Everyone should know it is very important to have a very high budget for the category of "Training," and most would say it is nearly as important to have a high or very high "Medical" budget.

So, how difficult would it be for WIS programmers to get off their duffs and allow new GM's to be free to play this game and set categories, so we are not punished for taking on a new franchise?

I agree, but I'm pretty sure that there is a suggestion area around here somewhere...

Also, if it the system weren't the way it is, it might open up an alias abuse can of worms (more so than there already is)

I find it annoying when I take over a team.  However, it's a DYNASTY game.   You're supposed to BUILD your DYNASTY.  

Yeah, but that's no excuse to maintain a truly outmoded limitation. Six years ago, no one - including WIS programmers -- knew anything about anything when it came to budget impact on the game. Allowing owners to set the initial budget any way they want might encourage a few more to consider taking on new teams.

And alias abuse has nothing to do with anything ... AW isn't talking about noobs, he's talking about new owners of a franchise. Duh.

Just sayin' that it's the way the game was set-up.   If you don't have a plan, or the patience, to deal with 4m increments, you need to re-evaluate your plan.  Or lack thereof.

Posted by jsturgis5866 on 9/4/2012 10:43:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, but that's no excuse to maintain a truly outmoded limitation. Six years ago, no one - including WIS programmers -- knew anything about anything when it came to budget impact on the game. Allowing owners to set the initial budget any way they want might encourage a few more to consider taking on new teams.

And alias abuse has nothing to do with anything ... AW isn't talking about noobs, he's talking about new owners of a franchise. Duh.

Alias abuse does have something to do with it. If you take off restrictions and allow a new owner to move categories as he likes then I could spend 20 mil on my advance scouting and on nailing down IFA's and then the next year take over with my alias and IFA and Advance on 0 and bump Training and Medical to 20.

exactly

$4 mill might be too restrictive, but there should be some limits.  In reality, you would not be able to get the infrastructure for International scouting from 0 to 20 in a year -- or any other area either.  If you could change it, I'd be tempted to sign free agents with $10 million bonuses in a year (and cheaper $$ in future years) in year 1 with little to nothing in medical.  I could leave and comeback (with an alias) and make that medical change.  Be more selective in taking over teams, or join leagues where a commish will spot problems coming.

A nice solution to this might be that an owner taking over a franchise could have the option to take over the previous owner's budget settings or start from 10 across the board.  As it is now, the budget reset is a definite disincentive to taking over a team.  Gee, I wish there was a suggestion forum or something like that around here.

Posted by kneeneighbor on 9/4/2012 11:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jsturgis5866 on 9/4/2012 10:43:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, but that's no excuse to maintain a truly outmoded limitation. Six years ago, no one - including WIS programmers -- knew anything about anything when it came to budget impact on the game. Allowing owners to set the initial budget any way they want might encourage a few more to consider taking on new teams.

And alias abuse has nothing to do with anything ... AW isn't talking about noobs, he's talking about new owners of a franchise. Duh.

Alias abuse does have something to do with it. If you take off restrictions and allow a new owner to move categories as he likes then I could spend 20 mil on my advance scouting and on nailing down IFA's and then the next year take over with my alias and IFA and Advance on 0 and bump Training and Medical to 20.

And what in blazes would be wrong with being able to set the numbers any way we choose, in the first place? These limitations are arbitrary. Real baseball (for which this is supposed to be a fun simulation) has freedom to set budgets however franchise management chooses. If anything, there should be min/max parameters and we should have complete freedom to set our various budget categories within them.

The present system needs modification. I suggest it be to this.

Ronald Reagan said, "The nearest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.”  Then again, he never played Hardball Dynasty.

Posted by shobob on 9/4/2012 9:21:00 PM (view original):
I agree, but I'm pretty sure that there is a suggestion area around here somewhere...

That was not a specific suggestion. It was a customer complaint. I'm getting to a suggestion as you may now see thank you, by means of the discussion here. I may then post the suggestion in the suggestion forum. Perhaps MikeT23, for whatever reasons he does anything in these forums however, will post a suggestion before I do, that we keep everything the way it is.  

Truthfully, it's only restrictive for one season(unless you believe 18m is just unmanageable).    Move your old players if their physical ratings are declining(almost everyone says "Anyone over 28 available" anyway).    Look at your 2nd/3rd year players.  If they have a lot of physical development to do, move them.   Everybody wants prospects anyway so they won't be hard to move.   Anyone under 30-31 and in their 4th+ season won't be hurt by 14m in training. 

There.  Problem solved.  You're welcome.

After careful consideration, 14m in training/medical isn't nearly as crippling, IMO, as 14m in Coll/HS scouting(or IFA if that's your cup 'o tea) and 6m in ADV.  I can work with 14m in training/medical(see above) but forcing me to spend 6m in ADV hurts.   As does limiting me in amatuer scouting.    Not much worse than having a top 5 pick and 14m in scouting if you ask me.

Philo had a pretty good discussion going awhile back, I bumped the thread titled "less than a rant".

Mostly, owners seem fine with it as is, was the impression I got.