New worlds question. Topic

orrdc
Posts: 146 (0)
Hall of Famer
101 41
Prospect
I was actually going to make a point similar to that sour. If hbd wants to encourage more people joining existing worlds a step in the right direction IMO would be letting us either a. Totally make the budget how you want it in year one, or B. at the very least give us the option to go back to the default or use the previous owners budget.
2/4/2012 5:41 PM
nauds3000
Posts: 1284 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 63 33
Prospect
I've always wondered the reasoning behind the budget restrictions for taking over a new team
2/4/2012 5:56 PM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 57 144 14
Prospect
Mike, would you classify yourself as a pessimist?
2/4/2012 8:16 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
A realist.
2/4/2012 9:31 PM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 57 144 14
Prospect
hahahaha silly me.
2/4/2012 11:21 PM
shobob
Posts: 3404 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
Posted by orrdc on 2/4/2012 5:41:00 PM (view original):
I was actually going to make a point similar to that sour. If hbd wants to encourage more people joining existing worlds a step in the right direction IMO would be letting us either a. Totally make the budget how you want it in year one, or B. at the very least give us the option to go back to the default or use the previous owners budget.
Sounds like a good suggestion.  The problem I can see with A is that if you are unhappy with your budgets,  you could create an alias and have carte blanch budgeting wise.  B I see no problem with.
2/5/2012 11:48 AM
indiansrck27
Posts: 818 (0)
Hall of Famer
221 53 238
All Star
Posted by shobob on 2/5/2012 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by orrdc on 2/4/2012 5:41:00 PM (view original):
I was actually going to make a point similar to that sour. If hbd wants to encourage more people joining existing worlds a step in the right direction IMO would be letting us either a. Totally make the budget how you want it in year one, or B. at the very least give us the option to go back to the default or use the previous owners budget.
Sounds like a good suggestion.  The problem I can see with A is that if you are unhappy with your budgets,  you could create an alias and have carte blanch budgeting wise.  B I see no problem with.
B absolutely needs to be implemented. I realize that when taking a team over you do so fully knowing you cant have the last seasons budget, and you know the contract situations and all that. But some teams taking over and starting over puts you at a severe disadvantage cause they had a high payroll prior. 
2/5/2012 11:56 AM
shobob
Posts: 3404 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
Often there is a deterrent to taking over a team with a poor record because although you will be drafting early, you cannot get your draft budgets higher than 14 each.  Personally, I think you see a good amount of prospects with 14/14 scouting, but I can see how this would be a deterrent.
2/5/2012 12:49 PM (edited)
shobob
Posts: 3404 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
Personally, I see no reason why it can't be that when a team is taken over, you could start with either 10s or the previous budgets as the starting point for each category.  For example, if a previous owner had 16 for HS scouting, and 4 for training, and the draft position was good, I would like to have the option to go to 20 for HS scouting, but also have the ability to have 10 as a starting point for training, meaning I could go up to 14 with that.  Why handcuff new owners?  They have enough of a disadvantage coming into a world as it is.
2/5/2012 12:45 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
If you think about it, there's no reason why it should go back to 10s.  It should stay with the previous owner's budgets by default.
2/5/2012 12:59 PM
orrdc
Posts: 146 (0)
Hall of Famer
101 41
Prospect
I have said that from day one tec, just leave it as is and then let owners adjust by 4 as usual, this way you know exactly what your getting into and will often be much better off than going to defaults
2/5/2012 4:41 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect
You don't want to hang a franchise out to dry though.

Guy has an aging roster, decides to play 2 more years and bail. He signs bad, long contracts to aging FAs, cuts scouting to 0/0/0/0, medical/training to single digits, and prospects to $6m. Then the team bottoms out, earns the #1 pick despite the league's highest payroll, and he ditches.

Having that 0/0/0/0 scouting with the #1 pick is going to make it tough to find an owner. Giving owners an option of basing it on te previous year's or going to 10s, is the way to go.
2/5/2012 6:06 PM
orrdc
Posts: 146 (0)
Hall of Famer
101 41
Prospect
That was pretty much my thinking
2/5/2012 11:14 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by orrdc on 2/5/2012 4:41:00 PM (view original):
I have said that from day one tec, just leave it as is and then let owners adjust by 4 as usual, this way you know exactly what your getting into and will often be much better off than going to defaults

Don't you know exactly what you're getting into now?

2/6/2012 8:13 AM
orrdc
Posts: 146 (0)
Hall of Famer
101 41
Prospect
yes, which is a reason myself and others might not be joining as many worlds as WIS would like.  I know I am going in with a handicap and so I pick and choose.  With this the teams have more of a chance.  Or you decide to default back to the norm, either way its an improvement
2/6/2012 11:42 AM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
New worlds question. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.