Posted by damag on 5/27/2015 12:37:00 PM (view original):
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.

They already have a "layer of programming" to distort projected ratings.  It would just be the same or similar code to distort current ratings.  That should be an extremely easy "fix".

The goal seems to be encouraging/forcing us to spend $ on scouting to succeed, which increases the realism of the simulation. Eliminating current is a quick, simple and probably effective way to do that. The complaints about "having to" go to zero are a way of saying one doesn't want to spend on scouting, which should not be a viable strategy. 0/0/0/0 could be a good way to win short-term but isn't going to be viable in a good world over any reasonable stretch of time. As Mike noted, if you want to be able to make a sound decision between two prospects, you need to have $ in scouting. Which is kind of the point.

Venturing into the real world, the Phillies are in trouble because they pumped all their money into ridiculous back-loaded contracts for aging stars, and their drafting has sucked because of that focus. The Cubs are ascending because they invested in youth and drafts instead of trying to bail the sinking ship with free agents. If WIS makes acting like Theo Epstein a better path than acting like Ruben Amaro, that's a good thing.

+1

Most of the pushback seems to be coming from owners that aren't interested in deviating from what's worked in the past.   I like my system too but recognize that I've gotten some players that I shouldn't have. 

If we want realism then we should tie payroll to team success and markets. Realism should not be the goal, a well oiled, fine tuned, balanced, fun game should be the goal. If it happens to mimic real life then that's icing on the cake.

The Phils/Cubs comp is a farce explicitly because there aren't fixed budgets in MLB. A team having a ton of albatross Major League contracts does not prohibit them from still scouting, drafting and signing draftees and IFAs - the Yankees have been one of the highest amateur spenders in all facets for decades now. The Phillies are bad simply because they're run poorly from the top down, regardless any kind of parallel you want to draw to HBD.

Saying it is/isn't like real life is nonsensical anyway.   We pay $20ish to play for 3 months.  If budgets are based on success/markets, everyone lines up to be in NY and losers dump their teams to move on.   No one would pay to play with a 60m budget difference from the top team.  That's why we have budgets.    If it doesn't somewhat mimic MLB, interest is lost immediately.   It's a baseball simulation and we're not using stadiums in Japan.   So it's somewhat based on MLB.  

Again, all experienced owners have found a "comfort zone" and WifS has made it a little uncomfortable for us.    We'll live.   We'll find another comfort zone.  None of these changes are bad for HBD.  None.  

Posted by alleyviper on 5/27/2015 2:22:00 PM (view original):
If we want realism then we should tie payroll to team success and markets. Realism should not be the goal, a well oiled, fine tuned, balanced, fun game should be the goal. If it happens to mimic real life then that's icing on the cake.

The Phils/Cubs comp is a farce explicitly because there aren't fixed budgets in MLB. A team having a ton of albatross Major League contracts does not prohibit them from still scouting, drafting and signing draftees and IFAs - the Yankees have been one of the highest amateur spenders in all facets for decades now. The Phillies are bad simply because they're run poorly from the top down, regardless any kind of parallel you want to draw to HBD.

I wouldn't want the market to affect payroll. Part of the charm of this game is that you can play a team in Sioux Falls, Salt Lake City, Fresno, etc. Nobody would pick those teams if market size had an effect on $ - we'd just end up with the same 30 markets that are in MLB I. Every world.

But I'd be all for tying payroll budget to success. Give everyone $185 for the first season. If you lose more than, say, 100 games, then you get a penalty of $5 or $10 for next season's budget to represent Lower attendance, tv ratings, merchandise sales, etc. Win the World Series, and you get a $10 bonus next year because the fans are excited and they all bought playoff tickets.

I'm sure that in practice there'd be drawbacks to this approach, but it sounds like fun, and it'd certainly discourage long-term tanking.

It would create unwanted turnover.   Worst idea ever.   Ever. 

EVER
V
E
R

If we want realism then we should tie payroll to team success and markets.

The problem with that is that if a team is unsuccessful for some period of time, for whatever reason (owner incompetence or indifference, injuries, draft busts, etc.) and then have their payroll limited, it's going to be harder for them to recover.  The only recourse for some owners who are not willing to do the work to get things back on track is to leave the world.  Then you have a new owner coming in and inheriting a mess that has been artificially crippled even more than what often happens today by what you suggest.

I don't see how that's good for the game.

If you want to tie anything to success, it's free agency.   Rather than high bidder, every time, maybe some guys actually sign with successful teams only.   For less.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 2:31:00 PM (view original):
It would create unwanted turnover.   Worst idea ever.   Ever. 

Or it could get people out of their comfort zone. Then they'd find a new comfort zone.

Posted by alleyviper on 5/27/2015 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 2:31:00 PM (view original):
It would create unwanted turnover.   Worst idea ever.   Ever. 

Or it could get people out of their comfort zone. Then they'd find a new comfort zone.

More likely, the new comfort zone would be a fresh start in another world, leaving a mess behind in the previous world.

Posted by alleyviper on 5/27/2015 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 2:31:00 PM (view original):
It would create unwanted turnover.   Worst idea ever.   Ever. 

Or it could get people out of their comfort zone. Then they'd find a new comfort zone.

Or a new world.  Creating unwanted turnover.

I don't want to lose long-term owners who go thru a string of 70 win seasons and then are playing the game with 40m less than everyone else.   It's just dumb.   Worst idea ever.   Ever.

Yeah in a new world.