Money for signing players in ammy draft: wrong? changed from 13?

[beorn]

The first screenshot below shows a team whose financial page indicates $9.3 million for signing draftees.

The second screen shot shows a screenshot during the draft indicating that the team has drafted players demanding $7.5 million and that this puts the team more than $5 million in the hole.

Based on OOTP 13, this would seem wrong. That $9.3 million for signing draftees was, in past versions, totally separate money from the rest of the budget. In fact, if you did not spend it all your draft money, you simply lost it. That money for always there for signing draft picks. (You could also, if you overspent that draft budget, spend additional budget room money, if you had it. Thus, the financial page below would mean, at least in 13 that the team had $9.3 million purely for the draft plus $2.3 million available for signings in general...budget room minus the cash shortfall from the previous year.. for a total of $11.6 million as an absolute upper limit.)

From the draft screenshot, it would seem this has changed. Apparently the team has far less than $9 million to spend on the draft, since they are far under zero after incurring a $7.5 million bonus demand... Thus, unless this is a bug, the "draft expenses" is really a meaningless item on the financial page. This team has $2.3 million to spend, so that is all they have for signing draftees.

1) First, I would like clarification from Markus (or someone in the know about 14 finances) that this is the case: When determining how much money is available for the draft, we should not look at "draft expenses" but at $ for free agents.

2) If that is the case, I would question the clarity of the way this is presented on the financial page screen.

3) If this is the case, I am also uneasy about the design decision. I suspect that this is going to lead AI teams (and humans in online leagues) to end up signing fewer draft picks, leading to strange and unrealistic draft situations.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by beorn

3) If this is the case, I am also uneasy about the design decision. I suspect that this is going to lead AI teams (and humans in online leagues) to end up signing fewer draft picks, leading to strange and unrealistic draft situations.

I don't believe this is a design decision, as a beta and roster team member who's especially interested in the draft, I've never heard that it was.

So I suspect this is a bug, of some sort.

However, if it was a design decision it might actually be good.

You say that this would lead to "unrealistic situations" which is probably true, insofar as the players less likely to be signed would be first round picks, which would be rather unrealistic.

However less signed picks overall would actually be more realistic. Currently so many more players sign in the OOTP rule 4 draft than in reality that the MLB quickstart default settings cut the draft back to 30 rounds.

This rather than the 40 (and 50 in the past) rounds in the real draft. This is simply because far more players sign in OOTP than do in reality.

So a design decision that lead to less players signing and more rounds would be welcome, from a realism standpoint.

That being said, I'm pretty sure that this is just a bug.

[beorn]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I don't believe this is a design decision, as a beta and roster team member who's especially interested in the draft, I've never heard that it was.

So I suspect this is a bug, of some sort.

However, if it was a design decision it might actually be good.

You say that this would lead to "unrealistic situations" which is probably true, insofar as the players less likely to be signed would be first round picks, which would be rather unrealistic.

However less signed picks overall would actually be more realistic. Currently so many more players sign in the OOTP rule 4 draft than in reality that the MLB quickstart default settings cut the draft back to 30 rounds.

This rather than the 40 (and 50 in the past) rounds in the real draft. This is simply because far more players sign in OOTP than do in reality.

So a design decision that lead to less players signing and more rounds would be welcome, from a realism standpoint.

That being said, I'm pretty sure that this is just a bug.

Thanks. I'll post it in tech support as a bug then.

(I agree that later round draft picks should sign less often in OOTP, in order to be realistic. That's an entirely different matter, and would really require a design decision to have more later round types make a specific demand and then negotiate... but that would add micromanagement I suppose.)

[tejdog1]

The problem is, you'd need to have "50/55" talents (20/80 scale) falling to round 24 or whatever, and that never happens in OOTP.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

The problem is, you'd need to have "50/55" talents (20/80 scale) falling to round 24 or whatever, and that never happens in OOTP.

Yeah, exactly. Hopefully this will change sometime in the future, but since it's something that probably only 1% of OOTP users would actually care about, I'm guessing it's not high on the list of stuff Markus is looking at.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

However, if it was a design decision it might actually be good.

You say that this would lead to "unrealistic situations" which is probably true, insofar as the players less likely to be signed would be first round picks, which would be rather unrealistic.

However less signed picks overall would actually be more realistic. Currently so many more players sign in the OOTP rule 4 draft than in reality that the MLB quickstart default settings cut the draft back to 30 rounds.

This rather than the 40 (and 50 in the past) rounds in the real draft. This is simply because far more players sign in OOTP than do in reality.

So a design decision that lead to less players signing and more rounds would be welcome, from a realism standpoint.

I don't think this adds to realism. The problem is how unsigned picks are distributed in real life versus in OOTP. In real life, before the draft was shortened, about half of all picks didn't sign. But most of those unsigned picks were from rounds 11-50. It has been quite rare that early picks fail to sign - obviously it happens on occasion, but it's not a common occurrence. OOTP actually leaves too many early picks unsigned compared to real life, and since it's the start of the draft that matters most, OOTP should be arranging things so more guys sign, for realism.

For later rounds, OOTP has always just ignored the 20-25 picks per team who don't sign. I think that's fine since it wouldn't be much fun for GMs to have a 40 or 50 round draft each year if half the players you were picking were unsignable anyway; that would just be a waste of time, really. And I think, considering how OOTP models the draft (every late pick signs), a 25-round draft is the most realistic draft length.

[injury log]

Oh, and if you want to discuss how to better model unsignable players, overslot demands, etc, in the draft, I made a pretty long post about that a couple of months ago in beta that no one seemed to really want to discuss. But I'm still interested!

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by injury log

Oh, and if you want to discuss how to better model unsignable players, overslot demands, etc, in the draft, I made a pretty long post about that a couple of months ago in beta that no one seemed to really want to discuss. But I'm still interested!

I want to discuss it! Never saw it though, for whatever reason. I'll find it and check it out, then comment when I get a chance.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by injury log

I don't think this adds to realism. The problem is how unsigned picks are distributed in real life versus in OOTP. In real life, before the draft was shortened, about half of all picks didn't sign. But most of those unsigned picks were from rounds 11-50. It has been quite rare that early picks fail to sign - obviously it happens on occasion, but it's not a common occurrence. OOTP actually leaves too many early picks unsigned compared to real life, and since it's the start of the draft that matters most, OOTP should be arranging things so more guys sign, for realism.

For later rounds, OOTP has always just ignored the 20-25 picks per team who don't sign. I think that's fine since it wouldn't be much fun for GMs to have a 40 or 50 round draft each year if half the players you were picking were unsignable anyway; that would just be a waste of time, really. And I think, considering how OOTP models the draft (every late pick signs), a 25-round draft is the most realistic draft length.

Oh, I agree. If anything more early picks do need to sign in OOTP.

I wasn't saying that early picks shouldn't sign for more realism, just that more good players should be considered essentially "unsignable" as irl and fall to later rounds where teams take a shot at them as irl. So more rounds with more (good) unsignable players in the later rounds.

As you say though, most wouldn't find this to be that fun, so I doubt it ever happens. Just something I'd personally like, but don't expect to ever see happen, for good reasons.

[SetonHallPirate]

According to this link, actually, the draft will only be 30 rounds this year. No idea if it is an MLB.com typo, or actually the case, but this is the 2013 draft order according to the official website of the Major Leagues.:

Draft Order | 2013 First-Year Player Draft | MLB.com: Events

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by SetonHallPirate

According to this link, actually, the draft will only be 30 rounds this year. No idea if it is an MLB.com typo, or actually the case, but this is the 2013 draft order according to the official website of the Major Leagues.:

Draft Order | 2013 First-Year Player Draft | MLB.com: Events

Hmm. Guessing it's a typo as this link still says 40 and I haven't heard anything about the rounds decreasing yet again.

[Nefaro]

As to the original post, I'm also seeing the same behavior. Only the "$ for Free Agents" value is available for my first draft.

The "Draft Expenses" value isn't being included.

Bug, I suppose?

[Nefaro]

Was this Draft Expenses issue ever confirmed and/or fixed in the upcoming patch??