questions on inconsistancies of expenses

[kingsodom]

I decided to post here as opposed to the "bug" section.

I don't know how all the "behind the curtain" workings for the game go, but there have been a few things that are increasingly bothersome to me.

The first and foremost at this time is, The way expenses (Farm, Scout and Med) work.
This is how I understand it, so please correct me if I am wrong: The game bases results for these areas not on resources (points) spent, but on the overall ranking against the league.
I find this flawed. There may be reasons why it is based on ranking an not flat points for balance sake, but it at least needs some tweaking.
Here is my main complaint, a team spending 0 in a league where 6-8 teams spending 0 can have the effects of being ranked 24th to 26th. Now, I don't know how tie-breakers work, but this seems pretty wrong and exploitable.
My first instinct would be to rank teams from the bottom up, so that ties at the bottom would matter more, if it is actually possible to have a tie. It seems that theoretically you could be ing 1st by spending very little.

Thoughts, comments, enlightenments for the blind?

-K

[Slugger222]

I think that the rationel goes something like this:

The scouts, trainers, etc. that are out there are the same regardless of how much money you spend on them. The best ones will gravitate to the places where the most money is, regardless of how much that is. That is why it is based on rank.

As to you second concern, you COULD rank very high by spending very little, but in practice, the ppls try to spend as little on payroll as they can, which leaves them a lot to spend on expenses. especially the large market clubs.

[playshogi]

That's why playing this game with equalized markets makes a lot more sense from a game-playing perspective. This game does not reflect real life anyway, or Minnesota and Montreal would be outta here after game year 2001.

[sudden]

It seems to me that in order to achieve a certain effectiveness, teams should have to spend a certain amount. In all the leagues that I've played in there are always people who spend nothing on their expenses. It makes no sense to the smaller markets who can afford to spend say 20 points on their scouting to do so. If their 20 points gets them the #24 ranking and spending 0 points gets them the #25 ranking as other teams are spending 0 points on their scouting. My common sense tells me that spending 20 points should provide a much better return when compared to 0 points. After all what does a scouting department that has no budget look like. I guess your scouting depaprtment would consist of a subsciption to Baseball Weekly and a subscription to Baseball America!

I think that you should get value for the points you spend. Each point gets you a certain amount of effectiveness. The more you spend the better off you are. In order to combat the sheer spending power of the larger markets I think that the law of diminishing returns should be invoked after 40 points so that if you spend a lot more you get better but not so much better that the small markets have no chance. So deciding to spend lots and lots becomes a question of efficiency vs. effectiveness.

[Godard]

Keep in mind that this is an abstract simulation. "0" could be another way of saying "Bare Minimum".

If everyone had to spend 20 pts on scouting, then all you're really doing is turning the number 20 into 0 (and either causing inflation, or hurting the small market teams)

[Cipster]

This point was made before but remember that minor league teams also generate their own revenue from attendance, concessions, advertising etc. What you spend on top of that is added money from the big league club.
As far as setting a diminishing returns limit, this might be hard to implement. 40 points may seem like a lot but consider this: I play the Yankees in the Mogul Enthusiasts League, my revenue this year was 807 points and my payroll was 550. I spent 250 on my expenses (mainly to keep my medical and scouting up, there is a new cash and profit cap in the league and people are spending tons on the farm). If I knew that I only had to spend 40 in each category for more or less full effect my payroll would be at nearly 700 points. Do you really think that would help small market teams compete? Accurate scouting and a 700 payroll would be very hard to beat (in the regular season anyway, in the postseason all bets are off).