Posted by job314 on 5/26/2015 5:35:00 PM (view original):
I think one way to make the IFA process better is only allowing one bid for an IFA prospect.  If your international scouts see a guy that looks good and you want to bid on him, then enter your max price, the sim evaluates every team's offer and awards him to the highest bid.  This would fix a the monster 30+ million signings; give owners serious pause before bidding on a prospect; but admin would need to address some of the gamesmanship that occurs with looking at player payroll/prospect budgets.  

This would fix a the monster 30+ million signings; 

How? Why wouldn't I just make the one bid 33.6M if that's what I had?

It's an interesting idea. I agree with McHale that it probably wouldn't end the $30 bids, but it might be fun.

I don't think it would do anythingbut make mid tier IFA's more expensive. If a stud comes along I bid the max I am willing to pay him.

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

Posted by hockey1984 on 5/26/2015 5:23:00 PM (view original):
...... I've looked at this update from every angle.... Why would I want to raise my ADV above 0?

Also has international free agents asking for less gone into effect imediatly or is it just for seasons that start after now?

re: 2nd question.

After the new season starts.

So if that goes into effect after rollover, and that item had an asterisk, why has the other asterisked item saying only projected ratings are viewable for prospects gone into effect today?

I have been #1 on an International bid ping pong paddle for the last 75 hours now with no movement. Anything to change this process would be welcomed by me at this point.

The showing of budgets wouldn't be as much of an issue if the bidding process for free agents and IFAs were more like real life.  The problem is that we get both less information than in real life, and the information we get is more reliable.  Agents never tell us who outbid us, or by how much, and they never lie, both of which happen in real life.  Sometimes, they shop offers to other teams and say "the Angels offered my guy 20 million a year for 4 years, can you top that?" (which may or may not be true) whereas we have to guess at how much to raise our bids.  As it is now, the bidding process is too mechanical and predictable.  Introduce more feedback from the FAs into the process, and some level of dishonesty and gamesmanship, and knowing the budgets won't matter so much.

Posted by frymaster99 on 5/26/2015 6:04:00 PM (view original):

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

Posted by hockey1984 on 5/26/2015 5:23:00 PM (view original):
...... I've looked at this update from every angle.... Why would I want to raise my ADV above 0?

Also has international free agents asking for less gone into effect imediatly or is it just for seasons that start after now?

re: 2nd question.

After the new season starts.

So if that goes into effect after rollover, and that item had an asterisk, why has the other asterisked item saying only projected ratings are viewable for prospects gone into effect today?

• Owners will only be able to view historical ratings for players within their franchise. If the player isn't in your organization, you'll only be able to see Current Ratings, Projected Ratings and other rating changes from the current season.
• Prospects (until signed) will only display projected ratings instead of both current and projected ratings.  This change was necessary to best accomplish the next item...
• A new, fuzzier projected rating system will be introduced for high school, college and international scouting.*
• International prospects will now hit the market with low demands, so supply/demand can better dictate the player's skill and so that bonus demand can no longer be used to infer player quality*
• Diamonds in the Rough logic has been improved so that there will be fewer, yet more impactful player bumps.
• A few other prospect-player development adjustments we'd prefer not to explicitly detail.*
• Hall of Fame Voting page has been revamped

I see no asterisk beside that change

Posted by rockindock on 5/26/2015 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/26/2015 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Like 35% have voted NO on the poll.

Is there a legitimate reason an owner might think that they should be able to see this info?

I wish someone who has voted NO would respond. I must be missing something.

I would like us to be able to see no budget info for other teams during the current season.  And all budget info from past season.

Past season info is a good way for newbies to learn.

The way the survey is worded, this option can't be voted for.

Posted by tufft on 5/26/2015 7:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rockindock on 5/26/2015 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/26/2015 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Like 35% have voted NO on the poll.

Is there a legitimate reason an owner might think that they should be able to see this info?

I wish someone who has voted NO would respond. I must be missing something.

I would like us to be able to see no budget info for other teams during the current season.  And all budget info from past season.

Past season info is a good way for newbies to learn.

The way the survey is worded, this option can't be voted for.

The league average is still shown for all of the budget items. This is probably enough info for newbies to learn the 'average' way to distribute their money.

I'm delusional, thanks m_a

Showing past seasons is silly.   Doesn't take a math major to add/subtract 4m and figure out where someone is.    And it allows owners like me to check your scouting budget to determine if you had 20m or 0 in HS scouting when I'm trying to trade for that 19 y/o.  

Posted by willsauve on 5/26/2015 3:39:00 PM (view original):
C'mon man you voted... No way did you skip right over it without knowing which way the vote was going..  I voted NO just because I think you should be able to view PLAYER PAYROLL. Had the vote been just for PROSPECT BUDGET I wouldve voted YES.. 

IMO, I think it is too much of a inconvenience to not know if a team has enough payroll available to do a trade.. 

+1

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.

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.

I'm fine with change, but I think it is total b.s. that they impose an immediate change that seems to put a premium on advanced scouting budget when they know that many of their best customers have low advanced scouting budgets AND they refuse to alter the 4 mil rule for budget increases. This makes it punitive, as if these owners are being unethical, or cheating in some way, or whatever. As I say, I'm quite alright with the challenge of new rules, but putting many of the people who have invested the most money into the game in a position where it will take them FOUR seasons to get their advanced scouting budget up to snuff? That is extremely poor customer service, or worse.