There's no "essentially" in a sim.  I can see what you're saying, but when it's coupled with the actual responses that tell you where you stand, I think it becomes pretty clear, especially since there's no other parties involved in a draftee negotiation.  You never have to guess if someone wants more money in this game.

Posted by AlCheez on 9/3/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):
There's no "essentially" in a sim.  I can see what you're saying, but when it's coupled with the actual responses that tell you where you stand, I think it becomes pretty clear, especially since there's no other parties involved in a draftee negotiation.  You never have to guess if someone wants more money in this game.

So you think logically in real life, if a player says that "hmm I'm not sure if I want to go back to college or not", the GM will assume that throwing more money at the player would not affect the decision then?

How about you personally, if you were the player? A few extra hundred thousand wouldn't influence your decision at all?

It is far from clear that offering the player more money will have no effect. Clearly I did have to guess, because if it were the clear that offering more money wouldn't help, then the response the player would be something like: "this decision isn't about money, it's about whether I value playing pro ball or going back to college, and there is nothing you can do that will influence my decision, so please give me a week to decide".

This isn't real life - it's a sim game, a sim game in which when people want more money, they tell you they want more money and don't ask you to read between the lines.

Posted by AlCheez on 9/3/2013 1:10:00 PM (view original):
This isn't real life - it's a sim game, a sim game in which when people want more money, they tell you they want more money and don't ask you to read between the lines.

If this was the case, then I would be the only who would have had this same question. Damag said he was in the exact same situation that I was in too, which clearly shows that the game is not being clear. 

Ok, I really don't want this to feel antagonistic- I don't want you or Mike ignoring future questions I have just because I'm  trying to defend the logic that led me to where I am now. You can say that there is only way to interpret the responses from the game, but clearly there are multiple ways to interpret responses otherwise everyone would reach the same conclusion you do, which goes along with my point that the game is ambiguous at times.  

What I said is indisputably the case.  In negotiations, you are ALWAYS told in no uncertain terms when you need to offer more.  

Posted by AlCheez on 9/3/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):
What I said is indisputably the case.  In negotiations, you are ALWAYS told in no uncertain terms when you need to offer more.  

 

Whether that makes it clear enough is certainly up for debate, but I wouldn't say that 2 people having issues with it is conclusive proof that it isn't.  I'm also not suggesting that you're the only two people to ever misunderstand.

 

 

No you aren't. A MiLB FA will choose an identical MiLB contract to the one you have, but say that you need to increase the money, thus showing that it's not always about the money even if the message says that it is since the MiLB uses playing time and coaching as tie breakers in this situation. 

Posted by bglick on 9/3/2013 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 9/3/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):
What I said is indisputably the case.  In negotiations, you are ALWAYS told in no uncertain terms when you need to offer more.  

 

Whether that makes it clear enough is certainly up for debate, but I wouldn't say that 2 people having issues with it is conclusive proof that it isn't.  I'm also not suggesting that you're the only two people to ever misunderstand.

 

 

No you aren't. A MiLB FA will choose an identical MiLB contract to the one you have, but say that you need to increase the money, thus showing that it's not always about the money even if the message says that it is since the MiLB uses playing time and coaching as tie breakers in this situation. 

Replace "offer more" with "make offer better" then.    You're told when you need to do something more, even in situations when you actually really can't.  In the situation you describe, if you were allowed to offer more, the other factors wouldn't come in to play.

Posted by AlCheez on 9/3/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bglick on 9/3/2013 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 9/3/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):
What I said is indisputably the case.  In negotiations, you are ALWAYS told in no uncertain terms when you need to offer more.  

 

Whether that makes it clear enough is certainly up for debate, but I wouldn't say that 2 people having issues with it is conclusive proof that it isn't.  I'm also not suggesting that you're the only two people to ever misunderstand.

 

 

No you aren't. A MiLB FA will choose an identical MiLB contract to the one you have, but say that you need to increase the money, thus showing that it's not always about the money even if the message says that it is since the MiLB uses playing time and coaching as tie breakers in this situation. 

Replace "offer more" with "make offer better" then.    You're told when you need to do something more, even in situations when you actually really can't.  In the situation you describe, if you were allowed to offer more, the other factors wouldn't come in to play.

Ok but the MiLB player asks you to offer you more money specifically, when in reality he's trying to increase his playing time.


The point I'm making is that the game is ambiguous and not 100% clear as you make it out to be. 

Indisputably, if the game wanted the message to be clear, the game would have the draft pick say specifically that increasing the money wouldn't help and that by increasing the amount of money I would negate my chances to get a comp pick. 

I never said the game was 100% clear.  I did say that you will be told 100% of the time if you need a better offer to sign a player.  And that's true, whether what more you need to do is completely clear from the message in a tiebreaker situation or not.

Posted by AlCheez on 9/3/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):
I never said the game was 100% clear.  I did say that you will be told 100% of the time if you need a better offer to sign a player.  And that's true, whether what more you need to do is completely clear from the message in a tiebreaker situation or not.

If you don't need to make a better offer then, then they should use the symbol with the "1" in it, not the symbol that is used when a player/coach won't sign that same offer unless it is improved. This seems logical to me, regardless of what the message says. In all my experience, whenever I've seen the empty spy glass symbol it means I have to improve my offer. Thus I improved my offer in this situation, despite the message not SPECIFICALLY saying to do so. If I had gotten a symbol with the 1 in it or a completely different symbol since this situation is unique to draft negotiations, then I would have not increased my offer. 

However, it seems that to you, since you interpreted it a different way, everyone must interpret it the same way as you. 

You keep saying what you think the system SHOULD do. Everyone else is responding by telling you what the system DOES do. AlCheez is not interpreting anything; he is telling you what the facts are about how the system works. Could it be clearer? Yes. Can it be confusing? Yes. Does it mirror real life? Of course not. Is WIS going to change it any time soon? Not a prayer.

Obviously it seems logical that you can increase your chances of signing a draft pick who is hesitating by increasing your offer. That doesn't change the fact that increasing your offer does no such thing. Whether you like that or agree with that, it remains a fact.

Posted by joshkvt on 9/3/2013 3:21:00 PM (view original):
You keep saying what you think the system SHOULD do. Everyone else is responding by telling you what the system DOES do. AlCheez is not interpreting anything; he is telling you what the facts are about how the system works. Could it be clearer? Yes. Can it be confusing? Yes. Does it mirror real life? Of course not. Is WIS going to change it any time soon? Not a prayer.

Obviously it seems logical that you can increase your chances of signing a draft pick who is hesitating by increasing your offer. That doesn't change the fact that increasing your offer does no such thing. Whether you like that or agree with that, it remains a fact.

The reason we were arguing about it is because we're just debating whether it's fair that I won't get a comp pick if he doesn't sign. 

If I it had been more clear that increasing my offer wouldn't help and subsequently that I wouldn't get a comp pick by doing so, I wouldn't have done it. 

But forget it, this argument has gotten out of hand. We'll see what happens. 

Have you sent a ticket asking whether there's a way to ensure that you can still get the comp pick?

Yep, hopefully they take pity :) 

When you have a contract offer to an FA, and you get a message that someone is outbidding you, your offer status in effect until you do something. When you increase the offer, THAT withdraws the previous contract offer and institutes the next one. It's a nuance that you may say isn't obvious, but it actually does show that very information on the player's FA page. It shows all your previous contract offers and your current one. It says the other offers were all withdrawn.

It's not especially intuitive, I will grant that, but since you seem to want to compare the two systems, that's your connection right there.