Poll: Are Talent Levels an Issue?

[dejota]

Trying to check the pulse on this. I've been talking about it for two seasons and I really think it would benefit to consider lowering talent levels. Like we did when increasing them it'd be a very modest amounts and never more than once per season.

This doesn't mean we'll do anything, especially immediately but I do want to know how GMs fee.

[terrythek]

talents levels aren't too high for my team :p

[mattynokes]

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.

[rockybull]

When every team has 93 overall farms, then you see this type of thing. Only way to really lower it is lower it to 85(which is B+ and still very good) OR don't lock expenses, and allow teams to spend what they want on expenses. Some will obviously use money on their farm(which they will have the better farms) and some will choose to spend their money on player salaries(which they will have worse farms). You can bring in expansion teams in all you want, but you keep 93 farms for everyone, you will still see it and even more talent I think. I believe this is only way to really fix the problem. Another plan is to just use the health ratings like they are. Sure you see some 58-62 rated health players in mogul drafts. If you just leave it like that, then that will cut down on possibly the life of that player, which will cut down on talent as well especially if 1-2 injuries they could die off if they have such low health lol. I believe there are ways to fix things like I said, but after this, I don't believe there is a ton.

[Mad_Trapper]

I agree with Rocky. I liked the cap system we had for expenses. I don’t know why everything needs to be equal.

[Cdawg]

If he goes back to the capped system, he'd have to increase everyone's budget again. As I've stated before w/ the Capped system and spending about 20M total on expenses I still had a 125M budget. Right now I don't see a problem, it becomes an issue when 2-5 teams are constantly in the post season dominating while alot of the other teams are trying to float by and get 2-3 seasons worth of a good team.(which is supposed to happen as I think the same 6 teams in RL are constantly bidding for the post season, but then in the sim there would be no parody and thus, less interesting for the other clubs who don't have fun.) Personally I need to see a bit more "Facts" I guess than just "I think the talent level is too high" if I see and upward trend and a trend closer to more teams having higher overalls(not just winning clubs but Id say 2/3 at least of the league).

And personally lowering the farm system I don't think is such a good idea. I mean I get that prospects are hit and miss but in RL most ML teams have 7+ Minor league teams and AFL teams etc etc and the draft goes like 800 round(I know it doesn't) so w/ just 6 rounds, 4 main levels of minors it can't be that way all the time.

[AndyP]

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.

---

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.

[rockybull]

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.

[GoIrish]

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.

---

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.

si es muy correcto and I agreeo

[AndyP]

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.

I like the idea of dropping it down, just as long as it stays capped.

In real life you can spend all the money you want - but it's talent scouting and player development that matters most, not money.

The A's, Rays, Twins, Braves, etc. have excellent farm systems because of player development, not money. Money will let you buy IFA and prospects (one of the two we do), but it won't have a significant bearign on the player's development.

In other words, you can buy better talent, but you can't buy the talent to be better. Capping expenses is the only way to maintain that realism.