stupid updates" and walk away.     That's just how it is.

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 7:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/7/2015 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Another prediction: some players will leave. I don't think it will be a mass departure, and I think the game might even get stronger. But there will be a few who say "screw this" because they don't want to deal with the changes.

Some surely will. It happens every time, but it is a good change, and a long overdue one. 

As I posted earlier:

HOPEFULLY this new change coincides with a massive invite/promo sent to all of the many many great owners we've lost over the last two years because it got stale.

Hopefully there will also be some additional cosmetic updates to follow. Adding new cities and stadiums would spice things up a little and keep people around. Or at least, it will make me happy. And that's what really matters.

My two cents: I hate the proposed changes to the amateur draft system. When a professional team scouts a player they gain a firm understanding of the players current skill level. For us to scout and not be able to see current ratings is unrealistic. When I finish playing through the seasons I've already purchased I don't believe I'll be purchasing more.

Oh, yeah.   The first "I'm done with this because of these stupid changes" post.

Page 11.    That's pretty late in the game compared to normal.

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/7/2015 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 7:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/7/2015 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Another prediction: some players will leave. I don't think it will be a mass departure, and I think the game might even get stronger. But there will be a few who say "screw this" because they don't want to deal with the changes.

Some surely will. It happens every time, but it is a good change, and a long overdue one. 

As I posted earlier:

HOPEFULLY this new change coincides with a massive invite/promo sent to all of the many many great owners we've lost over the last two years because it got stale.

Hopefully there will also be some additional cosmetic updates to follow. Adding new cities and stadiums would spice things up a little and keep people around. Or at least, it will make me happy. And that's what really matters.

I would really love this too.

I always wished they could add a design your own scheme type of deal. Even design your own stadium to some degree. Like any "custom" stadium would only be allowed 5 plus or minus adjustments total. So all of the custom stadiums would be far more neutral than the extreme parks, but would be fun to tinker with and try new ideas.

FWIW, I'm hoping the fuzzier ratings for prospects results in the best player taken not always being 1-3 but maybe a mid-1st rounder.   I'd still like the top picks to be at least close to A/S material not complete busts. 

Question for MikeT23:

You've usually said that ADV isn't important if you never trade for another team's prospects.  Does this change that?

Posted by jrnyfan01 on 5/7/2015 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Seems like 5 seasons to bring your ADV or INT/HS/COLL scouting from zero to 20. Without 20, who will trade with you? Players you have drafted/acquired prior to that number are suspect at best once the update is incorporated.
Then, 3.5 or 4 seasons to see those better projected draft picks progress through the minors and play for your ML team (if lucky because you still could draft someone crappy). At least 2 calendar years and $200+ to adjust to the new world order for each team owned. I think they might be overestimating my love of the game...

Actually jrnyfan beat him by a few pages. Although in all fairness he just "hinted" that "they overestimate my love for this game"

Page 9