A few issues I'd like to see fixed. - Suggestions

Posts: 20 (0)

Hall of Famer

88

Prospect

Since the design of the game it to somewhat mirror real life, here's a couple of things I've noticed in my first few season that I'd like to see fixed.

1) Allowing teams to assign $0 to certain areas is just stupid.

- No RL team is going to bomb things like Adv. scouting or HS scouting for instance. I'd say minimum of $4M or so there for everybody.

2) If you do go to the floor on areas there should be a pretty big penalty there

- As other have said you can go $0 on Adv. Scouting pretty easily and not really pay a price b/c you see accurate projections for everyone's current and historical readings thus you can easily predict the future for most guys based on draft position or how much someone spend on the IFA. If you go $0 on scouting your rating should essentially be worthless and you run the risk of trading for or signing a worthless player.

3) The draft and IFA should be riskier

- Some owners tanks b/c it's pretty rewarding to do so. Seems most early first round picks and top IFA's end up doing well a much higher % of the time than RL allows. There should be some absolute flameouts. There is a reason the RL Pitt Pirates aren't great despite picking early for the last decade. Making the draft and IFA's more a gamble would help curb this attitude.

4) You should see more DIR success stories.

- Right now they are a joke for the most part - maybe you get a ML reserve or AAA player. There need to some solid ML players and studs that come out of the later rounds with teams that spend more on scouting more likely to land such players.

5) The Free Agent period is tough and wish it more flexible like the coaches

- If you decide to go after one of the studs you will end up tying up all your money and run the risk of getting nothing. RL teams don't do this - they have the ability to talk to lots of players and get feedback. You can bid on multiple coaches and you should be able to bid on multiple FA's even if it exceeds budget and if some players sign before others, that's a risk the owners have to take. I also with the agents would give more feedback. For instance if a player is asking for a 3-year deal and the competition is offering 5, have the agent simply say more years are necessary or something.

6/18/2012 1:07 AM

txchilidog

Posts: 70 (0)

Rookie

1 1 1 3

Prospect

I like #s 3 and 5. #3 is intriguing because we have the Diamond in the Roughs every season. There should be an occasional player who was drafted highly who suddenly took a huge dip for no particular reason other than he is the opposite of a DITR. But not often obviously. I just think it would be more realistic if there were some players who didn't have what it took to go along with those late rounders who turn into really good players.

I especially like #5 because I get so frustrated when I am at my budget limit with pending negotiations. It would be so much easier if we could over shoot the budget with pending offers. If we are able to sign a guy, then the other offers can be withdrawn automatically. And I also agree with the number of years thing. Some of the replies annoy me, like "Mo money. That's what you'll need to suit me up."

6/18/2012 2:52 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

1) You're just creating a new minimum but that's fine.   No real harm or help there.

2) Not sure I follow.   There is a penalty now.

3) No.   Late round studs and first round flops will not help the game at all.   Not at all.    It's been discussed many, many times.

4) What you get is free.   Costs nothing.   Throwing more randomness into success/failure in this game does not improve it.

5) Nope.   You're looking at it from how it affects you.   Say you have 31m available and you want one of three studs. You offer max to all three(meaning you have 90m out).   You're only gettting one and you're driving up the price on the other two.   A savvy owner, with 1m in cap space, bids max contracts on the top 25 players. He can't sign any of them but he can make sure everyone else pays top dollar.

6/18/2012 11:47 AM

irondawg

Posts: 20 (0)

Hall of Famer

88

Prospect

Mike,

I disagree on a few points. For example:

#2) what's the real penalty? If I go $0 here I sitll know everyone's accurate ratings as of today. what I don't get is future ratings, but for players 27 an up that's a non-issue b/c the game doesn't show any difference in future ratings. All it affects is the lower guys. So there is some slight room for error there but based on draft position and such I have a really good idea of what a guy might pan out to be.

#3) Why not? RL MLB is totally random to a large degree. There are always 1st round flops and late round successes is every franchise - this doesn't really happen in this game and that's why almost every league has its share of tankers. You can almost surefire built a short dynasty by high draft picks and IFA and then a few Type A's b/c it doesn't cost you the draft picks.

#4) Again why not - every ML roster in RL is full of DIR type guys. Not so much in the game.

#5) That is a good point, but you might could build some rules around this. I just think it's a major problem that you have to go with an "eggs all in one basket" kind of approach now.

6/18/2012 12:30 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

2) The penalty comes when trading for younger prospects(ADV), seeing prospects(IFA, College, HS), developing players(training) and recovering from injury(medical).   I've also made several suggestions on ADV. I agree that 0 ADV is silly. But there is a penalty.

3) RL managers, scouts, GM who make mistakes(first round flops) lose their jobs.   HBD owners just move on to a different world.   Multi-season minimum win rules handle tankers. Join those worlds.

4) Same reason.  Work hard, build a good team, get crushed by an owner who won the lottery with 10 studly DITR.

Every action draws a reaction.   That's the same with changes in HBD.

6/18/2012 12:43 PM

tufft

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

1) If you raise the min from $0 to $4, then $4 becomes the new $0. $0 should be the min for any budget. The impact of that could be different than it is now. Like 0 for all projections, if you want to go extreme. Which is what you seem to be proposing in (2). The root problem is the entire ADV is poorly designed or programmed. That and that players all pretty much develop the same way. Fixing that would probably accomplish what you're proposing.

3) It's not easy to get someone to take over a team that's been badly run for several seasons. If that team gets one or more busts for their top draft picks, it will be even harder to find someone to take that team. There would be consequences of what you're suggesting. There's a chance you're not thinking them all the way through. You can't just think of the ideal team where the same owner does a pretty good job at the game for several seasons. The game should allow worlds to go on even if they have a few really bad or negligent players for a few seasons.

4) I agree that some mid-round draft picks should make the ML and some should be all-stars, but it should be rare and based on merit, not luck. If everyone gets a DITR, then they really don't help anyone. I'd like to see DITR correspond to a combination of MinL W/L record, coaching, and playing time. Seems to be random now. And they are only RPs, Cs, and crap infielders.

5) I think you are 100% right on this one. It's silly that we can't overbid our total FA budget. Completely unrealistic. There are dozens of ways to change the game logic that would allow that without destroying the FA process. This has been suggested before. If you continue with this, you're going to see that a lot of the guys that bother to post opinions here don't understand that changing this would be good for the FA process. They can't see past the current logic.

6/19/2012 1:58 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Care to dispute this, tuft?

5) Nope. You're looking at it from how it affects you. Say you have 31m available and you want one of three studs. You offer max to all three(meaning you have 90m out). You're only gettting one and you're driving up the price on the other two. A savvy owner, with 1m in cap space, bids max contracts on the top 25 players. He can't sign any of them but he can make sure everyone else pays top dollar.

6/19/2012 9:14 AM

tufft

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

Mike, you're confusing two completely different issues.

No one offer should be able to make an offer that's more than they can pay. If I have $5M left to spend on salary, the max I can offer any one player is $5M in salary in bonus this season. I'm not debating that.

If I have $5M left, I should be able to offer as many players as I want $5M.

As soon as one of the accepts, the offers to the others are automatically withdrawn. Setting the market for them back to $0, if there are no other offers.

That would allow us to offer a player the max we'll pay. One day we might get a message that it's not enough. We could leave the offer on the table. The next day we might get a message that we're currently the high offer. Or that offer could be accepted. Probably best if we get at least on message before they accept, but either way works better than it does now.

6/19/2012 12:25 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

OK, I make 75 offers of 5m when I can only sign one.

Anyone else who wants one of those players will have to bid 5.1m until my offers are withdrawn. However, they will not know that my offer is withdrawn. I have, effectively, set the market for 74 other players.

Rebuttal?

6/19/2012 1:23 PM

jcairns

Posts: 93 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 81

Prospect

I like the idea, but I agree with mike on this.

6/19/2012 5:09 PM

soursurfer

Posts: 371 (0)

Hall of Famer

72

Prospect

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2012 1:23:00 PM (view original):
OK, I make 75 offers of 5m when I can only sign one.

Anyone else who wants one of those players will have to bid 5.1m until my offers are withdrawn. However, they will not know that my offer is withdrawn. I have, effectively, set the market for 74 other players.

Rebuttal?

Yes, and a team with $30M+ left to spend could offer max deals to a lot of guys.

Also, this sounds great...the top player on the market signs, effectively setting/resetting the market on other guys, just like real life! But I don't think there's a way for that to happen in a reasonable time frame. The MLB has all winter to let those dominoes fall. We have 24 cycles.

6/19/2012 5:18 PM

tufft

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

9 AM - Mike makes 75 offers of $5M. Probably about 2 hours to press all those buttons, but let's assume Mike has nothing better to do.

1 PM (next 1/2 cycle) - One of those players, ideally the one who had the lowest demand, accepts that offer. Assuming you're following the example of you only had $5M to spend, all of your other offers are cancelled.

1:01 PM - You've signed one FA. The other 74 players either have or don't have other offers to consider. Game goes on.

You're not thinking through this very clearly. Part of the change needs to be players with no other offers will jump at offers that match or greatly exceed their demands. In your example, there aren't 75 players demanding $5M or more in any FA class I've seen.

I know there's no such thing as you changing your mind or admitting you're wrong, so how about we try to agree that we could have offers our that total up to double or triple what we can spend? That would be a safer way to test the change than no limit at all.

6/19/2012 5:27 PM

tufft

Posts: 959 (0)

Hall of Famer

65

Prospect

# of cycles - FAs & coaches react on 1/2 cycles. So that's 6 per day.

The End of FA Period is another silly rule. There's no reason at all FA signing shouldn't spill into ST or the regular season if the bidding justifies it. Having a set last cycle is just one more way experienced GMs can game the current system.

If you don't want to risk bidding into ST on a player, stop bidding & make offers on other players. Easy to do as soon as the silly rule that we can't bid more than our total budget is lifted. As it stands now, you can't spread your risk. It's all or nothing. And if you know how to look at the reports, it's possible to game that in some cases.

Some things about MLB can't or shouldn't be exactly simulated in HBD. FA signing isn't one of those. Players should jump on a super offer quickly, before it's pulled. And if 2 or more owners are upping their bids every cycle, there should not be a cutoff day.

6/19/2012 5:35 PM

soursurfer

Posts: 371 (0)

Hall of Famer

72

Prospect

Posted by tufft on 6/19/2012 5:35:00 PM (view original):
# of cycles - FAs & coaches react on 1/2 cycles. So that's 6 per day.

The End of FA Period is another silly rule. There's no reason at all FA signing shouldn't spill into ST or the regular season if the bidding justifies it. Having a set last cycle is just one more way experienced GMs can game the current system.

If you don't want to risk bidding into ST on a player, stop bidding & make offers on other players. Easy to do as soon as the silly rule that we can't bid more than our total budget is lifted. As it stands now, you can't spread your risk. It's all or nothing. And if you know how to look at the reports, it's possible to game that in some cases.

Some things about MLB can't or shouldn't be exactly simulated in HBD. FA signing isn't one of those. Players should jump on a super offer quickly, before it's pulled. And if 2 or more owners are upping their bids every cycle, there should not be a cutoff day.

Yes, 6 * 4 = 24, like I said.

Surely you at least think the cutoff day should be the day before the regular season though, yes? And doesn't that lead to the same problems?

6/19/2012 5:42 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

I've thought it out quite clearly. There are several cycles where no player signs. I bid 5m to 75 players on cycle one. For the next 7 cycles, everyone is trying to find the market on those 75 players. On the first signing cycle, I get one guy. The worst guy. Fine, I don't care, I'm leaving the worlds after this season. However, I've set the market on a whole bunch of players because I bid 5m on them on the first cycle and the rest of the world chased that number.

Are you sure you've thought it out?

6/19/2012 7:50 PM

Forums

A few issues I'd like to see fixed. Topic

Search Criteria