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.

^^ THIS

Once they can develop a system that allows worlds to set min/max for budget categories then it will allow for some worlds to prevent such extreme "strategies".

IMO had they focused on doing that first, then worlds could already have instituted minimum ADV if they wanted and you solve the issue of owners gaming that part of the system without all the backlash...

IOW, a strategy has been taken off the table.    The 5m scouting and currents is gone.    We'll find another comfort zone with scouting, I pretty much trusted 14m enough but would work with 12m using currents.   My guess is I'll settle in somewhere near 16m so I can go 20m when I've got a high pick or 12m when I'm peaking.    I doubt I drop to 4m like I did in Coop again. 

Posted by mchales_army on 5/27/2015 11:27:00 AM (view original):

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.

^^ THIS

Once they can develop a system that allows worlds to set min/max for budget categories then it will allow for some worlds to prevent such extreme "strategies".

IMO had they focused on doing that first, then worlds could already have instituted minimum ADV if they wanted and you solve the issue of owners gaming that part of the system without all the backlash...

FWIW, worlds with a lot of restrictions sit on that "30+ worlds and a dozen or more have 8+ openings" list.    I think worlds need structure but sometimes they go overboard.

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/27/2015 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Without current ratings showing, the importance of draft And intl scouting has gone up, not down. So why are people thinking of zeroing out those budgets if they weren't doing so before?

That seems to me to be the exact opposite of common sense.

I'd argue the exact opposite. The draft is now closer to a lottery because we have less control over what we're getting.

I've got two hitters on my draft board in Clemens* right now:

19 year old - 81/74/43/73/88 projections
22 year old - 38/74/81/87/91 projections

If I were looking at two veterans with those exact ratings, they're pretty similar in overall offensive quality, even if how they provide it is a bit different. You could make a case for either being ranked ahead of the other. So in a situation like this, how do I decide which to take? Why, current ratings, of course. I look at the 22 year old and go "well crap, his splits are only in the low 50s, he's got no shot of hitting those 80+ split projections" and rank the 19 year old higher. Or I see that his splits are actually in the low 70s, well that's a much safer bet to hit his projections at that age. Maybe the 19 year old has a current eye in the 40s, that 88 eye is pretty crucial to his offensive output, if he's not going to even hit 80 in actuality then that makes him a lot less valuable.

Without current ratings I pretty much have to just go with the 19 year old on the merit that the 22 year old has a better chance of his projections being unrealistically high. God forbid if both were the same age.

No current ratings removes so much of the control we have over who we draft, and if I'm going to be left in a scenario where I'm just taking what appears to be the best lottery ticket out of a bunch of other lottery tickets where I don't actually know if any of them are better than the others, I'm much more inclined just to shy away from the draft altogether. None of this even touches on the plans to make projections "fuzzier" (it would be good to even know what that means), which potentially just adds to the RNG aspect of the whole thing.

Is it worth changing the draft to make it harder for low budgeted owners to find good players in the end of the first round? Absolutely, but there are other ways to do it, and this actually harms people who invest in draft scouting. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In a situation like that, you'll be relying on your scouting budget.    If it's 0, you're flying blind.   If it's 10, it's a best guess.   If it's 20, you go with it.

That's sort of the point of removing the currents.   If you want more accurate numbers, you have to budget for it.

I think that's what's getting lost.    A tool that can be used is removed(current ratings).    Sure, we'll make more mistakes based on 11m in scouting but, really, shouldn't we?   Should we KNOW that the guy with pick with the 16th pick will be a solid BL contributor?    Especially if we halfass scout him?

That's a flaw in the static, predictable player growth, not in the fact that we can see current ratings. Simply making player progression more dynamic would help with so many of the game's other shortcomings, you wouldn't even need to touch a number of other things.

I originally thought that the make up rating would have a lot to do with development. Not so much now. But why not make that more relevant?

I keep going back to these two guys because I got them with low scouting/current ratings and I feel like I stole them.

Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Marwin Mota   Pick 23 with 4m
Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Randy Gagne  Pick 8 with 0m

Seems like my scouting reports would read like this:

Mota:   Watched a weekend series.  Good eye, nice swing, unpolished behind the plate.   Walked 8 times and never swung at a bad pitch.   Top level HS swing, might be able to sit on the end of a BL bench right now but needs some development.   Should be a respectable BL hitter but not sure we'll find a spot for him in the field.  Has missed a few games to injury.  Would like to see more.

Gagne:  Rained all weekend.  No games.  Saw a bullpen session.   Good arm with two good pitches and two that need some work.   All the locals rave about him.   Have to come back.



Now, would you spend a 1st round pick based on that?    I did because I had hard current numbers to look at.

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.

Without currents, I take neither of those guys.    I'm guessing with Gagne because it was a long time ago but I never ranked a player with 0 scouting in the top 20 before or since.   I know with Mota because it was a couple of weeks ago and he was not the best looking player, based on projections, but had the best currents easily.   I put him at #1 on my list.

I actually like the "invest more to see more ratings".   0 gets you 0, 1 gets you 1, etc, etc.   It's almost perfect symmetry.    Counting overall, there are 20 pertinent hitting ratings(removes the "red" categories).    Only 18 for pitchers but close enough.     But don't make it standard.   1 doesn't mean you get contact.   You might just get arm accuracy.

Definitely some interesting changes. Don't see ADV changing much based on the initial updates, but taking away the currents from prospects makes me think if you plan to utilize the draft/IFA in any way, you better put alot of budget in there.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 12:23:00 PM (view original):
I actually like the "invest more to see more ratings".   0 gets you 0, 1 gets you 1, etc, etc.   It's almost perfect symmetry.    Counting overall, there are 20 pertinent hitting ratings(removes the "red" categories).    Only 18 for pitchers but close enough.     But don't make it standard.   1 doesn't mean you get contact.   You might just get arm accuracy.

But removing currents is easier and accomplishes the same thing.  

Budget low and it's a crapshoot.

I'm going to guess... from a programming standpoint... that it might be difficult to display fuzzy current ratings based on how they look through a budgetary filter.

Every player has current ratings, which are used in whatever game they play in.  It's far easier just to not show them, than to add a layer of programming to fudge them.