Initial Draft and Talent Evaluation Terribly Broken

bababui · 07-07-2008, 02:25 PM

Scouting off

Anaheim drafting 1st; Boston 22nd

One would think that Anaheim would get a better pool of players from the initial draft (carried out by the AI); or, at a minimum, an equal distribution.

But no.

And, to make matters worse, Anaheim in stuck with an 'almost non-existant' market size and little fan support while Boston gets to have its cake and eat it with a built in astronomical fan base and huge support.

One doesnt need to be Einstein or a psychic to figure out how these two franchises will fare.

The first issue is that the initial draft AI needs to be retooled. It obviously is broken. How can one team get a squad full of MLB caliber players while the other team gets only 2 players with an MLB contract??

The second issue, which has been raised before, is that market size shouldn't be tied to the initial payroll and fan support should at least be randomly assigned in a fictional universe. Give all the teams a shot success.

bababui · 07-07-2008, 02:28 PM

.

bababui · 07-07-2008, 02:32 PM

1.

Doughnuts? · 07-07-2008, 03:21 PM

Is it just me, or does everyone else get that good old baseball feeling when they see Lu-Po-Teh Tsung and Bogumil Czarniecki?

bababui · 07-07-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doughnuts?

Is it just me, or does everyone else get that good old baseball feeling when they see Lu-Po-Teh Tsung and Bogumil Czarniecki?

I have 50% foreigners. I like an international feel to my universes. And, they bring their sisters.

Russ · 07-07-2008, 03:41 PM

I know this has been a source of pain for you for a while now, babs. I am hereby joining the fight. There needs to be a way to set financials before the initial draft and have teams draft accordingly.

Markus Heinsohn · 07-07-2008, 05:25 PM

It's intentional the way it is... some teams just draft more for the future, even in the inaugural draft. That results in a rather low payroll. Again, this is intentional so that there's some difference between market sizes.

bababui · 07-07-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

It's intentional the way it is... some teams just draft more for the future, even in the inaugural draft. That results in a rather low payroll. Again, this is intentional so that there's some difference between market sizes.

But Markus..the Angels team is horrible for the present and the future. And why would they draft a 20/80 player when there are much better players available?

Is there any way to try to get the AI to distribute the talent more evenly?

Markus Heinsohn · 07-07-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

But Markus..the Angels team is horrible for the present and the future. And why would they draft a 20/80 player when there are much better players available?

Is there any way to try to get the AI to distribute the talent more evenly?

Check the minor league system, I bet there are many good prospects in the Angels system.

bababui · 07-07-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Check the minor league system, I bet there are many good prospects in the Angels system.

I released and redrafted. I love the game. I just prefer more parity so there are better pennant races and more exciting competitive games.

Thanks for all the work you put into the game and coming on the forums to discuss the game.

Long_Long_Name · 07-07-2008, 06:18 PM

I don't think it's "terribly broken". Markus made a good case. I, too, would like to have markets decided before the draft, but yeah, I think it's a far cry from "terribly broken".

bababui · 07-07-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

I don't think it's "terribly broken". Markus made a good case. I, too, would like to have markets decided before the draft, but yeah, I think it's a far cry from "terribly broken".

When the team with the first pick in the draft ends up with a team like the above Angels; and the team with the 22nd pick ends up with a squad like the above Sox; then it just might be slightly broken.

Doughnuts? · 07-07-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

I like to feel their sisters.

rascal

treedom · 07-07-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doughnuts?

Is it just me, or does everyone else get that good old baseball feeling when they see Lu-Po-Teh Tsung and Bogumil Czarniecki?

Exactly. Nothing says old time baseball better than xenophobia.

Doughnuts? · 07-07-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treedom

Exactly. Nothing says old time baseball better than xenophobia.

You must be a scream at parties.

Charley575 · 07-07-2008, 08:38 PM

I agree with OP 100% with regards to finances and I would like to take this opportunity to ask Markus just ONE LAST TIME, if we could at least have the option to assign market sizes in initial setup.

The only way I can think of to get the financials you want in the current situation is to set an initial draft, then first thing go in and erase service time of all players. Then hold the draft. When the draft is done, all players make the minimum, ensuring that there will be ample money for the first few years for all teams. Then, you can set the market sizes as you see fit. By the time free agency kicks in, everything is set and there is no "shock period" that would ensue if you tried to adjust market sizes for teams carrying $100 million payrolls. The downside is that the offseason is a total bore until free agency kicks in, and all teams are, to a certain extent, locked into their current rosters, unless they can develop a prospect or two in the meantime. Also, some roster movement can be done via trades, but if you don't develop any prosepects, you won't be able to improve one area of your team without greatly weakening another.

I am about to start season three of just such a league, so arbitration will kick in this year. Still 3 more years until the offseason becomes interesting.

Markus, please consider the aforementioned. Thank you.

The Wolf · 07-07-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

I just prefer more parity so there are better pennant races and more exciting competitive games.

Easy solution: turn finances off.

The Wolf · 07-07-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treedom

Exactly. Nothing says old time baseball better than totally inappropriate players.

Fixed that for ya.

bababui · 07-07-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Easy solution: turn finances off.

I like finances; just fairer/better finances.

bababui · 07-07-2008, 09:10 PM

With all this finances talk, we are losing sight of how bad the draft AI is. While I have never seen a disparity in talent as big as the one above, I have seen far too many. The AI seems to give too much MLB service time to young players. Rather than cheat teams on talent, wouldnt it be better to share the talent but vary the MLB service time to adjust the finances?

07-07-2008, 03:41 PM	#6
Russ All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Essex HON! Posts: 1,923 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	I know this has been a source of pain for you for a while now, babs. I am hereby joining the fight. There needs to be a way to set financials before the initial draft and have teams draft accordingly. __________________ If you don't love Russ, you don't love America. This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

07-07-2008, 06:18 PM	#11
Long_Long_Name Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Montréal Posts: 7,065	I don't think it's "terribly broken". Markus made a good case. I, too, would like to have markets decided before the draft, but yeah, I think it's a far cry from "terribly broken". __________________ Beta Baseball. Join it!

07-07-2008, 03:21 PM	#4
Doughnuts? All Star Reserve Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 704	Is it just me, or does everyone else get that good old baseball feeling when they see Lu-Po-Teh Tsung and Bogumil Czarniecki?

07-07-2008, 05:25 PM	#7
Markus Heinsohn Developer OOTP Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Germany Posts: 24,805	It's intentional the way it is... some teams just draft more for the future, even in the inaugural draft. That results in a rather low payroll. Again, this is intentional so that there's some difference between market sizes.

07-07-2008, 08:38 PM	#16
Charley575 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 544	I agree with OP 100% with regards to finances and I would like to take this opportunity to ask Markus just ONE LAST TIME, if we could at least have the option to assign market sizes in initial setup. The only way I can think of to get the financials you want in the current situation is to set an initial draft, then first thing go in and erase service time of all players. Then hold the draft. When the draft is done, all players make the minimum, ensuring that there will be ample money for the first few years for all teams. Then, you can set the market sizes as you see fit. By the time free agency kicks in, everything is set and there is no "shock period" that would ensue if you tried to adjust market sizes for teams carrying $100 million payrolls. The downside is that the offseason is a total bore until free agency kicks in, and all teams are, to a certain extent, locked into their current rosters, unless they can develop a prospect or two in the meantime. Also, some roster movement can be done via trades, but if you don't develop any prosepects, you won't be able to improve one area of your team without greatly weakening another. I am about to start season three of just such a league, so arbitration will kick in this year. Still 3 more years until the offseason becomes interesting. Markus, please consider the aforementioned. Thank you.