CatKnight
05-01-2008, 01:22 AM
Alright. I've mentioned this before in various places, and for the most part been brushed aside since it was usually in the middle of much longer diatribes, so let's hit this on the head.
We have a medical slider that affects the difference between a team ranked A+ and one ranked D+ (and everyone in between.) At +0 (default) the difference is fairly severe. At -100 there's no difference whatsoever.
This was installed because a large number of people wrote posts detailing the severe differences between medical staffs. They noted it was unrealistic that even a team like the D-Rays or Marlins apparently couldn't hire competent staff. More injuries results in more time lost (affecting competitive balance) and ultimately ruining these players' health. Fine. That's taken care of.
I want to see similar sliders for farm and scouting.
There are threads floating around here detailing the severe differences in farm development between an A+ and D team. The D team's players develop slower, peak sooner, and never reach potential.
This is not realistic. Promoting young talent from within is how small market teams SURVIVE. The Rays, Marlins, etc. do not produce **** players. They shouldn't in BM, at least not to this extent.
Scouting: That +/- 1 if you're an A team, if I remember other discussions correctly, is 1 standard deviation. It is most certainly NOT one point. In my current dynasty I have an A+ scouting, and they are OFTEN off by 5-6 overall/peak points.
A D+ team is nine standard deviations away. Do the math. Their scouts are worse than useless. Looking at their ratings/suggestions is a trap. Heck, even at +/-1 it can be really misleading.
Yet...that's what the AI does. There's this pretty new option called "Stats vs Scouting" asking which the AI should rely on. At default it relies very, very heavily on scouting and 'only changes between seasons' according to a post ohms wrote elsewhere.
In another thread, ohms wrote that expenses aren't a high priority. They are a money sink for the AI. Yet, this 'money sink' backfires when the big market clubs always dominate. And...since this game only has one AI....the big markets WILL always dominate. Yes?
In yet another thread posted in the last day or two, mattygerst posted that he's trying to set up an online league where everyone has the same ratings. That is impossible with the current setup. The computer will push teams away rank wise - even with identical spending and identical spending histories.
Late last year another player, writing for HIS online league, asked about having 'perfect' commissioner ratings, effectively turning off scouting. At the time I spoke against him on the grounds that there should be some doubt. +/- 1 deviation is reasonable doubt.
In the competitive balance threads that pop up every so often, you will often find people bring up what I've just summarized: Expenses are not the only (or even the main) factor in what's going on...but they don't help. They DO hurt competition. They DO hurt the realism of this game. And we have the power to do something about this.
I want sliders for farm and scouting, to do the exact same thing the current medical slider does: Narrow (or increase) the difference between teams that spend a lot or none at all.
This way, if people feel there's nothing wrong with the current system, they can leave it alone and play the game their way.
If people want to experiment and see if it helps to narrow the difference, then they can.
If people want to set up an online league where everyone's equal? Well, sliders let us do that too.
Ohms mentioned that expenses are meant as an AI money sink? Fine. Narrowing the differences between the big/small market teams MAKES it a moneysink that actually works and doesn't just make the big market teams that much more powerful.
I don't like OOTP, but I love their slogan. "It's your game, play it your way." This lets people do that, and now and forever takes 'expenses' off the table about whether the game is balanced or not.
We have a medical slider that affects the difference between a team ranked A+ and one ranked D+ (and everyone in between.) At +0 (default) the difference is fairly severe. At -100 there's no difference whatsoever.
This was installed because a large number of people wrote posts detailing the severe differences between medical staffs. They noted it was unrealistic that even a team like the D-Rays or Marlins apparently couldn't hire competent staff. More injuries results in more time lost (affecting competitive balance) and ultimately ruining these players' health. Fine. That's taken care of.
I want to see similar sliders for farm and scouting.
There are threads floating around here detailing the severe differences in farm development between an A+ and D team. The D team's players develop slower, peak sooner, and never reach potential.
This is not realistic. Promoting young talent from within is how small market teams SURVIVE. The Rays, Marlins, etc. do not produce **** players. They shouldn't in BM, at least not to this extent.
Scouting: That +/- 1 if you're an A team, if I remember other discussions correctly, is 1 standard deviation. It is most certainly NOT one point. In my current dynasty I have an A+ scouting, and they are OFTEN off by 5-6 overall/peak points.
A D+ team is nine standard deviations away. Do the math. Their scouts are worse than useless. Looking at their ratings/suggestions is a trap. Heck, even at +/-1 it can be really misleading.
Yet...that's what the AI does. There's this pretty new option called "Stats vs Scouting" asking which the AI should rely on. At default it relies very, very heavily on scouting and 'only changes between seasons' according to a post ohms wrote elsewhere.
In another thread, ohms wrote that expenses aren't a high priority. They are a money sink for the AI. Yet, this 'money sink' backfires when the big market clubs always dominate. And...since this game only has one AI....the big markets WILL always dominate. Yes?
In yet another thread posted in the last day or two, mattygerst posted that he's trying to set up an online league where everyone has the same ratings. That is impossible with the current setup. The computer will push teams away rank wise - even with identical spending and identical spending histories.
Late last year another player, writing for HIS online league, asked about having 'perfect' commissioner ratings, effectively turning off scouting. At the time I spoke against him on the grounds that there should be some doubt. +/- 1 deviation is reasonable doubt.
In the competitive balance threads that pop up every so often, you will often find people bring up what I've just summarized: Expenses are not the only (or even the main) factor in what's going on...but they don't help. They DO hurt competition. They DO hurt the realism of this game. And we have the power to do something about this.
I want sliders for farm and scouting, to do the exact same thing the current medical slider does: Narrow (or increase) the difference between teams that spend a lot or none at all.
This way, if people feel there's nothing wrong with the current system, they can leave it alone and play the game their way.
If people want to experiment and see if it helps to narrow the difference, then they can.
If people want to set up an online league where everyone's equal? Well, sliders let us do that too.
Ohms mentioned that expenses are meant as an AI money sink? Fine. Narrowing the differences between the big/small market teams MAKES it a moneysink that actually works and doesn't just make the big market teams that much more powerful.
I don't like OOTP, but I love their slogan. "It's your game, play it your way." This lets people do that, and now and forever takes 'expenses' off the table about whether the game is balanced or not.