(04-25-2011, 09:27 PM)mattynokes Wrote: I think the biggest issue is veterans randomly dropping. A veteran who is consistently performing and isn't getting any severe injuries (6+ months) shouldn't be taking dives so up-and-coming prospects can take their rating slot. I've seen Merv Palmer (84 to 80), Jason Castro (87 to 83), Justin Upton (88 to 85 back to 87), Ryan Westmoreland (90 to 84), and now Nick Barnese (84 to 82) all drop in just two years. Neither has had any severe injuries. Westmoreland has had a few two week injury stints, but I wouldn't think the game is programmed to determine that as an injury drop since it wouldn't make sense realistically for two week injuries to hurt your skills. I think simply lowering the peaks per team would help a lot. Currently it seems like you should keep a player for his 6 years of team control and then let him go since it's dicey on if he'll have a random drop and you sure better not keep player north of 30 as they seem to drop like flies (and it doesn't seem like a decline reason). People shouldn't be afraid to sign guys in their early 30s to a 3 or 4 year deal. In the MLB today some of the bigger stars and more reliable players are in their mid 30s and that's a rarity here. Most players die once they hit 34.

(04-26-2011, 06:18 AM)Mad_Trapper Wrote: I agree with Rocky. I liked the cap system we had for expenses. I don’t know why everything needs to be equal.

(04-26-2011, 11:16 AM)AndyP Wrote:

(04-25-2011, 09:27 PM)mattynokes Wrote: I think the biggest issue is veterans randomly dropping. A veteran who is consistently performing and isn't getting any severe injuries (6+ months) shouldn't be taking dives so up-and-coming prospects can take their rating slot. I've seen Merv Palmer (84 to 80), Jason Castro (87 to 83), Justin Upton (88 to 85 back to 87), Ryan Westmoreland (90 to 84), and now Nick Barnese (84 to 82) all drop in just two years. Neither has had any severe injuries. Westmoreland has had a few two week injury stints, but I wouldn't think the game is programmed to determine that as an injury drop since it wouldn't make sense realistically for two week injuries to hurt your skills. I think simply lowering the peaks per team would help a lot. Currently it seems like you should keep a player for his 6 years of team control and then let him go since it's dicey on if he'll have a random drop and you sure better not keep player north of 30 as they seem to drop like flies (and it doesn't seem like a decline reason). People shouldn't be afraid to sign guys in their early 30s to a 3 or 4 year deal. In the MLB today some of the bigger stars and more reliable players are in their mid 30s and that's a rarity here. Most players die once they hit 34.

This is a product of the recoding done for Mogul 2011 - our file has nothing to do with it and nothing can really be done about it. The randomn veteran drops were done by Clay to be more reflective of real life.

We've had the discussion here before, but basically when he coded it he made the game kill veterans in the name of prospects advancing. It's a terrible system, but it's woven into the game beyond anything we can change.

---

(04-26-2011, 06:18 AM)Mad_Trapper Wrote: I agree with Rocky. I liked the cap system we had for expenses. I don’t know why everything needs to be equal.

I don't have a problem with lowering the farm production rate, but equalized spending was necessitated by the "magic pixie dust" effect which is wildly unrealistic.

If you don't know what I'm talking about start a single player mode with any team you want (preferrably one with a decent to good farm system) and pour enough money into your farm so that no one can outspend you and then sim for 5-10 years. Your team will have churned out studs left and right most of the time.

Now put that same team with nothing in the farm and watch those very same guys that were studs, turn into duds. And the effect can be that extreme here in online leagues which ruins the parity and ability to be competitive. Teams with budget challenges already face a tough road, not allowing their prospects to develop for money reasons is just plain foolishness.

The Yankees can't buy magic pixie dust to make their player perform better, so equalized spending is the only way to stop that stupid coding from hurting the league.

(04-26-2011, 06:10 PM)rockybull Wrote: Andy, you are def right about that. It's also common sense to think that teams not spending on farms will have shit farms, and teams that spend a lot on farms will have studs coming out left and right. I didn't actually say we should uncap expenses, it was just an idea, since it would lower talent levels as league wide. DJ has been mentioning this for awhile now, so just wanted to give him my take on it. I would personally prefer going to 85 capped on farm.

DJ, maybe you can talk with burnsey and Cdawg, two members that are in outahere with me and see what they have noticed Outahere doing differently with the talent settings. In Outahere the farms are 85 for everyone, and they said they changed some settings to deflate so much talent. I have noticed the talent has went down a good bit since the beginning when I was there, so maybe you could talk with one of the admins there.