Posted by mattedesa on 1/21/2021 3:53:00 PM (view original):
My understanding about the re-write is that it is as much a technical issue as it is a functionality issue. The last couple people running this site talked about making changes, but it sounds like they found it exceedingly difficult because of the ancient coding architecture it was built upon. It's a bit like patching up an old building. Sure, it seems easier to patch an old building than to build a new one, but eventually, it gets harder and harder to find a way to make it stable, and you spend more time and money repairing the building than is practical, so it makes more sense to rebuild from scratch.

Eventually, once the code for this site is re-written with a modern system under the hood, it will be much easier for the coders to work with and work on. I don't get the idea that a rebuild would necessarily be all that noticeable to the end user, but while they're rebuilding, they may as well rebuild with a few tweaks that the community wants.

It's completely possible I'm misunderstanding the situation, and if that's the case, I hope someone who really knows will explain it better.

You know what, you're entirely correct here. I forgot about the old code problem when I posted my last post. That's why a re-write would be necessary, it is what would enable the return of Live play among other things. There probably would be no noticeable difference or only small differences, if any, in actual gameplay, but rewriting would absolutely allow them to make quicker updates as well as add features we currently don't have (Live play, full mobile optimization, etc)

After reading through all of these posts, I voted for $80mm, with some caveats that highlight interesting ideas by others presented above:

1) I am in the camp of wanting to attract new players, and the easiest way to not have them show up and get smashed is to LOWER the cap. Not by much, because people will still want their "favorites" to fit in the cap...so I like the $75mm number that many have thrown out.
2) Someone else mentioned $85mm, with no AAA - I love this idea. I like $80mm with no AAA...it effectively lowers the overall cap (to my earlier point), and removes the AAA issues that many have.
3) My last caveat goes into the 're-write' discussion - why not limit the fatigue effects in all leagues, or just OLs? That absolutely destroys new players who don't know how to manage it, and is part of the reason for everybody needing AAA in the first place.

Long story short: lower the cap, eliminate AAA, lessen the fatigue effects --> these will all help new players, should not adversely affect any "non-predatory" veterans and generally keep us in a good salary range that is familiar and reasonably accurate, performance wise.

Dynamic Pricing reset is a great idea, even a necessary one, but an entire debate altogether...

Posted by tpistolas on 1/21/2021 5:10:00 PM (view original):
After reading through all of these posts, I voted for $80mm, with some caveats that highlight interesting ideas by others presented above:

1) I am in the camp of wanting to attract new players, and the easiest way to not have them show up and get smashed is to LOWER the cap. Not by much, because people will still want their "favorites" to fit in the cap...so I like the $75mm number that many have thrown out.
2) Someone else mentioned $85mm, with no AAA - I love this idea. I like $80mm with no AAA...it effectively lowers the overall cap (to my earlier point), and removes the AAA issues that many have.
3) My last caveat goes into the 're-write' discussion - why not limit the fatigue effects in all leagues, or just OLs? That absolutely destroys new players who don't know how to manage it, and is part of the reason for everybody needing AAA in the first place.

Long story short: lower the cap, eliminate AAA, lessen the fatigue effects --> these will all help new players, should not adversely affect any "non-predatory" veterans and generally keep us in a good salary range that is familiar and reasonably accurate, performance wise.

Dynamic Pricing reset is a great idea, even a necessary one, but an entire debate altogether...

I think those are all great caveats.

My only thought, more just for further discussion, is in regards to the fatigue points above. I understand your reasoning and agree with that being a big reason for needing AAA. My thought, is that anything of this sort will be better utilized by veteran owners than newer owners. While it would benefit newer owners who don’t understand fatigue, owners who do understand it would be able to use it to build slimmer pitching staffs and more potent offenses.

Just throwing this out there I've not yet seen offered regards keeping or ridding of AAA and/or disclaimers within, but why couldn't an easy fix be drafting a 33-player team, and it's our option which to keep on the 25-man active roster within typical bat/arm min/max lineup allotment ?

Yes, I'm aware the probable first negative issue might be why pay from our budget maybe 2Mil per when we're typically given them for 200K ? Maybe that could be acknowledged and accounted for with a bump in total budget ? Just a thought.

They have to put the game on an updated software. Old code on old software isn't compatible for today's use. I'm no programmer, but I know you can't run new, demanding games on outdated software. It's a transfer, if you don't like the term rewrite. Perhaps Adam will elaborate...

Tarek wrote this almost 25 years ago. It is archaic by today's standards...

Posted by milest on 1/21/2021 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dannyjoe on 1/20/2021 11:25:00 PM (view original):
This might be a crazy idea from someone who can't remember his last open league, but... if the goals are to freshen things up for established players, and make it more interesting (and winnable) for new players, maybe give the newer players a little more cap room than the more established players they are facing in the same open league. Make it an 80M cap for absolute newbies, but decrease the cap proportionately to a user's experience. Maybe build that in as a manager+GM salary that counts against the cap. Chargingryno has a manager/GM who has won 27,838 games on this sim, so he should be expensive... count him as taking up $2,783,800 out of the $80 M cap. TulsaG has won 7223, so his experience would cost him $722,300 of cap space. There would probably have to be a limit on how much you penalize any user, and it might be better to count only Open League experience. It's only a rough idea, would definitely need some work... But it could be a fresh, interesting challenge if you have to build toward a lower salary cap every time you join a new open league.

Please do not consider this suggestion... would be my suggestion

Limit this to a theme league. Ozomatli runs a theme league like this, where the base salary cap is $110M. He creates a formula to adjust each owner's cap based on their success in the SIM. You may have some well over $120M playing against $100-105M teams. I wouldn't consider applying this to everyday leagues...

Realism would be seeing back ends of rotations utilizing guys like Omar Olivares or Dave Giusti. Most real life teams don't have 4 or 5 solid starters. They have a .245 hitting SS, guys like Leron Lee or Harrison Bader seeing playing time in the outfield. Your 5th starter would be a 1.20-1.30 WHIP guy that you hope is due to improve. A near the top of your rotation guy might be Tewksbury or Gubicza...A standard type team here might be in that $68-72M range, given where salaries currently sit...

The roster I just entered in my $75M Open League is overall much stronger than the 1968 Reds roster($70.1M), which was a pretty solid roster, all things considered...

Another comparison:

2009 Yankees won the WS, they currently weigh in at $74.9M...

I think if you're looking for a realistic cap number, put those Open league teams right up there against those actual rosters of MLB teams. Their performance should look about right where you'd expect them to be. Perhaps beta test an Open League using $70M, or at $75M....open league teams shouldn't be All Star teams, right? You put your Open league entry right up against those 2009 Yankees, who won their WS that season. Right off the bat you have an opportunity to pit your guys against a Championship team. A strong selling point for new players. Go up against Jeter, ARod, Posada, Sabathia and Sandman...


Let it be known that we strive for a realistic feel here, that the higher cap leagues allow you to bring in those marquee players...at the standard cap your team will have weak links in the chain, holes you may hope to fill through your AAA callups...

Evidence that dynamic pricing and/or a salary adjustment is sorely needed:

1931 Athletics weigh in at $84M. Good offense, lousy pitching staff...they play poorly heads up against a quality $80M team...

1927 Yankees $110M. Terribly overpriced marquee players.

My 2 cents is that $75M Open Leagues would get more votes than dropping it down to $70M, but only shaving off $5M from the current $80M isn't much of a hindrance. You can still put a pretty good club on the field at $75M...the realistic number is south of there...

The question is all about how realistic do you WANT it to be?

Posted by DoctorKz on 1/21/2021 8:56:00 PM (view original):
My 2 cents is that $75M Open Leagues would get more votes than dropping it down to $70M, but only shaving off $5M from the current $80M isn't much of a hindrance. You can still put a pretty good club on the field at $75M...the realistic number is south of there...

Agree with this 100%

Attracting and keeping new players will likely require a balance of realism, a level playing field, and entertainment. The "real" simulation, and most level playing field, is probably closer to 60mm (I play a lot of low cap leagues and the team by team variance is as expected, much lower. My 70mm theme usually has the entire league finish between .400 and .600 win %). However, will the new players be entertained by that .245 SS or Dave Giusti going every fourth game? I like that, because I love the realism, but I feel like the greatest audience we want to attract will want to be able to afford DeGrom or Trout. So in my mind 60 is far too low, but 80 is too high to minimize the variance enough (unless other factors are addressed, per my previous post). That's why I stuck my finger in the air and threw out 75 as my suggestion.

There's no right answer and opinions will vary, so we just have to find the common middle ground.

You CAN afford Trout or deGrom, but not without making sacrifices elsewhere on your roster. A challenge? How refreshing...

The ***** here is usually tied to how many players underperform, and how much they underperform. If you cram Dimaggio onto a $70M roster, he might just perk up and lead your team to glory...a marquee player at that cap stands a better chance at dominating, what you would expect, the man against boys...