I do think quite a bit more randomness in drafting and IFA development would add some spice to the game, while at the same time serve as a deterrent to tanking.  Imagine the delight of a 13th round pick turning into Albert Pujols.  At the same time, high first rounders in the ML frequently don't pan out.  It'd be a good thing, I think, if you weren't guaranteed a future all-star with the no. 1 pick in the draft.

Posted by dcbove on 12/31/2010 5:16:00 PM (view original):
@dedelman

I agree that in general that it is good to avoid criticizing without proposing a solution.  However, what appears to happen in the forum is that everyone gets bogged down in the minutiae and wanders off topic.  I'm trying to avoid discussing the merits of anyone's particular fix.  My point was:  much like the game Risk, after someone figures out the South America strategy then everyone either:

-- makes silly artificial rules (e.g., you can't collect armies unless you've conquered a country in the last 3 turns, you can't transfer more than $10M to prospects)
-- gets bored and moves on.

I want WIS to design a game that removes the South America strategy from being a successful strategy.  I like the game but I'm started to get bored.  Sometimes I make moves that I think are less than optimal but I'm trying to make certain that I'm not perceived as tanking.  Sometimes I see other people's moves and I think that they're just making that move to lose on purpose.

I wouldn't care if people tried to lose on purpose if there were some appropriate consequences for losing.  But there are none.  In a well designed game that would not be the case.

@tecwrg

If their goal is to set up a game where they are merely trying to snag $24.95 per person per season then you might be correct.  A tanker spends their money, happily loses year after year, and the world spins on.  But - and perhaps I'm naive - doesn't WIS think that the game would see more growth and they'd make more money if the quality of the game improved?

WIS is a business.  The goal of a business is to generate revenue that leads to profits.  I don't see how shutting down a strategy that a number of people use is going to increase profits.

Keep in mind that I'm NOT arguing in favor of people using the strategy.  But it's there, and I can live with it by intentionally playing in worlds where we have rules in place intended to make that strategy difficult to use successfully.  We have 32 owners in those worlds that are expected to follow those rules, or they are asked to move on.

Posted by dcbove on 12/31/2010 7:03:00 PM (view original):
@cbriese

A minimum win rule can be effective but is still an artificial rule.  Why should one season of N wins result in the jettison of an owner but multiple seasons of N+1 wins allow a user to reap the benefits of "practically but not quite tanking"?

The point I've been trying to make is that a well designed game - and I assume that WIS wants to run such a game - would include appropriate incentives and disincentives so that the owner could follow any strategy.  There would be negative consequences for losing that balance out the higher draft pick, the additional funds that might be available from running a lower payroll, etc.  An owner can then chart their path, employ the strategy of their choice, and not be concerned with essentially arbitrary rules.

That sort of positive and negative feedback would be integral to my idea of a well designed game.

All right, I appreciate all the constructive comments and feedback.  I'm going to try to avoid posting on this thread again to avoid beating this topic into the ground (which I probably already did).  Plus, I have drinking to do.  Happy New Year everyone. 

I won't get into a ***-for-tat about what is right, and why 66 wins might be fine, but 65 wins is not. I only know that leagues that have implemented minimum win requirements have much less tanking, and are much better leagues because of it. It's not a rhetorical discussion. It's a strategy implemented with success by a number of HBD leagues. 

Have you posted on the Hasbro message boards about how the current South America configuration has lessened the joy of Risk? Do you also think it's a pity that Hasbro has yet to respond?

Posted by moethedog on 12/31/2010 6:19:00 PM (view original):

mitchrapp,

It isn't quite like the Florida Marlins.  When the Marlins sell every good player for prospects they are acquiring folks with pretty unknown futures...or with some relative degree of unpredictability..  HBD isn't quite like that in the sense that projections tell you just how good a player will get (or...give you an idea of how close they can expect to get to being how good).

Same applies to draf picks and IFA's

So here you're selling player for a sure thing.  Sell enough players for enough sure things and tanking always pays off.

And you win in two ways...because you can sacrifice salary for scouting...you can see more sure things than everybody else.

Projections are too accurate.  How many 15th round draft picks make it to the bigs in HBD?  Not very darn many...Well...probably none.

Yet 15th, 25th 40th round picks make it in real life.

And there is no real salary risk for tanking.  Yet if a team inreal life wins 50 ballgames...their budget will greatly suffer becasue they won't put folks in their seats.

Hey, don't get me wrong.  I love this game.  I'm much for fascinated with it than I expected.   But dc is right.  There are some fixes that can be made.

But dc and I are in the same world....and we've really struggled with one complete tanker (multiple seasons) who we couldn;t get rid of until this season. We've tried to effectively deal with him, too.  Hasn't been easy.   Now that he's gone, the new owner will reap the benefit of his tanking, an unbelievaly loaded AAA and AA lineup.  Essentially he had a 100 win MLB team in the minors.  Now that doesn't happen in real lfe,either.


 

There is no benefit for tanking. All you get is a possible talented team that might win down the road. MIGHT. Non tanking, you try to compete each season which gives you more chances to get that title. It's proven, in HBD. You show me a tanker who wins a title down the road, and I'll show you a non tanking who wins two titles in the same frame.

I've seen tankers never win. Because when things go wrong, they're back to tanking and selling off pieces.

And it's been said, by TEC, find a new world that doesn't put up with tanking. They're out there. And as far as things WIS can do, what? It used to be, not sure it is anymore -- that if a commish wanted to get rid of someone they could. Nonetheless, worlds are out there who won't put up with this. Go find one.

And to say tanking doesn't happen in MLB, I give you the Rays. For 10 seasons they lost 90+ games and then suddenly they win 96. They get to the WS but now it looks like their 3 year window is closing and what do they have to show for it, a WS loss and nothing more.

Winning is always fun. 

I was the South America guy... 

Are you the tanker Lepp? Because OP guy correlates them as one.

Posted by kennedrj on 12/31/2010 8:58:00 PM (view original):
I do think quite a bit more randomness in drafting and IFA development would add some spice to the game, while at the same time serve as a deterrent to tanking.  Imagine the delight of a 13th round pick turning into Albert Pujols.  At the same time, high first rounders in the ML frequently don't pan out.  It'd be a good thing, I think, if you weren't guaranteed a future all-star with the no. 1 pick in the draft.

You really can't add randomness, because the game should reward owners who put in the time to scout and rank draft prospects, and do so intelligently. But I would be in favor of altering the development patterns so owners could decide whether to draft high-risk, high-reward players or safer bets with lower ceilings. Or something like that.

I'm assuming no one remembers the draft set-up from the early years of HBD.   Tons of first round "busts" because no matter you did, there was always a crappy player or 5 in your top 20.   We demanded more control in ranking and WifS gave it to us.  Now there's a faction of owners who demand more randomness.  We didn't like it before, we won't like it again.

As for the OP, you have to decide what you want to do.  There are worlds that provide what you want.  But apparently you're rejecting the idea of "artificial rules".   They work.   When we first implemented 55/125/195/280 in Coop, there were a dozen owners immediately on the "hot seat".   Next year there will be four and three have to win 61-63 games.    With 6 games left last season, 11 of 16 AL teams were still alive in the playoff hunt.   Good players don't get thru waivers and solid FA are signed instead of left to rot.   Minimum win rules discourage and/or eliminate the "South America" strategy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2011 2:53:00 PM (view original):
I'm assuming no one remembers the draft set-up from the early years of HBD.   Tons of first round "busts" because no matter you did, there was always a crappy player or 5 in your top 20.   We demanded more control in ranking and WifS gave it to us.  Now there's a faction of owners who demand more randomness.  We didn't like it before, we won't like it again.

As for the OP, you have to decide what you want to do.  There are worlds that provide what you want.  But apparently you're rejecting the idea of "artificial rules".   They work.   When we first implemented 55/125/195/280 in Coop, there were a dozen owners immediately on the "hot seat".   Next year there will be four and three have to win 61-63 games.    With 6 games left last season, 11 of 16 AL teams were still alive in the playoff hunt.   Good players don't get thru waivers and solid FA are signed instead of left to rot.   Minimum win rules discourage and/or eliminate the "South America" strategy.

I disagree with the first point, the original solution was unworkable, because you had no control over drafting someome you didnt wan't. I could see that the 100 ST SP was high on my draft board, when i really wanted the guy lower down the order, but i could do nothing about it because the only options i had were so archaic.

But i do agree that more draft busts when combined with the greater level of scouting control is somewhat contradictory. You can't have a system that arbitrarily downgrades prospects, if i spend 40M on the draft and sign the best pitcher, only to see the system dwngrade him to turd, to allow for more busts, thats unworkable, im being punished for making a good decision. More draft busts, has to be consistent with an owners risk/reward decision made somewhere along the line, and i dont think people realise that sometimes, you can;t penalise people for making godd decisions, they won't come back to play future seasons.

Sure thing prospects and prospect development is the fundamental flaw in HBD. It could be simply improved IMO with more variance in scouting projections, even at >10M levels. I remember when i used 14M scouting the first time after id used 20M for almost 40 seasons and i was amazed at how accurate it was given it was nearly 33% less in budgettary terms than 20M. If they increased the amount of variance in projections you saw for each M below 20M then you would see more inaccurate drafting, which would account for more busts, this would also be best served by allowing for more under projection of prospects, i know from one of the dev chats they said that low scouting will tend to over-project, players, in which case they are wiping out 50% of the variance, but not allowing full under projection.

Of course the problem with more inaccurate scouting is more trades being vetoed, as people have worse information to judge, i've already seen people openly querying trades (when they had 0 ADV scouting) based on not much more than a prospects draft position, and the relative return. If you see more prospect busts, do you not then in turn have more issues with people vetoing, because the variations are so much more unpredictable?

More prospect failures is a worthy goal, but also the thin end of a rather large wegde.

In addition it should also be noted, that in modern MLB times, do we really have quite so many busts/late round gems as people seem to think? Is it not also a case of perception and fact, much like injuries?

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with but OK.

If projections/development patterns were more varied would we see more vetoes?   I don't think so.  People would adjust their thinking.  Or they should.  There would probably be a learning period but I think, on the whole, we'd adapt. 

As for busts/gems in MLB, people love to scream "Piazza!!! Pujols!!!" but, for the most part, the guys drafted in the 13th round never have BL careers.   Guys like Pujols were late bloomers.   They have raw tools and learn how to use them.   And, barring injury, most first rounders make the BL if only for a cup of coffee.

Posted by dedelman on 12/31/2010 4:01:00 PM (view original):

@i24-- it's moderately successful (if you read ratings well) because it can self-perpetuate.  If you develop a roster that can win with 110 games with a salary commitment of $30M, you can win championships and continue to "rebuild" at the same time.  Even in a world with smart opponents you can sacrifice 3-4 seasons to run for 8-10 successfully.

@dcbove-- A rule in my professional field is:  don't criticize something unless you can think of a better way to do it.
           It's very hard to create a strategy that works for all worlds to combat the "megatank."  Relatively severe minimum win rules (as we use in Cooperstown), if applied to all worlds, would drive out a fair number of n00bs who want to learn the game but are afraid to lose their franchises if they make mistakes.  Tying budget to performance (which is why the "megatank" doesn't work all that well in real life baseball, bad teams lose too much money) is an even bigger disaster; it either creates horribly decimated franchises, or (if you allow budgets to reset under a new owner) invites massive alias usage.  
           I actually agree with you that it is WiS' responsibility to fix this, insofar as it can be fixed-- but I'm not sure that any treatment isn't worse than the disease here.

The obvious "solution" is more unpredictability in prospects. First round flameouts for reasons other than injury, etc. If top picks weren't all but guaranteed to be stars, the success rate of the "megatank" strategy would drop like a rock.

Or, if you don't like that (and there are plenty of reason not to) then create more injuries in younger players, especially pitchers, by changing the way HTH ratings are generated and develop to simulate the early 20s 'injury nexus'.

Posted by dcbove on 1/1/2011 5:03:00 PM (view original):
@cbriese

A minimum win rule can be effective but is still an artificial rule. 

The point I've been trying to make is that a well designed game - and I assume that WIS wants to run such a game - would include appropriate incentives and disincentives so that the owner could follow any strategy.  There would be negative consequences for losing that balance out the higher draft pick, the additional funds that might be available from running a lower payroll, etc.  An owner can then chart their path, employ the strategy of their choice, and not be concerned with essentially arbitrary rules.

That sort of positive and negative feedback would be integral to my idea of a well designed game.

All right, I appreciate all the constructive comments and feedback.  I'm going to try to avoid posting on this thread again to avoid beating this topic into the ground (which I probably already did).  Plus, I have drinking to do.  Happy New Year everyone. 

I am curious as to why you think WIS creating "appropriate incentives and disincentives" is any better than individual worlds doing exactly the same thing with what you call "arbitrary rules."

Posted by antonsirius on 1/2/2011 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dedelman on 12/31/2010 4:01:00 PM (view original):

@i24-- it's moderately successful (if you read ratings well) because it can self-perpetuate.  If you develop a roster that can win with 110 games with a salary commitment of $30M, you can win championships and continue to "rebuild" at the same time.  Even in a world with smart opponents you can sacrifice 3-4 seasons to run for 8-10 successfully.

@dcbove-- A rule in my professional field is:  don't criticize something unless you can think of a better way to do it.
           It's very hard to create a strategy that works for all worlds to combat the "megatank."  Relatively severe minimum win rules (as we use in Cooperstown), if applied to all worlds, would drive out a fair number of n00bs who want to learn the game but are afraid to lose their franchises if they make mistakes.  Tying budget to performance (which is why the "megatank" doesn't work all that well in real life baseball, bad teams lose too much money) is an even bigger disaster; it either creates horribly decimated franchises, or (if you allow budgets to reset under a new owner) invites massive alias usage.  
           I actually agree with you that it is WiS' responsibility to fix this, insofar as it can be fixed-- but I'm not sure that any treatment isn't worse than the disease here.

The obvious "solution" is more unpredictability in prospects. First round flameouts for reasons other than injury, etc. If top picks weren't all but guaranteed to be stars, the success rate of the "megatank" strategy would drop like a rock.

Or, if you don't like that (and there are plenty of reason not to) then create more injuries in younger players, especially pitchers, by changing the way HTH ratings are generated and develop to simulate the early 20s 'injury nexus'.

This would reduce, not eliminate, the value of the strategy.  But I'm in favor of increasing unpredictability in development, as long as it's done so that owners can (a) elect hisk-risk, high-reward strategies, so they can choose to manage the unpredictability, and (b) pay scouting budget dollars to reduce but not eliminate the unpredictability.  And such solutions are not THAT hard to program, although they have been discussed to death in other threads.

The "best" solution is to grade all prospects 1-6 or A-F.   Once they're signed, it converts to 0-100.

Then have players have a "peak development" season that varies.  Some players blossom in their first full season and level off.  Other "get it" in their 5th full season.

This solves a lot of problems because (1) or (A) would be 85-100.   (2) or (B) would be 70-84.    And higher budgeting reduces the chance of a mis-label.  While there's very little differnce between 84 and 85, there's a big difference between 71 and 99.  You'll want your prospect budget high.   And because development patterns will vary, you'll want your ADV budget to be high if you're trading for prospects.   Is that 8 point bump in his 2nd season his "peak development year" or is it just normal development and he's going to get a big one later on?

Of course, this would probably be a MF to program.   Or at least change from the current program.

And, of course, none of this stops tanking.  Tankers tank.  It's what they do.   The only way to deal with them is to make them win games when losing is actually the better option.