Baseball Mogul 2009 Feature Poll (Week of 11/18)

[ohms_law]

I'll put this up now with a few of the more commonly requested feature requests. Be sure to specify exactly what you want in a post here, including additional poll options for next weeks poll.

The idea with these polls is to make a choice. If you could direct Clay to implement one and only one feature, what would it be?

Be sure to offer additional choices for the next poll as well. Now is the time to speak out, so be sure to Vote!

regarding scheduling, I happen to know that the schedule is already being worked on so there's no need for anything to do with the schedule being a poll option.

The list is in reverse order of votes from the previous week's poll (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=161829).

[Coach Owens]

Voted for players being killed (accidents, disease, etc) and to add on to that a little bit, have headlines about the player, just because it's realistic. Like I said when I first mentioned it. Every player in baseball doesn't die after they retire, a lot have died in their 30s and 20s during their playing career. (Gehrig in '39, Hancock this year, Lidle last year, Darr and Kile in 2002 and Munson in '79, to name a few.)

[danifestmestny]

Voted full minor leagues. Again I'd like to ask as part of that, a more realistic treatment for the DL rather than arbitrary movement between levels and the DL.

I'd really be opposed to the Players Dying option. It's not something that happens enough in real life to spend time on to include in the game, plus there's the chance that it happens a little too often and you have a player dying every other year or something ridiculous.

The point of improvements to suggest (imo) are to make the game more enjoyable and playable. Players dying doesn't do that. Part of making the game more enjoyable is making it more realistic, sure, but do you really want the developers to spend their time on such a minor thing - that really won't be noticed often if done right - or have them expand the management of farm systems or allow you to control the 40 man roster yourself or include expansion drafts?

Dying players would be a unique - in a sense enjoyable - quirk for BM09, but it sure as heck wouldn't make the game more fun for me to play.

edit: I guess I'll highlight my proposal for a more realistic version of DL management below my main post in the hopes it gets noticed and included in next week's vote.

edit 2: Just to reiterate about the dead player thing (sorry coach owens, nothing personal) but here is a list of major leaguers who died while active players. (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/lists/died-active.shtml) There are 76 names on that list. SABR says that 15,213 people have played "major league" baseball since 1871 (the year the National Association was founded). If you want to start at 1901 lets take it down to 13,000 or so. That means .006% of major league baseball players have died while active players. Not exactly a pattern that'd get noticed very often in the game if it were made to reflect those numbers.

[ohms_law]

edit: I guess I'll highlight my proposal for a more realistic version of DL management below my main post in the hopes it gets noticed and included in next week's vote.
I'd think that DL management would be under the umbrella of 40 man roster rules. That's the only reason to enforce any DL roster restrictions, anyway.

[Anubis]

My vote goes to the 40 man roster and I agree that doing players randomly dying would be a horrible idea that would only end up causing problems and wouldn't be worth implementing while there are still other issues to work out. Maybe one day you can include it as a check-box option in game setup but honestly, that should be like the last priority on the entire list. As Danifest pointed out, you average less then a dozen randomly dead players in a generation and the chances that all of them otherwise being life long major league players is really small, so you would get maybe 6 dead average+ major league players in 40 years of sim...

[kenny1234]

I voted for 40 man rosters because I think it would help competitive balance. My only concern is that the AI doesn't do a particularly good job of evaluating players other than during the draft and this might just highlight this flaw. For example, I don't think there is much point implementing a waiver wire if people just need to create a set of 'house rules' to avoid taking advantage of the computer teams.

[daves]

What is this a weekly poll? Well here is my weekly (and sometimes daily suggestion), editable league schedule and/or exhibition games to play any team from any year against another team from any year.

[ohms_law]

Daves, don't you ever read before you post? Please read the first post in the thread.

[HoustonGM]

40-man rosters gets my vote.

[BM_MAN]

I changed my Vote to:

Fictional expansion drafts, control expansion draft

from

Update contract negotiations (remove instant signings and/or additional contract options)

But Want Both as Well

[MeetDaMets]

Given a choice of JUST one of these options , i think the league setup improvements to be mos important.

I would really like to be able customize the leagues format much more easily.
ie,
tell the game -
12 teams per league
no divisions
no playoff
tell it what year and click START

or tell it
i want
54 teams
27 per league
3 divisions in each with 9 teams per
wildcard format.
tell it what year - hit start

as opposed adding / deleting teams and jerking around with the setup in general
because the default is insisting that any league setup in x year MUST be x format.

[RickD]

Wow previously I had asked for the 40 man roster rules but when you add the realism of players dying from disease, accidents etc my choice went that way!

[boomboom]

40-man rosters gets my vote.

ditto.

[ohms_law]

I'm still voting for Front Office Personnel. In my view, that one change would create some good, fundamental, and enjoyable changes to the way that we all play the game. Most importantly, it would remove setting three absolute and easily changeable expenses in favor of making a more fundamental choice. Basically, with Front office personnel added to the game you would be hiring and firing coaches (for Farm), scouts (for Scouting), and trainers (for Medical) in place of setting the expenses. That would remove the ability to "min/max" your expenses on a daily basis, reduce micromanagement, increase role play value, and in doing all of the above it would probably increase overall competitiveness somewhat.

I'm not minimizing the importance of 40-man rosters, fictional drafts, or anything else here. It's just that I believe that adding Front Office Personnel would have a larger and more immediate payoff than any of the above.

[lilbman07]

still expansion draft.

[CatKnight]

Voted for expansion draft last week, but this week I'm switching to "improve as much as possible." I'd love to see half of these, but if I have to choose just one....then that's it.

Competitive balance is a mess. The single thing I think would REALLY help this is to lessen the effects of finances:

Build in a revenue sharing system, let the AI know it's there so the weak teams won't be afraid to sign more players in FA. A simple alternative would be to change the formulae that determines how much revenue each city gets, so the result is more towards a median value.

Second, lessen the effects of an A+ vs D+ medical and farm system. They're far too severe right now for realism. I don't mind some change to encourage people to spend on them, but right now it again helps the big teams dominate.

[boomboom]

It is really funny because in Mogul, the Yankees/Dodgers and Giants always win. (CPU mode), while in real life there have been 7 different WS winners in the past 8 years, none of them either of those 3 teams.

I think that competitive balance needs some work, but I am unsure how to make the AI act like the real life Yankees, buy and overpay for Good Talent, instead (in the game) they pay for top talent.

[HoustonGM]

Second, lessen the effects of an A+ vs D+ medical and farm system. They're far too severe right now for realism. I don't mind some change to encourage people to spend on them, but right now it again helps the big teams dominate.
For medical, this has been adjusted, and a slider has been added to the league settings.

[Alloutwar]

I voted 40-man rosters, but front office personnel is a great idea. thats one thing that really intrigues me from OOTP, and would be good to replace the simplistic 'spend x-million' that is in there now...

I feel the same way on players dying - it would be realistic and good, say once every decade or something, to have a player develop a disease (wasn't there a diabetic pitcher, that wore an insulin pump?) or die early; however, the way this game works, I am fairly certain that either in this version, or a few versions down the road, something would go wrong and entire teams would start dying off inexplicably.

40-man should have been in this game all along, so I'm voting that way. Without it, you really don't get a large part of what managing a roster is all about.

[QHowes]

Still love to hire/fire managers. Even if they were fictional.

[rogue9]

definately need to have a fictional expansion draft. Also as part of that, teams should only be able to lose 2 players not 10+ like in RL in an expansions draft whether real or fictional.

[quizzerstu]

I think it would be great to be able to change number of pitchers vs. position players

[Reade]

I think it would be great to be able to change number of pitchers vs. position players


Also a good idea

[bmoseley07]

Of all the features you'd want, why would anybody pick players being killed? Talk about the most useless aspect of the game to improve. That's probably the absolutely last "feature" I'd add, as it adds virtually nothing to the gameplay of BMO at all. Same goes for suspensions and ejections. There's just so much more to the game that needs to be addressed.

Can whoever voted for those two, please explain to me how the addition of those two features would significantly raise your view of the game, compared to the many more useful and imperative features?

[daves]

I think it would be great to be able to change number of pitchers vs. position players

This makes sense. You'd think that would be an easy addition?

[Reade]

You'd think that would be an easy addition?

I know as much about that as I do about women, and thats less than 0:(

[HoustonGM]

Of all the features you'd want, why would anybody pick players being killed? Talk about the most useless aspect of the game to improve. That's probably the absolutely last "feature" I'd add, as it adds virtually nothing to the gameplay of BMO at all. Same goes for suspensions and ejections. There's just so much more to the game that needs to be addressed.

Can whoever voted for those two, please explain to me how the addition of those two features would significantly raise your view of the game, compared to the many more useful and imperative features?
My thoughts all along. I could see wanting these things in the game, but the poll question is - "Given the choice of ONE and ONLY one of these features, which would you pick?" I don't see why someone would want dead players over 40 man rosters, staff members, expansion drafts, etc.

[HarmonKillebrew]

If the death aspect is added, for those of us who like to play with historical leagues, there has to be a way to shut off that feature so players like Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, etc. don't randomly die off.

Voted for improved as much as possible.
While I'd like to see more roster options, DL etc., I'd prefer to see the current game and AI roster management routines improved... before adding new layers for it to try and handle. I believe that once the AI routines are hammered out better for the draftees, major and minor league roster management in the current state of the game, then the bigger fuller roster options would be easier to work with.

[beerchaser]

I stuck with expansion drafts, with overall improvement of the game second and the 40 man rules third. I see no need whatsoever for killing off players, that's just morbid, or the pointless exhibition games that daves keeps bringing up ad nauseum.

My pet peeve though is the encyclopedia. I hate it, and have completely given up on it. To say that it is a resource hog is an understatement, and an unnecessary one that gives me a bunch of **** I don't want or need. It's akin to trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.

What I would like to see is a simple but customizable query feature that can search the stats database that is already within the game (somewhere!) and answer specific questions for me. For example, who led my team in total stolen bases during the years 2010-2019, or what is my team's overall batting average for the past twenty years. Random stuff like that.

And ohms, before you bring up the reply that the encyclopedia is a "new feature" and therefore is somehow untouchable, I will contend that just because a feature is "new" does not at all mean that it is "good" or "untouchable". Far from it in fact, "new" features are the ones that should be the most open to being changed.

[fraquar]

Selected other:

Customizable Amateur Draft order.

Allow importing from a text file with the Amateur Draft order for that year - to actually give teams the multiple picks in the rounds they have them. Much like Import Cities and import Stadium Data now. This should be very easy to implement.


Side note:

That 40 man roster thing - while it sound nice seems like it will be a bear to implement properly. There are a lot of things that affect the 40 man - if the reason people want it is the level of detail that adding and removing players from it present. The AI having to manage whether to drop one of his guys to claim on of your outrighted players seems like it will just as troublesome as the AI trading players or letting studs go to FA.

[ron100]

Baseball Mogul has a history that spans the history of baseball. I was very ddisappointed to find out that despite its data base we could not play with the heros of the past. I wanted to play with theplayers that I grew up with in the 50's 60's 70's 80' and so forth to see if I could change history. I would much rather play with the heros of the past instead of made up players in the future. Whether we go with full teams or pick a year and have a bidding war to get our players. Maybe a list of 6 or 700 players (all time greats) and an auction draft whatever there is so much that can be done. I really wanted to play with Clemente, Drysdale, Hubbel, Speaker, etc. That would be great. If it would be too mucj to offer each year, then do an all time player list say from 1920 to 1990 or something. Then as these players slowly retire add in the fantasy players.

[haole]

I'm guessing that improved interface features includes being able to set lefty/righty lineups, set DH and non-DH lineups, give the manager better control over which players get days off more frequently than others (especially the old guys or the guys with less health). Like I said, I'm guessing that's what "improved interface features" means.

So that's what I voted for -- because I'm only allowed to vote for one, and to me that is the most frustrating aspect of the game. I have no control over the day-to-day aspect of the team, especially during the final days of a pennant race or during interleague play or even the World Series! If I'm an NL team, I can't decide who will be my DH during the AL home games. Simply frustrating.

But I also know that several of the other features have been requested for some time by mogul GMs -- like editable schedules and divisions, 40-man roster rules, better league control over the draft. And if I were allowed to vote for more than one thing, I would also vote for all three of those.

[HoustonGM]

I'm guessing that improved interface features includes being able to set lefty/righty lineups, set DH and non-DH lineups
You can do this...

[nutt]

The Expansion Draft for the sake of the database. Just for the expansions of 1961, 1962, 1969, 1977, 1993, and 1998.

And for those who were so adamant about players dying, that is just friggin wrong

[dickay]

how bout the team plane crashing????????

Players dying??? WTF??? you get one improvement and that was your recommendation??? Scary..very scary. :eek:

[rogue9]

Improving the ai would be good to. The play multi seasons function would be awesome, except the ai does stupid **** like put 23 year olds in R ball, and 20 year olds in the starting rotation

[HoustonGM]

this thread 'strings' bbmo'ers along as if there will in fact be significant upgrades. It's misleading.
It's not saying that there will be significant upgrades for the CD game or BMO. It's simply a poll.


I think the injuries are very fictional and there should be MORE and MORE extensive ones at that. A DL list of BBMO would be miniscule compared to MLB's DL. Those with top medical NEVER get a serious injury in bbmo. Injuries need to be part of the game, at the moment it is very minor.
This has been adjusted in 10.32 I believe, and a slider has been added to the league settings. I agree that a more extensive injury list would be a cool addition, though.

[yank4251]

I want to control an expansion draft. The whole point of the game is to run a team, and starting from the beginning is the ultimate experience. Wouldn't it be great to try the '62 Mets or '69 Pilots and try to get it right? Or even a fictional new expansion.

[Arctic Blast]

I want to control an expansion draft. The whole point of the game is to run a team, and starting from the beginning is the ultimate experience. Wouldn't it be great to try the '62 Mets or '69 Pilots and try to get it right? Or even a fictional new expansion.

That's what I picked as well. This is something I have wanted in a sports game for a LONG time.

[Coach Owens]

how bout the team plane crashing????????

Players dying??? WTF??? you get one improvement and that was your recommendation??? Scary..very scary. :eek:

It's not that I like players dying, I would just want to add realism to the game. Like I said, for some reason when BM creates players when you start a game, it has them all dying at age 60+, now I know that baseball players generally live longer than football players and basketball players but the thousands upon thousands of players in the MLB do not all live past 60 some of them die when they're young and some die while they're still active. I just don't think it's realistic to have Lou Gehrig live until the 1970s!

[metsguy234]

I also voted for player deaths. Just adds a bit of realism to the game. To branch off of that point though, players should not be able to play when they are dead!

Edit---

Player deaths should be an option though
My idea is three options:

1. No Deaths. Players will not die while they are active in the MLB.
2. Randomized Player Deaths. Random players will die while active in the MLB.
3. User Chooses Deaths. User chooses the players who die while active in the MLB.

[danifestmestny]

It's not that I like players dying, I would just want to add realism to the game. Like I said, for some reason when BM creates players when you start a game, it has them all dying at age 60+, now I know that baseball players generally live longer than football players and basketball players but the thousands upon thousands of players in the MLB do not all live past 60 some of them die when they're young and some die while they're still active. I just don't think it's realistic to have Lou Gehrig live until the 1970s!

Just another thing to point out, though: this element of realism is subtractive to the game experience and not only that but would only be noticeable in a negative way. By that I mean you would only notice this feature when a player all of a sudden stopped being usable - which would be a very brief moment relative to the scope of a multi year sim - and on top of that you would only notice the feature in the sense of that player's absence from the game.

You're focusing on a very small aspect of the game that will bring a very small added sense of realism or enhanced gameplay relative to the other things being offered to vote on and I wish that you and others would rethink your motives. If you want the MOST realistic experience possible what will provide that? An active player dying randomly ever 3 or 4 years or being able to manage an entire 40 man roster, or a more accurate version of a draft (expansion, rule 5, amateur, or whatever), or a more realistic representation of a farm system?

edit: And about retired players dying: once a player is retired he has no influence on your team or the game anyways so what difference does it make when he retires? That kind of backs up my earlier point about how minute the influence this feature will have over players. Player retires, you play another few years, a headline shows Player passed away, then you move on. There's nothing really offered to the player with that feature other than an extra headline to read.

[ohms_law]

Yea, my sentiments exactly. additionally, while players dying is simply morbid, any feature that is "subtractive to the game experience" is usually a bad feature to being with. Sure, it may be realistic, but it's no fun. If it were ever implemented (and I really doubt that it ever will be), I can just forsee an avalanch of complaints from users who end up having one of their own players die.

[HoustonGM]

danifestmestny: You basically said everything I was planning on saying, and did so much better. If you want to add realism to the game, why would you not vote for one of the multiple other options that make the actual process of general managing a baseball team more realistic?

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

Maybe have players dying or whatever as something you can turn on/off in league options/commish mode.

In any case, I voted for updating the contract negotiations.

[Edge]

I like the idea of front office personnel. It's something I've always liked in the EHM series.

Expansion as an option could be neat as well.

I'm also a big fan of just fine-tuning the current product.

Not so keen on players being killed. I think that's just a little too freaky as far as I'm concerned.

I also don't want the game to get too bogged down in the more confusing aspects of the sport (DL rules, Rule 5 drafts, etc.)

The charm of BBM is it's combination of simplicity with enough depth to keep you coming back. Otherwise you end up with a game that limits the possibility for attracting new fans. People who haven't played would simply get lost in a maze of tabs and options before they even played their first game.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I'm still voting for Front Office Personnel. In my view, that one change would create some good, fundamental, and enjoyable changes to the way that we all play the game. Most importantly, it would remove setting three absolute and easily changeable expenses in favor of making a more fundamental choice. Basically, with Front office personnel added to the game you would be hiring and firing coaches (for Farm), scouts (for Scouting), and trainers (for Medical) in place of setting the expenses. That would remove the ability to "min/max" your expenses on a daily basis, reduce micromanagement, increase role play value, and in doing all of the above it would probably increase overall competitiveness somewhat.

I'm not minimizing the importance of 40-man rosters, fictional drafts, or anything else here. It's just that I believe that adding Front Office Personnel would have a larger and more immediate payoff than any of the above.
Agreed (similar,maybe blasphemy here,to the Football Manager/Championship Manager" system (http://fm08.footballmanager.net/en/article/100/1584.html) whereby you have to hire scouts (who actually do got out & scout A-level or a specific league),physios,coaches etc & ALSO whereby your role is constrained by upper management real life projections/perspectives - i.e; the Yankees management would give you a "5 year deal" but with the minimum requirements being 3/4 division titles otherwise the "boot"! Whereas a KC ownership would be pro-rata less demanding.*

Anyways,as I have said,elsewhere there is a definite need for a overhaul of the scouting system (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=145352&highlight=fog+scoutingscouting),medical & farm (http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=153397&highlight=fog+scouting).Just my personal viewpoint



* Have owned every FM since 2000 & still find it the best sports sim due to its management implications & the ability to play 18+ major national championships & the fact that players are not always 100% & have to be rested or risk injury...plus the ability to play pre season tournaments,sponsorship & even "toggle-head"/fan days to increase fan loyalty!Hel1 to play a 3rd division English club with no transfer budget!

[ohms_law]

Actually, that's the one thing to be careful about with a possible Front Office Personnel feature. I don't think it would be worth it to have to tell your scouts who to scout, or the trainer who to work on, or have some silly "owner" implemented, etc... I've always found that level of detail in the Football Manager/EHM/OOTP style of games to be annoying. Not the least of the problems with it is the level of micromanagement it requires.

One of the things that I love about Mogul is that we hardly need to micromanage at all if we don't want to. We have Auto-Sort, for example, so that you don't need to spend time on your lineups if you don't wish to. I'd hate to see that lost, and I know there are plenty of others who feel the same (see for example dabluebery's post here: http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showpost.php?p=916732&postcount=28).
This is one of my main concerns regarding 40 man rosters, or additional roster restrictions in any form, as well (aside from AI issues). I'd love to have all of these features, but they need to be implemented correctly is all. Nothing that is added, in my view, should add to the time it takes to actually simulate games (within reason, obviously). The speed not only of the simulation engine, but the speed with which users are able to jump into a game, are a couple of Mogul's greatest strengths.

Don't get me wrong FRS (and those who I know agree with you), I understand completely what you want and why you want it. The toughest thing is that I actually agree that it would be wonderful to have those features. It's just, I also don't want to loose any of what is currently in the game, either. I hope that makes sense...

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Actually, that's the one thing to be careful about with a possible Front Office Personnel feature. I don't think it would be worth it to have to tell your scouts who to scout, or the trainer who to work on, or have some silly "owner" implemented, etc... I've always found that level of detail in the Football Manager/EHM/OOTP style of games to be annoying. Not the least of the problems with it is the level of micromanagement it requires.

One of the things that I love about Mogul is that we hardly need to micromanage at all if we don't want to. We have Auto-Sort, for example, so that you don't need to spend time on your lineups if you don't wish to. I'd hate to see that lost, and I know there are plenty of others who feel the same (see for example dabluebery's post here: http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showpost.php?p=916732&postcount=28).
This is one of my main concerns regarding 40 man rosters, or additional roster restrictions in any form, as well (aside from AI issues). I'd love to have all of these features, but they need to be implemented correctly is all. Nothing that is added, in my view, should add to the time it takes to actually simulate games (within reason, obviously). The speed not only of the simulation engine, but the speed with which users are able to jump into a game, are a couple of Mogul's greatest strengths.

Don't get me wrong FRS (and those who I know agree with you), I understand completely what you want and why you want it. The toughest thing is that I actually agree that it would be wonderful to have those features. It's just, I also don't want to loose any of what is currently in the game, either. I hope that makes sense...

The system used by FM (which I have used for 7/8 years) is not what you are suggesting per say: (check the screenshots for a deeper view).A scout is rated similar to the system already in place for BM,ie a rating based system,with certain scouts better rated for finding defensive players/spotting talent/even linguistics in orde to scout out certain countries better .

Each team has a budget & each scout is worth more or less & has a reputation also inked in.
Same for coaches/physios - thus a Torre would not sign as a bench coach but a Mattingly would.

In essence the hiring/firing occurs in off season & there positive/negative effects occur during the season.
The actual gamesmanship does not alter but the quantity & quality of your personnel gives the GM a bonus/malus in:
1) "information" --such as a AAA is ready to be called up as he is tearing up AAA or a pitcher has learned to control his slider & now is ready for the show; & 2) "improvement" (as of today when a guy goes from 71+++ to 75+++) - this again would be dependant on the ACTUAL staff hired to manage at A level.I would not suggest an exact replica of the FM system as they are 2 different sports entirely & thus different make up.But in SM terms the coaching personnel could be limited to:

1) bench coach (basically assistant manager & affects player's defense)
2) Hitting coach (+/- on team's hitters)
3) pitching coach (+/- on team's pitchers)
4) Minor's Head Coach (+/- development on farm players OVERALL)
5) Minor's hitting & pitching Head coaches (as 2 & 3 but for the minor's)
6) Head of Minors Scouting (affecting the "view" of the minor system & drafting view)
7) Individual scouts
& 8) Medical staff - Physios & Doctors (replacing the medical as now)

This would tear UP entirely the expenses as it exists but would not IMO (& as seen by actually playing FM) change the management/play you are talking about.


The only "major" difference,again IMO,would be :

1)where you send scouts to a league/team to scout out a player or a type of player & he would send you a "scouting" report whose actual validity would be dependent on the SCOUT'S SKILLS;
2) The actual improvement of players' would be based on the SKILLS of the coaches; &
3) Instead of bumping up/down expenses at will (which is totally unrealistic as no team rips up it farm/scouting or medical MID SEASON!) at will --- you would have to hire these people & pay them the length of the deal (like in IRL) & be prone to lose them in FA as their success occurs (again like IRL where assistant GM become GMs elsewhere or coaches become head coaches elsewhere).

Download the free demo of FM (very similar in structure to the Hockey game you liked btw) & see that it is actually very,very simple to run a team after the initial 10/15 minutes of hiring & firing.

Also a player CAN become a coach/scout after his playing career is over (this can be even included in his playing contract) thus a Maddux would be signed & then AFTER he retires he would become a pitching coach in the minors system & would develop over time (or regress if you pick a bad "coach" eg a David Wells ?)....would add a certain interest,no ?


Actually, that's the one thing to be careful about with a possible Front Office Personnel feature. I don't think it would be worth it to have to tell your scouts who to scout, or the trainer who to work on, or have some silly "owner" implemented, etc... I've always found that level of detail in the Football Manager/EHM/OOTP style of games to be annoying. Not the least of the problems with it is the level of micromanagement it requires.

Again the only REAL micro management,during the season, is sending the Scouts out - to scout out A ball or find a TYPE of player & they send you a report card every 30 odd days.As of today the system in place is "faulty" - the human player has way too much actual,real knowledge & can simply by pass scouting investment UNTIL fictional players are introduced & even then by using PEAK 30+ something for prospects trade system a team will become dominant (back to the 120 WIN SCENARIO).

These reports,as in the games already existing,would simply be integrated to the headlines page or in a "scouts report" page - not a major issue nor a major problem to player's ability to play the game.

On "owner" goals - that is an option (possibly tick off box?) -- as some SM player's like to be "God"(run the whole system),some GM trader's,some just Manager's.

IMO it is an interesting option in that short team goals of a KC or NYY are not the same & a successful KC manager/GM would have the goal a pay rise or being "poached" by a LA/NY/BOS team...just an idea.

[ohms_law]

Yea, Football Manager is extremely similar to EHM (same developers, actually), so I know what your saying. I agree with basically the entire first part of your post, which is why I support the idea in the first place. This:

3) Instead of bumping up/down expenses at will you would have to hire these people & pay them the length of the deal (like in IRL) & be prone to lose them in FA as their success occurs (again like IRL where assistant GM become GMs elsewhere or coaches become head coaches elsexwhere)
Is actually my primary reasoning behind desiring such a change.

The only thing that I really don't want is:

1)where you send scouts to a league/team to scout out a player or a type of player & he would send you a "scouting" report whose acual validity would be dependent on the SCOUT'S SKILLS;
That's where I was referring to micromanagement. I know that you can pick and entire country, league, team, etc... and that does reduce the micromanagement requirements. It's just that the whole concept is too... granular? It's not abstract enough, in my opinion. The one thing that I like about the current expense system is that there's an abstractness to it, so that you don't need to really think about who is in your organization and where to send them, or what position to actually put them in. Really, I would be fine with just three "people" whom each team would need to hire in order to fill their staff, with each "person" actually representing a whole staff of various people (which is what the current expense system basically does already, in an anonymous, faceless style).

Basically, I want the middle ground between what currently exists and what you seem to want...

That being said, with actual front office personnel (or front office teams) which the user(s) would need to hire or fire, some additional strengths or weaknesses could be added to the more expensive or less expensive people. Having separate major league and minor league Managers could be a good thing, for example; with different Managers having strengths or weaknesses in dealing with younger players. Certain Scouts could certainly provide better or worse ratings for the various different levels of play (AAA, A, R, etc...). Things like that can be possible, as long as there is a choice to be made about who to hire.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

That being said, with actual front office personnel (or front office teams) which the user(s) would need to hire or fire, some additional strengths or weaknesses could be added to the more expensive or less expensive people. Having separate major league and minor league Managers could be a good thing, for example; with different Managers having strengths or weaknesses in dealing with younger players. Certain Scouts could certainly provide better or worse ratings for the various different levels of play (AAA, A, R, etc...). Things like that can be possible, as long as there is a choice to be made about who to hire.

That was the point ( & IMO one of the Strengths of FM/EHL) is the fact you still run your team but your hiring & firing also affects your development & indirectly results - IRL a Torre is a good "fit" for a veteran club (thus a +10/100 for a Yankees) but a "disaster" for young club ( thus a -10 for Tampa).The FM system does work in the parameters you talk about certain scouts are great talent hunters,certain scouts are defensively minded,some are great at judging youth (eg in SM terms draft) but for everyability they have an "achilles heel" - similar to the Torre example.


The problem,for me at least,is that SM is,as of today,too MLB orientated & that MILB levels are just randomized so the actual ability would be limited (unlike FM or EHL).


The data base would be actually very easy for 2006/07 & could even be compiled NOW for BM09 as would roughly engender 800/900 odd "people" (scouts/coaches/medics) which is less than the number of players on 10 teams' rosters

Using the above base line each team would be allocated :

1 bench coach
1 Hitting coach
1 pitching coach
1 Minor's Head Coach
1 Minor's hitting & 1 pitching Head coaches
1 Head of Minors Scouting
3 Scouts
2 Medical staff - 1 Physio & 1 Doctor

thus 330 for real teams & the 500 odd remainder either in FA or signed abroad (& thus possibly available in FA or after their deal is up)


The MAJOR MAJOR problem in my EYES is the past....& database ie who was Hitting coach of the 34 Red Sox or the Doctor of the 72 Reds etc etc...

[boomboom]

Good points FRS. :)

[ScorpioPrimus]

I think the sort of "manager/coach" system you are describing would be entirely too tedious for me as a player, and I for one wouldn't be interested in that degree of detail. On the other hand, I would like the ability to more specifically control player development, whether it's converting his position without the automatic penalty in defense levels, or focusing on one aspect of his game in the minors or spring training.

As for players dying, it's hardly a major game play component, but it is spooky to see zombie players like Gehrig, Munson, or Lidle. If the game records them as dead, they should be removed from play. However, if we get that detailed, are we going to take away players who are in the military?

I voted for control of the expansion draft, as fictional teams (such as my perennial 2020s addition, the Las Vegas Vulcans) are horribly shortchanged while historical expansion teams benefit from the expansion draft and usually make the playoffs within 3-5 years.

[redsx2434]

I'd like to see us able to hire coach staffs, that would be a great addition

[QHowes]

I'd like to see us able to hire coach staffs, that would be a great addition

agreed

[defense]

I rethought about it, and changed my mind on things(again). I now don't have a preference on things, as almost all the suggestions would be things I would like to see. But if I had to order them in preference, this is how I would:

1. Detailed scouts, farm coaches, and doctors- Instead of just spending x amount of cash on scouting, farm system, and medical, these things SHOULD become more detailed, like a couple posters above my post in this thread were discussing. You shouldn't just put money into those exspenses. You should have to sign a doctor. The better ones would obviously cost more. Like doctor X, who has 22 years of exp., and heals patients really quickly, should be looking for a 3 year commitment worth 1 million per season(or whatever), and doctor z who just finished medical school should be looking for an one year commitment worth 30 thousand dollars. Under that field, you should also need a psychologist, massager, and anything like that. For scouting, you should need a lot of different type of scouts. You would need one to scout your own MLB team(to tell you who is good, and who you should try to dump, and stuff like that), one to scout your minors, atleast one to scout other MLB teams(every day, you can tell them to scout one player, and one player only), atleast one to scout other minor league teams, one for scouting draftees, and if you add foreign free agency(like the Dice-k thing), one for foreign free agency. And just like doctors, the better ones would be paid more than the bad ones. And for farm system, each level(R, A, AA, AAA) would need one pitching, and one hitting/fielding coach.

Oh, and scouts/medical people/coaches could all decrease, or increase in skill

2. Hiring/firing general managers, and/or managers- I am back on this bandwagon. I think this would be a pretty cool addition. You could be an owner, and have them build, and manage the team. You just sit back, and approve the GM's actions, and hire and fire the managers. However this should be enabled, and disabled in commish mode. You could not have it if you don't want. Also, you can get rid of one if you want to. If you want to manage the team, you should be able to disable manager, and keep general manager, and if you just want to trade/sign people/set finances/etc, you should be able to disable general manager, and keep manager. And if you want to do both(or do general manager, and just sim, and not have general manager), you should be able to disable manager, and manager.

3. Team passwords, and ability to change draft orders- This is a MUST for league play. Team passwords would be good so general managers couldn't just leech off the team with the top scouting. And ability to change draft orders for draft compensation, and ability to trade draft picks. Both I would assume wouldn't be that difficult to add in, and would really help league play a ton

4. Improved free agency system- This might be another MUST in my opinion. The free agent system here is BORING. As long as you have the cash, you can have anyone you want. **Yawn**. First of all, it has to be where teams have BIDDING WARS for players. Like in Madden football. You offer someone a contract in free agency, but they rarely just sign it. They take a few days, and listen to various teams. The ability to just be able to sign any free agent right away is really boring. Second thing you must include is giving the free agents a brain. A good shortstop shouldn't just sign with a team with two better shortstops already on the team. It should be where the free agents look if there are any better(by overall) players that play their same position as he does on the team that is offering him a contract. And if there are, they should put the offer below the other offers from teams who have an "use" from him. Also there should be some sort of draft compensation so the Pirates, and the Rays, and the etc. don't get screwed with losing free agents. Lastly, during the resigning period where teams resign players, some players SHOULD just refuse to negotiate, and go into free agent despite what you offer(unless you severly overpay). Because in a free agency with bidding wars, they would know they will get paid more in free agency

5. Ejections/brawls/suspensions/steroids/holdouts- Ejections/brawls/suspensions/steroids are all self-explanitory. Only one that isn't ar holdouts, and what that would be is players sitting out due to something they don't like. Maybe some would sit out because they are sitting on the bench(or starter pitching out of the bullpen), or a good player continuely being in the minors, and they sit out until you trade them to a team which he breaks out into the lineup/rotation on, you release him, or you put him into your starting rotation/lineup. That would be for guys who are 85 overall, and over, who should be starting rotation material, or starting lineup material. Also would be for guys who are playing a different position(like a 2nd baseman playing lf, or w/e). Or someone in the final year of their contract, and want a new one. Stuff like that for the holdouts

6. Revenue sharing- Not a must in my opinion(that is why it is #6 on my list). However, it would really help small markets compete throughout the years. "Small ball, small money" teams will rarely win in a computer game like Baseball Mogul, and that is why we need this. Just would help small market teams stay in the game, sort to speak, and help them out with money.

7. Better trade AI- Quantity does not equal quality. I mean as a general manager I love it when I can get a 90 overall player for one 47/88 peak guy, and a couple 77 overall players, but as a game player, that makes it too boring. I don't know how to explain this really. Just make them "smarter" with trading(if possible), and an AI of a 10-50 team should not be trading cash, and great prospects for a 92 overall 35 year old.

8. Full minor leagues/set lineups for minors- self-explanitory

9. Waivers- self-explanitory. Would be cool to pick up some players without trading for them, and would be cool to try to pull off a "waiver deal" after the trade deadline(if you could enable teams to discuss waiver deals). But if you couldn't do that, waivers would be cool none-the-less

10. 40 man rosters- I really don't see the point of this for a game like Mogul? Will it make the game a bit more realistic? Sure. However, I don't think it is worth the time. 40 man rosters is made basically for the rule 5 draft. However, in Mogul there are only 6 rounds in the draft. How many good players aren't going to be playing in the MLB after a couple years(when they would be ready to be drafted in the rule 5)? Maybe three. I wouldn't want to go through the hassel of 40 man rosters/rule 5 draft, so I could draft some team's 52/71 player in the rule 5.