All Forums > Hardball Dynasty Baseball > Suggestions > Default Budget Settings
8/6/2010 6:35 PM
It would be great if I weren't limited to a maximum of 14 training budget in my first year in a new league. Considering that Training (unlike the 4 scouting categories) is not something owners ever cheat down to low settings, I wouldn't anticipate a situation of owners trying to game the system through restriction-free training settings. On the other hand, I always feel like I'm walking a tightrope in that first season, considering I personally never go below 18 past that first season.

Taking a quick glance at the budget settings of all the teams in the 4 worlds I am currently in, I notice that well over 90% of the owners who have at least a few seasons of experience have training set to 14 or higher and exactly ONE team out of the 128 has it set lower than 10 (at 9!). This should suggest that if not restriction-free, new owners should at least have a 10-18 to play with in their inaugural season rather than the current 6-14.
8/6/2010 6:54 PM
i earlier brought up in here that first-year owners should have no restrictions at all. the +/-4 should kick in the second year. why should newbies be at a disadvantage?
8/6/2010 8:34 PM
Their rationale is that it takes time for teams to build up the  infrastructure needed that is involved in a budget change, like build training/medical facilities, hire scouts, etc.... So from their rationale a guy coming in and taking over a team from someone else should be held to their previous budget restrictions, but currently you are at the default 105 salary, 10 for the rest. 
8/6/2010 10:20 PM
I don't think it has to do with realism but rather potential abuse with alias accounts. Scouting budgets should definitely be +/- 4 to prevent all kinds of tricks. And furthermore it forces additional strategy and long-term planning which is always good for the game. However, like I said, there's no potential abuse with training budgets, pretty much everyone keeps it on the very high side and considering a few serious injuries can really ruin you long term, there should be defferent rules in play there.
8/6/2010 10:38 PM
Limiting the first-year budget to $14 million in training kind of forces new owners to trade off veterans, or otherwise they take too big a hit to keep around. I pretty strongly favor the +/- 4 increments, but there should be more latitude for owners taking over a team for the first season. I'm not sure the best way to do that, though.
8/7/2010 4:39 PM
From developer chats:

I am curious why it is that I can only change my budget allotments incrementally from year to year. I am a long time owner and it seems to me if I want to have 20 mill for Intl scouting one year and only 0 the next, that that should be my prerogative. (mosley80 - Hall of Famer - 12:21 PM)

It is not realistic for a club to go from being the Yankees to the Marlins in one season. That is why we have the incremental additions and subtractions in place.


 

As to my earlier question about alloting your budget. Would it be possible to increase the incremental swing so that I could shift more money year to year? My concern is that I might have two Type A free agents and want to let them walk for the compensation and put more money into HS+Coll. scouting. The way it is currently structured it might take me 3 seasons to get to 20 mill if I was at a real low level. Tough to plan that far ahead. (mosley80 - Hall of Famer - 1:45 PM)

This area of the game is not going to change.

8/7/2010 5:26 PM
"It is not realistic for a club to go from being the Yankees to the Marlins in one season."

This is the silliest response I've seen in awhile.    Teams can do EXACTLY that with their payroll.
8/7/2010 6:50 PM
Didn't Marge Schott fire all of her scouts one year?  Schottzie 02 did all the advanced scouting?
8/7/2010 8:48 PM
the way it is  now if you had a high payroll with low scouting ( under 10)  it might take 3 seasons to start scouting the draft properly and then another 3-4 years to start seeing any of those players in the majors,  and then another 3-4 years to start getting any kind of core group together out of those drafts,  to rebuild a high payroll team your looking at 10 seasons before things start running smoothly, thats roughly 10 season before you can start winning again, alot easier to bail and start over somewhere else, adjusting how much you can adjust scouting  might help some oners stick with franchises, maybe make it 6-7 mil swings in scouting
8/7/2010 10:06 PM (edited)
Posted by pirateswin2 on 8/7/2010 8:48:00 PM (view original):
the way it is  now if you had a high payroll with low scouting ( under 10)  it might take 3 seasons to start scouting the draft properly and then another 3-4 years to start seeing any of those players in the majors,  and then another 3-4 years to start getting any kind of core group together out of those drafts,  to rebuild a high payroll team your looking at 10 seasons before things start running smoothly, thats roughly 10 season before you can start winning again, alot easier to bail and start over somewhere else, adjusting how much you can adjust scouting  might help some oners stick with franchises, maybe make it 6-7 mil swings in scouting
Even if your scouting is 0 across the board due to a stacked team that's focusing on the present, you should have at least a 2 season heads-up of when rebuilding time is going to begin. Now, in your second to last "playing for the trophy" season, you up to 4, then 8, and then by the time you're in rebuild mode you're at 12 which is plenty adequate. It just takes a tiny bit of foresight. And if you hang tight at 2's or 3's rather than 0's, those 12's become 14's and 15's... well above average.

The way it's set up rewards you for good planning and adds many levels of strategy. It also prevents there being too many 20's which would be terribly dull and annoying. Imagine if every year that someone was picking in the top 10, they pushed their HS and Coll scouting to 20. I'm not saying that it would definitely happen to that extent, but it would not be at all surprising to me if 7 of those 10 were at 20/20 (or thereabout) in a restriction-free universe. The way it is now, only team's that were at 16+ the previous season are able to go 20, and furthermore, you have to think twice as you are basically committing to having at least a combined 32M in HS/Coll the FOLLOWING season.

Also if you choose to follow that path with the current system, you know that you are at least assured SOME amount of advantage for it, as you will be one of very few teams that has gone max. Now, perhaps your #12 pick is likely to be as strong as the #7 or 8 pick of the guy who is sitting at 12 in scouting. How boring would it be to have to go 20/20 just to avoid being at a DISadvantage?

As far as INT scouting it's pretty much the same idea but two-fold. If I anticipate a couple of seasons where I'll have some extra cash to go after the top internationals, I need to plan carefully for it. Otherwise, I'd throw 15-20 into INT whenever I need to and the rest of the time, when I'm going high salary and/or I'd rather blow my cash on older "put me over the top" guys, I have no reason whatsoever to keep my int scouting at anywhere other than 0. End result: You would see a good deal of teams with 0 budgeted here with the rest budgeting 15-20 and absolutely no good reason to go anywhere in-between.

As far as ADV scouting, I'm sure all of you realize why it would be an absolutely horrid idea to go 20 to 0 in one season.

And this is exactly why it is how it is.
8/10/2010 1:52 AM (edited)
Posted by tecwrg on 8/7/2010 6:50:00 PM (view original):
Didn't Marge Schott fire all of her scouts one year?  Schottzie 02 did all the advanced scouting?
Now, in terms of the "realism" argument...

Let's say Marge Schott fired all her scouts one season, and then let's say that George Steinbrenner did the exact same thing in that very same season.

Now, let's say Schott had 10M budgeted in scouting the previous season and George had 20M.

Assuming their new scouts (or lack thereof, as it were) were equally skilled... Would the Reds and Yankees be on even-footing or do you think that maybe the Yankees would be in far better position thanks to the money they put into scouting in years PAST? Considering athletes are generally scouted for several years before they turn pro in any sport...

Likewise, it would not be practical to assume that a team that has neglected their scouting for several seasons to suddenly be tops. We obviously don't see the behind the scenes here as we don't get to manually hire scouts the way we do coaches (and thank heavens for that!), but look at it this way -- if you've got all the cheapest crappiest scouts this season, how can you possibly wind up with all the best ones the next season unless they all suddenly became unemployed? You might get one great scout that is in between contracts that'll bump you up from the equivalent of 6 to 10, but you're not going to suddenly have the best scouts in the world overnight.
8/9/2010 8:06 PM
Posted by kadpcmdcsb on 8/8/2010 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 8/7/2010 6:50:00 PM (view original):
Didn't Marge Schott fire all of her scouts one year?  Schottzie 02 did all the advanced scouting?
Now, in terms of the "realism" argument...

Let's say Marge Schott fired all her scouts one season, and then let's say that George Steinbrenner did the exact same thing in that very same season.

Now, let's say Schott had 10M budgeted in scouting the previous season and George had 20M.

Assuming their new scouts (or lack thereof, as it were) were equally skilled... Would the Reds and Yankees be on even-footing or do you think that maybe the Yankees would be in far better position thanks to the money they put into scouting in years PAST? Considering athletes are generally scouted for several years before they turn pro in any sport...

Likewise, it would not be practical to assume that a team that has neglected their scouting for several seasons to suddenly be tops. We obviously don't see the behind the scenes here as we don't get to manually hire scouts the way we do coaches (and thank heavens for that!), but look at it like this... if you've got all the cheapest crappiest scouts this season, how can you possibly wind up with all the best ones the next season unless they all suddenly became unemployed? You might get one great scout that is in between contracts that'll bump you up from the equivalent of 6 to 10, but you're not going to suddenly have the best scouts in the world overnight.
+1
8/11/2010 3:57 AM
Everyone complains about stuff. Any stuff related to HBD complain. A bunch of freakin' whiners. But I regress. The problem with the way it is now is an established world, owners have had chances to get to 20 in medical and training but the new guy, maybe already at a disadvantage can't go more than 14. Injury chance is much greater.

The "force to trade vets" doesn't hold water. Young guys get hurt too. And young guys also at times don't get lost points back just like the vet.

Just surprised there isn't more of an outcry on this since so many people complain about everything.
8/11/2010 8:54 AM
At least, lock in the previous year's budget for the new guy and lock in the $4M allowable swing on that.

I can see the problem with allowing any $ amount for someone coming in, as that's an advantage over established owners who are held to $4M.
8/11/2010 9:48 AM
What if you don't like the previous guy's budget?   Maybe he's zeroed out in HS, College, Medical and Training.
of 5
All Forums > Hardball Dynasty Baseball > Suggestions > Default Budget Settings

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.