Posted by rbedwell on 5/26/2015 11:44:00 PM (view original):
I'm fine with change, but I think it is total b.s. that they impose an immediate change that seems to put a premium on advanced scouting budget when they know that many of their best customers have low advanced scouting budgets AND they refuse to alter the 4 mil rule for budget increases. This makes it punitive, as if these owners are being unethical, or cheating in some way, or whatever. As I say, I'm quite alright with the challenge of new rules, but putting many of the people who have invested the most money into the game in a position where it will take them FOUR seasons to get their advanced scouting budget up to snuff? That is extremely poor customer service, or worse. 

Isn't this kind of a moot point, since the change doesn't really make that big of a difference? Nobody who was at 0 adv before is really going to suffer now. In fact, I'd wager about 80% of us are going to stay at 0.

Anyway, even if adv were a lot more important now, the $4 limit has always been part of the game. $20 training is crucial, and it's always taken 3 seasons to get there. This is kind of the same concept. If you want to make a dramatic change in your budget, you have to pay your dues and take your lumps for a few seasons. No shortcuts.

One of my biggest gripes against the game is joining a new world and being constrained to a 14/14 Training/Medical budget in year 1. Cant tell you how many injuries I've sustained on new teams until I can hit 20/20 in year 3.

I propose new owners be allowed to set any medical/training they wish in Year 1. But forever after they will be constrained by the usual $4M increments. This would save more than a few careers of quality players. My 2 cents . . . 

Posted by jrnyfan01 on 5/26/2015 6:04:00 PM (view original):
I have been #1 on an International bid ping pong paddle for the last 75 hours now with no movement. Anything to change this process would be welcomed by me at this point.

After 84 hours, I was able to get my guy. Very pleased with the outcome. Not so happy with the process .

Posted by rbedwell on 5/26/2015 11:44:00 PM (view original):
I'm fine with change, but I think it is total b.s. that they impose an immediate change that seems to put a premium on advanced scouting budget when they know that many of their best customers have low advanced scouting budgets AND they refuse to alter the 4 mil rule for budget increases. This makes it punitive, as if these owners are being unethical, or cheating in some way, or whatever. As I say, I'm quite alright with the challenge of new rules, but putting many of the people who have invested the most money into the game in a position where it will take them FOUR seasons to get their advanced scouting budget up to snuff? That is extremely poor customer service, or worse. 

You probably need to elaborate on why the change places a premium on ADV.    As a long-time 0 ADV owner, I'm not budging.  The ONLY downside is being unable to see development patterns in young players in trade.  So, for me, instead of trading for a 2nd year guy and crossing my fingers, I'll trade for 3rd year guys who look pretty close to BL level.  

Posted by arcticlegend on 5/27/2015 12:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rbedwell on 5/26/2015 11:44:00 PM (view original):
I'm fine with change, but I think it is total b.s. that they impose an immediate change that seems to put a premium on advanced scouting budget when they know that many of their best customers have low advanced scouting budgets AND they refuse to alter the 4 mil rule for budget increases. This makes it punitive, as if these owners are being unethical, or cheating in some way, or whatever. As I say, I'm quite alright with the challenge of new rules, but putting many of the people who have invested the most money into the game in a position where it will take them FOUR seasons to get their advanced scouting budget up to snuff? That is extremely poor customer service, or worse. 

Isn't this kind of a moot point, since the change doesn't really make that big of a difference? Nobody who was at 0 adv before is really going to suffer now. In fact, I'd wager about 80% of us are going to stay at 0.

Anyway, even if adv were a lot more important now, the $4 limit has always been part of the game. $20 training is crucial, and it's always taken 3 seasons to get there. This is kind of the same concept. If you want to make a dramatic change in your budget, you have to pay your dues and take your lumps for a few seasons. No shortcuts.

+1

The other thing worth mentioning is that if there are a number of other owners who are already at 0 ADV, then they are in the same boat as you and there is no inherent disadvantage to being restricted to a $4m limit if you feel an overwhelming need to move towards $20m.

If you're one of few owners at 0 ADV, then you've already had your "advantage" by gaming the system (as many of us have also been doing), and it's finally caught up to you.  Oh well.

Posted by tufft on 5/26/2015 7:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rockindock on 5/26/2015 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchales_army on 5/26/2015 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Like 35% have voted NO on the poll.

Is there a legitimate reason an owner might think that they should be able to see this info?

I wish someone who has voted NO would respond. I must be missing something.

I would like us to be able to see no budget info for other teams during the current season.  And all budget info from past season.

Past season info is a good way for newbies to learn.

The way the survey is worded, this option can't be voted for.

tuft, if I was starting this game today the first thing I would do is go to:

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=375620&TopicsTimeframe=30.

I would ask someone to mentor me. I'm quite sure advice would be freely given regarding budgeting.

At the end of the day, if someone wants to learn, they can ask many, many people.    No one in the real world wants to hear us speak of our fake baseball teams.   So this is the only outlet to talk about HBD. 

 

Hiding currents from IFAs and the Draft is pointless. All these changes did is that I will never want to draft again. Like I know they never changed how projections work, and before you could tell some projections were very wrong even at 20/20 by looking at the difference between current and projected. Now it is just a complete crap shoot.

I will now be able to zero out 4 budgets forever and not care. That is what this did. Why bother having college, high school or IFA if I can not get an accurate read of that players skill.

All they had to do was make current fuzzy based on scouting. So if it is an IFA your current could be way wrong at 2 IFA, same with high school or college. That would make sense. Hire ****** scouts get ****** reports, but no instead our scouts have no idea how good or bad of a player they are right now but they can tell you how good they will be! It makes no ******* sense.

Anybody who says that hiding the current ratings for IFAs and the draft is "pointless" has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the point of doing that is.

Again . . . this is not meant to model real life.  It's closing a loophole in a computer simulation game.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/27/2015 9:25:00 AM (view original):
Anybody who says that hiding the current ratings for IFAs and the draft is "pointless" has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the point of doing that is.

Again . . . this is not meant to model real life.  It's closing a loophole in a computer simulation game.

I get that, but I am saying it makes the game to unrealistic for me to want to play because even when I had 20/20 draft scouting I could tell some projections are wrong and I know they did not change that.

It is just as simple to make currents be based on the scouting until signed. So IFA current is based on IFA scouting, high school prospects current ratings are based on HS scouting and college prospects current ratings are based on College scouting. So like if you have 0/0 hs/college then not only will you get laughably wrong projections, you will get laughably wrong currents. Just to weird to have no current projections.

Also with IFA certain players only had value because they were already ML ready. You will never be able to tell that anymore. Guys like Mac Kida (http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=6245208) will never be signed now or at least not as contested.

Posted by fervus on 5/27/2015 9:16:00 AM (view original):

 

 

Hiding currents from IFAs and the Draft is pointless. All these changes did is that I will never want to draft again. Like I know they never changed how projections work, and before you could tell some projections were very wrong even at 20/20 by looking at the difference between current and projected. Now it is just a complete crap shoot.

I will now be able to zero out 4 budgets forever and not care. That is what this did. Why bother having college, high school or IFA if I can not get an accurate read of that players skill.

All they had to do was make current fuzzy based on scouting. So if it is an IFA your current could be way wrong at 2 IFA, same with high school or college. That would make sense. Hire ****** scouts get ****** reports, but no instead our scouts have no idea how good or bad of a player they are right now but they can tell you how good they will be! It makes no ******* sense.

 

Congratulations! In 64 pages of comment on the update, this could be the most ridiculous thing posted. If that's what you were going for, mission accomplished.

Way back when this all started, on the very first day of the other thread, MikeT23 speculated that it could easily lead to more owners simply zeroing everything out and only investing in veteran free agents.

Right now that's a largely unpopular strategy, but it could gain traction. 

Posted by damag on 5/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way back when this all started, on the very first day of the other thread, MikeT23 speculated that it could easily lead to more owners simply zeroing everything out and only investing in veteran free agents.

Right now that's a largely unpopular strategy, but it could gain traction. 

Never happen.

There are simply not enough free agents to make it worth while.

Posted by rockindock on 5/27/2015 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by damag on 5/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way back when this all started, on the very first day of the other thread, MikeT23 speculated that it could easily lead to more owners simply zeroing everything out and only investing in veteran free agents.

Right now that's a largely unpopular strategy, but it could gain traction. 

Never happen.

There are simply not enough free agents to make it worth while.

It's certainly how I am most likely to budget going forward.

Posted by alleyviper on 5/27/2015 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rockindock on 5/27/2015 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by damag on 5/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way back when this all started, on the very first day of the other thread, MikeT23 speculated that it could easily lead to more owners simply zeroing everything out and only investing in veteran free agents.

Right now that's a largely unpopular strategy, but it could gain traction. 

Never happen.

There are simply not enough free agents to make it worth while.

It's certainly how I am most likely to budget going forward.

By choosing to do that, you are essentially "funneling" all the IFAs and draftees to a smaller pool of owners.  They get young, cheap cost-controlled talent while you focus on older and more expensive talent.

Doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy in the long run, born in a knee-jerk reaction to something you either don't like or don't understand about the update.

Good luck with that.