Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2018 4:35:00 PM (view original):
OK, you guys understand tanking isn't only going 30-132, right? You're 70-76 and 8 games out. You finish 2-14 while sitting your fatigued starters but you call no one up to save the "carryover" money. . Your minors are fine. You get a protected pick and "carryover" money. How on earth is that good?

I would disagree with your evaluation. If I were in that position what would I care if I ended up at 72 - 90 or brought up the minor league players and went 78- 84 neither is going to get me into the playoffs. So I would transfer all the funds out of payroll and into prospect in the hopes I could pick up an IFA. On the other had if you could roll budget over based on winning percentage each win is worth .6% to your winning percentage so an additional 6 wins would mean rolling over an additional 3.6% on 10million dollars that would be 360k.

Your scenario won't happen people are going to dump those last 16 games anyway unless they have a reason to fight for every win.

Posted by bfkfraser on 1/1/2018 6:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/1/2018 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure there are plenty of flaws with the idea, but I like the idea that you hinted at about next season's budget being determined by performance. I feel like that would really deter tanking.

bad idea. Its getting tougher to recruit and you want to make it more difficult by giving the better teams an advantage.

No that is not true otherwise Mike would not think it would create more tanking. Recruiting is going to continue to get harder unless we change things up. It is hard for me to refer people to the game when I have to say its a great game but ......

What we got here is a failure to communicate.


Who has 10m leftover anyway? That's just bad budgeting and no one should be rewarded for failure.

Posted by bripat42 on 1/2/2018 9:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stews_blues on 1/1/2018 11:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bfkfraser on 1/1/2018 6:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/1/2018 1:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure there are plenty of flaws with the idea, but I like the idea that you hinted at about next season's budget being determined by performance. I feel like that would really deter tanking.

bad idea. Its getting tougher to recruit and you want to make it more difficult by giving the better teams an advantage.

No that is not true otherwise Mike would not think it would create more tanking. Recruiting is going to continue to get harder unless we change things up. It is hard for me to refer people to the game when I have to say its a great game but ......

Clearly you've come up with a very clever and insightful idea -- and everyone else is just stupid for not getting on board with it.

Thank you for realizing the idea is very clever and insightful, however I don't think everyone else is stupid. I am just trying to evoke others ideas that maybe as insightful.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):
What we got here is a failure to communicate.


Who has 10m leftover anyway? That's just bad budgeting and no one should be rewarded for failure.

Yes I would agree that we have a failure to effectively communicate. Probably because we have different perspectives on the game.

Example if no one has 10M to rollover why would rolling over a couple million make a difference to you. Second I would not say having excess budget is bad budgeting but a failure to spend or waste all of your budget. You have yet to give me a concrete reason you are so against allowing some players to roll over small amounts of excess budget.

I do not want to argue this topic because I realize that HBD is not going to rewrite the game software to meet my version of what I think a 21 century simulation game should be. (I need to learn how to write my own game) My entire intent is to get ideas out there to improve the game, not to belittle anyone's ideas on how we could move this game that we all spend way to much time and money on forward.

Posted by stews_blues on 1/1/2018 11:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2018 4:35:00 PM (view original):
OK, you guys understand tanking isn't only going 30-132, right? You're 70-76 and 8 games out. You finish 2-14 while sitting your fatigued starters but you call no one up to save the "carryover" money. . Your minors are fine. You get a protected pick and "carryover" money. How on earth is that good?

I would disagree with your evaluation. If I were in that position what would I care if I ended up at 72 - 90 or brought up the minor league players and went 78- 84 neither is going to get me into the playoffs. So I would transfer all the funds out of payroll and into prospect in the hopes I could pick up an IFA. On the other had if you could roll budget over based on winning percentage each win is worth .6% to your winning percentage so an additional 6 wins would mean rolling over an additional 3.6% on 10million dollars that would be 360k.

Your scenario won't happen people are going to dump those last 16 games anyway unless they have a reason to fight for every win.

What you're failing to take into account is the fact that your games are not played in a vacuum.

You may not care what happens in your final 16 games, but others might because it may affect playoffs berths for them.

Detroit sweeping you in a four game series at seasons end, because you "don't care", might knock Buffalo out of the playoffs.

There should always be incentive to win, no matter what your record is.

Posted by stews_blues on 1/2/2018 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):
What we got here is a failure to communicate.


Who has 10m leftover anyway? That's just bad budgeting and no one should be rewarded for failure.

Yes I would agree that we have a failure to effectively communicate. Probably because we have different perspectives on the game.

Example if no one has 10M to rollover why would rolling over a couple million make a difference to you. Second I would not say having excess budget is bad budgeting but a failure to spend or waste all of your budget. You have yet to give me a concrete reason you are so against allowing some players to roll over small amounts of excess budget.

I do not want to argue this topic because I realize that HBD is not going to rewrite the game software to meet my version of what I think a 21 century simulation game should be. (I need to learn how to write my own game) My entire intent is to get ideas out there to improve the game, not to belittle anyone's ideas on how we could move this game that we all spend way to much time and money on forward.

OK, here's why it's a terrible idea:

While this is a dynasty game, it is played in individual seasons. Odds are you have new owners each and every season. Why would anyone join a world where they have to take a bad team and 185m budget while the WS winner has a great team and 188m budget?

Conversely, if it's not really going to help anyone, why are you so for it?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2018 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stews_blues on 1/2/2018 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/2/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):
What we got here is a failure to communicate.


Who has 10m leftover anyway? That's just bad budgeting and no one should be rewarded for failure.

Yes I would agree that we have a failure to effectively communicate. Probably because we have different perspectives on the game.

Example if no one has 10M to rollover why would rolling over a couple million make a difference to you. Second I would not say having excess budget is bad budgeting but a failure to spend or waste all of your budget. You have yet to give me a concrete reason you are so against allowing some players to roll over small amounts of excess budget.

I do not want to argue this topic because I realize that HBD is not going to rewrite the game software to meet my version of what I think a 21 century simulation game should be. (I need to learn how to write my own game) My entire intent is to get ideas out there to improve the game, not to belittle anyone's ideas on how we could move this game that we all spend way to much time and money on forward.

OK, here's why it's a terrible idea:

While this is a dynasty game, it is played in individual seasons. Odds are you have new owners each and every season. Why would anyone join a world where they have to take a bad team and 185m budget while the WS winner has a great team and 188m budget?

Conversely, if it's not really going to help anyone, why are you so for it?

Why would anyone pick up a team that finished 50-112, but the do to rebuild it same would go for a team with a slightly lower budget especially when that budget could increase in season 2.

It is not a terrible idea it is just an idea you don't agree with. There are leagues out there that do rollover budgets very successfully. I think what is a terrible idea is just to sit static and not discuss adding new ideas into the game. It may reinvigorate what is becoming a stale game.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/2/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stews_blues on 1/1/2018 11:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/1/2018 4:35:00 PM (view original):
OK, you guys understand tanking isn't only going 30-132, right? You're 70-76 and 8 games out. You finish 2-14 while sitting your fatigued starters but you call no one up to save the "carryover" money. . Your minors are fine. You get a protected pick and "carryover" money. How on earth is that good?

I would disagree with your evaluation. If I were in that position what would I care if I ended up at 72 - 90 or brought up the minor league players and went 78- 84 neither is going to get me into the playoffs. So I would transfer all the funds out of payroll and into prospect in the hopes I could pick up an IFA. On the other had if you could roll budget over based on winning percentage each win is worth .6% to your winning percentage so an additional 6 wins would mean rolling over an additional 3.6% on 10million dollars that would be 360k.

Your scenario won't happen people are going to dump those last 16 games anyway unless they have a reason to fight for every win.

What you're failing to take into account is the fact that your games are not played in a vacuum.

You may not care what happens in your final 16 games, but others might because it may affect playoffs berths for them.

Detroit sweeping you in a four game series at seasons end, because you "don't care", might knock Buffalo out of the playoffs.

There should always be incentive to win, no matter what your record is.

I agree that it would be nice if everyone tried to fight for every win. However if I was planning on coming back the next season am I going to promote AAA players and start their arbitration clock, am I going to use salary to win to me meaningless games and pass up on a shot to get an IFA. You have to admit even your enthusiasm for the game decreases when you are out of the play off picture.

One of the things about HBD this very good is that every team starts every season with the amount of money.

Allowing a team to under-spend for 1 or more seasons would create a whole new set of problems, while solving few. Tanking is already an issue. Mostly because it works. Moving unspent money to another season would make the problem worse.

What HBD should eliminate is the penalty for moving money from one budget to another. Not how money works in the real world and it penalizes both less experienced owners and less talented teams.

Posted by stews_blues on 1/1/2018 11:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 1/1/2018 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stews_blues on 1/1/2018 8:31:00 PM (view original):
I know I am just pushing ideas that will never be implemented. I think it is stupid not to have budget carryover we rollover players. No one has given me any reason it is bad other than tanking which is pervasive anyway. I wish HBD would give us a chance to design our own leagues. Things I would change include the budget, (rollover & transfer), coaching, scouting, and IFA. Eventually someone will come up with a better baseball simulator and HBD will go the way of all things tech until then we are stuck with what we have.

Because your idea gives teams, which are already better, an even greater advantage with more $$.

Actually no that is not true. Teams that are better normally have larger payrolls and smaller budget surpluses therefore they would have less to rollover to the next season. A team in the midst of rebuilding would have a smaller payroll and larger surplus to rollover so it would actually be an advantage to the weaker team. This is why some would say that it would promote tanking. Which is why I would suggest that the amount available to be rolled over be capped or based on some percentage. One idea would be to do a weighted winning percentage of all teams in the franchise it would discourage tanking and promoting paying attention to your minors. If HBD actually had any interest in doing something like this an analysis of the effect could be done relatively easily. .

First thing HBD should do, put attendance in. That would help in multiple ways. Think of yourself as a fan and what incentives would be implemented to convince you to go to a game. Low ticket price, GM gets players that bring hope? The financial aspect of having an attendance would give an organisation a fluctuating budget. This way, as long as the team makes a profit, the owner can set money aside for future use. This is what they call a carry-over and it would have a cap. For a carry-over to work efficiently, HBD would need for us to hire the scouting staff, physical trainers and medical staff, not just the coaching staff. There is a part of the game that has no real relevance. I am speaking about the agents who we negotiate with to get FA, IFA and all of the other players to. These agents would charge a negotiating fee. So, the longer the negotiations last, the higher the percentage fee would be. In regards to attendance, it would show how well someone is doing overall. To determine how you are doing as a GM, HBD would need to create an artificial owner to evaluate us the player periodically through the season and once at the end.

Posted by tufft on 1/18/2018 6:49:00 PM (view original):
One of the things about HBD this very good is that every team starts every season with the amount of money.

Allowing a team to under-spend for 1 or more seasons would create a whole new set of problems, while solving few. Tanking is already an issue. Mostly because it works. Moving unspent money to another season would make the problem worse.

What HBD should eliminate is the penalty for moving money from one budget to another. Not how money works in the real world and it penalizes both less experienced owners and less talented teams.

Maybe the only thing we've ever agreed on. Prospect, payroll and coaching are "cash" items. One pot. You can't take money from the others or add to them because it's another problem but putting those three together makes perfect sense.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/23/2018 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tufft on 1/18/2018 6:49:00 PM (view original):
One of the things about HBD this very good is that every team starts every season with the amount of money.

Allowing a team to under-spend for 1 or more seasons would create a whole new set of problems, while solving few. Tanking is already an issue. Mostly because it works. Moving unspent money to another season would make the problem worse.

What HBD should eliminate is the penalty for moving money from one budget to another. Not how money works in the real world and it penalizes both less experienced owners and less talented teams.

Maybe the only thing we've ever agreed on. Prospect, payroll and coaching are "cash" items. One pot. You can't take money from the others or add to them because it's another problem but putting those three together makes perfect sense.

Agreed. Can't take money from ADV after you've see the projections. Wouldn't make sense.

I don't' think the game wouldn't break if you could add money to ADV, Health, and other budgets. Haven't thought this all the way through.

imo the biggest impediment to recruiting is that when you start with the default budget of all 10s, you can't get the benefit of 20 training until the rollover after season 3, so you have to either inherit a budget you might not want or deal with the fact that your shiny top 5 draft pick is not fully developing

What they need to do is allow you to chop player payroll into training and medical also, instead of only prospect or coach. That way you could get to 20 right away (at a higher cost but it's still worth it) and allow you to invest in the development of your roster instead of just twiddling your thumbs while you wait to check for IFAs 3 times a day

I have suggested this in the past via sitemail (prior to the website being sold) and sitestaff did reply that they have actually been strongly considering this for awhile but haven't yet for various technical reasons (programming, testing, etc). So it's probably unfortunate that the sale went thru when it did because any plans to update the game are probably dead and we're back to the crickets of 2013-2016

Another thing I agree with when I normally don't agree with either of you. The first thing I do, if I have to start with 14m in training, is trade 1st-2nd year guys and 31+ y/o. 14m is a killer to development/decline.