If there  were too much randomness in this game, I would probably stop playing. I'm also not sure it would stop tanking. The fun of the game (to me) is beating owners by being more skilled. Adding more randomness takes away from the skill. If the randomness were "predictable" in some way (makeup having a stronger effect on prospect development, etc.), then I would be fine with it.

I also wouldn't be in favor of prospect payroll caps. In "No Quitters" I have had 22, 29, 35, 38, 40, and 33 million in prospect payroll. I've also averaged over 90 wins per season. I don't put money in advanced, college, or hs scouting.

Tanking means not having a competitive team. As long as a team is competitive, who cares how they build it (other than trade rape)? Boot any team that doesn't win 130 games over 2 years and tanking is going to decrease dramatically. 

well the only people subject to the cap are people who lost an asston of games the prior year, which is a good policy imo.

if you're competing every year you can spend as much as you please on IFAs, but if you're winning 50 games a year there's no way you should be investing that much into draft scouting, IFA scouting, and prospect payroll because it means you're almost entirely disregarding your ML roster.

"First, I'll disagree with your last sentence.  50 beats 100 sometimes but, in the long run, 100 wins.    Let's not pretend, even for a moment, that this game is just a random set of results based on some numbers."


I don't think we disagree as much as it appears.  I'm not saying to make it totally random.  I'm saying increase some of the randomness.  Eliminate the "sure thing", even if it's only a small doubt.  Maybe it's considered to be random enough already by virtue of the different draft classes.  I'm totally fine if it doesn't change.  I'm much more in favor of some of the other improvements I've mentioned anyway.

As to the original idea in the original post - I am all for that, whatever threshold is used.  It's not a panacea but it would help.

There are ways to increase randomness without wrecking drafts with random busts.   The "random bust" strategy would lead many of the middle of the pack teams to skip drafting and play the 130m payroll game.    No way am I trying to find a gem at 22nd if there's a chance he'll never make the BL team.  Sign 5 Type A and let someone else develop players for me. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2011 9:01:00 AM (view original):
I didn't read all that as tuft usually has some silly comment but a program ensures consistency.    "Good business sense" doesn't.    I don't know about you but I'd prefer they be consistent.

If tuft is complaining about their admission of ignoring the game for a year and half, I agree.  I'm not real happy about that but this thread shows me that they're putting some effort into the game again.   Since I didn't leave in 2010 despite poor CS, seeing something now is encouraging. 

Mike, you are one funny MoFo!

Even when I'm agreeing with you, you argue.

Tankers are going to tank unless they know they'll lose their team.

Your minimum win threshold is the only solution.

I believe it needs humans to make the final interpretation, because there are going to be borderline cases & random events. Here are a few - taking over a team in the middle of a season, taking over a really, really bad team, being a new owner and making just 1 or 2 really dumb moves, personal crisis (like the current power outage) that might force missing key days & losing FAs & prospect to Rule 5, losing several top players to injuries in one season.  I'm sure there are more.

If WIS would just enforce private world tanking rules, the problem is solved. No more computer programming needed. Invest the resources in something else.

If at least 50% of the the returning owners that vote decide that some has broken the tanking rules, WIS should remove them from the world.

Why make it any more complex than that?

I wasn't arguing.  I simply said I didn't read everything you wrote.  Brevity is key.

I don't care about borderline cases, random events or subjective exceptions.   Under my rules, I don't make decisions, nor do the other owners, on who gets to return.   You either reach the MWR or you don't.    That's why I have no issue with a program.   Don't make it  prom queen vote where the cheerleader wins, make it black and white.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2011 11:13:00 AM (view original):

panda had some good ideas.  I like all of these:

1.  Draft Prospect Signability risk is pretty easy to figure out given the existing wording.  Allow scouts to be wrong about that. 
2.  Randomize development patterns - make them non-linear (or less like an RC time constant).  Pitchers typically develop with plateau leaps for example.
3.  Hide the non-player payroll actual numbers for every team.  No budget items should be seen by other franchises.
4.  Make signability a little less predictable - allow some guys as FAs or IFAs to sign the first offer or pick a lesser bid.  Some guys just want to play where they want or they'll sign when the first franchise offers the combination they're looking for.  Don't show contract demands - ever.  Let the bidders figure out how much they are willing to pay

But the "random bust" part of his post soured me on everything.   HBD needs the bad teams to get better and the good teams to at least level off to survive.   Randomizing the draft won't accomplish that. 

I like all of this. 

As to the original points.

1) I think 50 wins is a good floor.
2) I think the budget restraints are good. No transfers to Prospect Budget.
3) I agree with MikeT23's thoughts on draft picks.  Leave them alone.
4) I think a "Home Field Advantage rating" like that of the home court rating in HD would go a long way as well. 
5) I think making advanced scouting tie into actual ratings bonuses for players will help prevent "tanking" that budget would be important too.
6) I think the last place credit is fine if you instate these rules. 
 

Surprised no one, in all of this talk about balance, has talked about injuries.

Injuries are the great equalizer. They do not happen anywhere close to as frequent as in MLB.

More than once, when someone has ******* about so and so length of injury, I've been able to pull out the MLB disabled list, and it is almost ALWAYS longer than the WHOLE disabled list on any world you're in. Top to bottom, rookie to ML.

It's a metric that is not completely, but largely ignored. If health had even 80% of the impact it does in MLB, I'd be happier.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2011 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Or injury.   Most of the "random bust" people want a random 10th rounder to be a star but, as I've said many times, if you turn this game into a game of random chance, it loses it's appeal. 

Uh, read the thread, canuck.

Looking for where it says "not enough", you drunken fool.

Most of us know tanking when we see it.  Make it simple - let any private world advertize itself as a "no tanking" world.  If it does then let the commish boot any owner with less than 62 wins at the end of any season.  If the Commish keeps most of these owners the world will be empty in a few years.  Boot all of them and a revolt is likely.   If you join a private "no tanking" world you expect the Commish to keep it competitive, if you are not competitive you should be gone.  The important thing is to let the commish exercise some judgement.  If you are a commish and want to run a "tanking world" then do not take the designation (and good luck).  That and a cap on next years prospect budget for those not making 62 wins should do the trick.

If you want to make "advance scouting" relavent then it needs to truely be advance scouting - ie not only rate the players but where to pitch them(pitcher), what pitches to look for(hitter), where to play defense against them(fielder), etc, If paying up for advance scouting helped my pitchers, hitters, and defenders play better then it would go from a 0 to a significant number in a hurry

Randomness ruined Gridiron Dynasty. I don't want to see it ruin this game also

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2011 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I wasn't arguing.  I simply said I didn't read everything you wrote.  Brevity is key.

I don't care about borderline cases, random events or subjective exceptions.   Under my rules, I don't make decisions, nor do the other owners, on who gets to return.   You either reach the MWR or you don't.    That's why I have no issue with a program.   Don't make it  prom queen vote where the cheerleader wins, make it black and white.

Then that can be the rule in your world.

No need to pay a computer programmer to enforce it.

Posted by tufft on 11/5/2011 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2011 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I wasn't arguing.  I simply said I didn't read everything you wrote.  Brevity is key.

I don't care about borderline cases, random events or subjective exceptions.   Under my rules, I don't make decisions, nor do the other owners, on who gets to return.   You either reach the MWR or you don't.    That's why I have no issue with a program.   Don't make it  prom queen vote where the cheerleader wins, make it black and white.

Then that can be the rule in your world.

No need to pay a computer programmer to enforce it.

I second this. Mike is advocating a hard-line, no grace rule that I think overlooks the need for some human interpretation. In strenuous circumstances, should a longtime, reputed owner really be kicked out of a league based on something outside his control, especially if he can correct it by the next season?