i liked the change that we no longer see current ratings for IFA & draft players & rely on what you put into those scouting reports to give a projection. i have no problem with that as i see it as killing the super low budget settings for scouting & just exponentially deriving a projection from the current over time etc. but i DO have a problem that spending almost the maximum allowed in that scouting produces shaky & somewhat non reliable results. The guy i just drafted for instance went from 150+ innings to maybe 50 i guess at best and totally changes his value for me. if i saw 4 durability from the start he wouldn't even have been on my board as eligible to be taken at all. From an 86 overall to 73 at pick 3 with 18/18 is just heartbreaking.

Seems like the changes would prevent people from tanking since a top draft pick is no longer a guaranteed thing....

i also believe the changes to the DITR handles the comments re: "we wanted 12 th rounders to be BL players" i think that works well in addressing that for me. I only want the $ sunk into scouting to be worth the investment. Is it intentionally designed to be all a crap shoot where nothing is reliable towards the draft or IFA just to make everyone follow a win now play mode?

Nothing stops people from tanking.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/4/2016 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Nothing stops people from tanking.

true, but maybe this is intentional to try & curb that further, idk. i do know i felt like what's the point in this draft & my allocation to the scouting budget after yesterday. it was a huge letdown, more so than even when you get those 360 day tommy john injuries on a 98 health player

Haha

It just makes tanking less of a sure thing. Before, if you were willing to lose for 4-5 seasons with a 32m payroll, you could collect 10-15 top flight players(1-2 draft, 1-2 high $$$ IFA). Now, some of those might miss. So, instead of 4-5 fifty win seasons, the tanker might go 6-8 seasons before saying "screw it" and trying something/somewhere else.

79 stam

93 cnt

80 vsL

85 vsR

93 vel

100 gb

91

71

65 pitches

with 91 health & 85 makeup projected......this is using my 20 mil advance after signing.....all that with 4 durability though instead of 15....oh, what could have been, lol

If WIS just published the truth behind some of the things that are speculated about in this thread, most of these issues would be resolved.

Other strategy games that require you to make decisions on how to deploy your resources give more info on what you get for your $$ and the risks and probabilities of your choices. And thus you can be ****** when you get a bad outcome, but you can also see that it won't happen most of the time.

I don't see any downside to publishing exactly what 20 HS buys us.

Maybe it's you'll see 80% of all the HS prospects. Of those 50% will have project ratings within 5% of their max ratings if they are developed perfectly (which they'd also have to define). 25% will be off by 5-10%. 25% will be off by 10-25%.

HS of 10 means you'll see 60% of all HS prospects. Maybe the same accuracy within that, or maybe not.

Knowing the logic behind the game does not ruin the game.

i wish that was available & stop messing with durability & stamina as wildly varying - for hitters too, if the splits or power/contact or eye or speed or defense goes a bit up or down fine but i got to know if he can play everyday or is a starter vs reliever from my scouting

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/4/2016 1:53:00 PM (view original):
It just makes tanking less of a sure thing. Before, if you were willing to lose for 4-5 seasons with a 32m payroll, you could collect 10-15 top flight players(1-2 draft, 1-2 high $$$ IFA). Now, some of those might miss. So, instead of 4-5 fifty win seasons, the tanker might go 6-8 seasons before saying "screw it" and trying something/somewhere else.

The tanker might say 'screw it' and quit HBD.


FTFY.

That's not a bad thing either.