 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » New Improvement Option
Admin
This setting affects Major league improvement conversions. If the option is turned on, your players chances of converting an IC will be influenced by your team's winning percentage.
The breakeven point is a .460 Winning PCT, which is about 75 games. Teams that win more than that will have a greater chance of converting ICs, teams that win less than that will have a decreased chance of converting ICs. The upper ceiling is at about 91 wins, after that you don't get any more benefit from winning games. There is no lower floor.
A team that wins 91 games will convert about 15% more ICs. A team that only wins 65 games will convert about 10% less ICs.
This option will be turned off for all leagues by default. Leagues can vote to turn it on through a unanimous vote
The reason for this change is to provide more dis-incentives to the total rebuild strategy. It should provide more interesting decisions for teams that are rebuilding. I also feel it has a basis in reality. A team that wins 55 games isn't going to draw very well, so that team will have less money to put towards developing players.
Tyson
New Improvement Option
August 27, 2010 at 06:51PM View BBCode
I've added another option that leagues can turn on and off.This setting affects Major league improvement conversions. If the option is turned on, your players chances of converting an IC will be influenced by your team's winning percentage.
The breakeven point is a .460 Winning PCT, which is about 75 games. Teams that win more than that will have a greater chance of converting ICs, teams that win less than that will have a decreased chance of converting ICs. The upper ceiling is at about 91 wins, after that you don't get any more benefit from winning games. There is no lower floor.
A team that wins 91 games will convert about 15% more ICs. A team that only wins 65 games will convert about 10% less ICs.
This option will be turned off for all leagues by default. Leagues can vote to turn it on through a unanimous vote
The reason for this change is to provide more dis-incentives to the total rebuild strategy. It should provide more interesting decisions for teams that are rebuilding. I also feel it has a basis in reality. A team that wins 55 games isn't going to draw very well, so that team will have less money to put towards developing players.
Tyson
tworoosters
In the same vein I believe major league ICs should be accrued during the post season, and possibly minor league ICs as well as an incentive to make the playoffs.
August 28, 2010 at 05:41AM View BBCode
I like this option, though I think the threshold at 75 may be a bit high, but I doubt very much if this will be well received.In the same vein I believe major league ICs should be accrued during the post season, and possibly minor league ICs as well as an incentive to make the playoffs.
Admin
Tyson
August 28, 2010 at 05:44AM View BBCode
We sometimes get people that say things like, "I wish there was multiple ways to build a team besides losing a ton of games and getting the top pick". This option, along with the other two mentoring options, should allow that.Tyson
bpearly69
August 29, 2010 at 09:24AM View BBCode
So are these new changes site wide that will be added in? Just checking this page out a bit seems kind of hard to keep up on all the new updates and new options
Admin
Tyson
August 29, 2010 at 03:01PM View BBCode
We are beta testing these items for a mid-September release. A list of all new updates will be posted in Latest News sometime next week.Tyson
lvnwrth
In real life, the rich MAY get richer (in terms of player development) by playing a longer season. BUT, after their winning season, they then have to worry about who leaves, because they can't give everyone the raises the player agents are demanding.
Figure out a way to have winning teams lose players who don't get raises, and I'll be 100% on board with improving their IC conversion %.
September 05, 2010 at 01:05AM View BBCode
I like the idea of a disincentive to losing, though I agree that that 75 might be a little bit high for a "break even" point. I don't like the idea of bumping winners even more. The rich get richer is a bad plan, IMO.In real life, the rich MAY get richer (in terms of player development) by playing a longer season. BUT, after their winning season, they then have to worry about who leaves, because they can't give everyone the raises the player agents are demanding.
Figure out a way to have winning teams lose players who don't get raises, and I'll be 100% on board with improving their IC conversion %.
lvnwrth
September 05, 2010 at 06:29PM View BBCode
Why is the off-season taking so long to run? Are we waiting on the new improvement system?
Admin
Tyson
September 07, 2010 at 04:07PM View BBCode
I like the idea of a disincentive to losing, though I agree that that 75 might be a little bit high for a "break even" point. I don't like the idea of bumping winners even more. The rich get richer is a bad plan, IMO.Here's the general thinking. Right now, if you are building a team up, it is generally better to lose as many games as possible because that results in a better draft pick. My goal was to design a system where winning more games might be an equal path during a rebuild, or even a superior rebuilding strategy.
Tyson
cubfan531
September 07, 2010 at 10:18PM View BBCode
I always felt that with Sim Dynasty, you played with small-market team strategy. If you can't buy your way out of the hole you dug, you have to build from the inside.
lvnwrth
I don't disagree with that philosophy, and I'm on board with dinging teams that lose a lot...though as I said, I agree that 75 games is too high a threshold. You can easily lose that many while making every legit effort to win.
What I disagree with is bumping the % for winning teams. If you want to bump those guys, let them continue to accrue IC's during the post-season. But don't bump their IC conversion %.
September 08, 2010 at 02:24AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
I like the idea of a disincentive to losing, though I agree that that 75 might be a little bit high for a "break even" point. I don't like the idea of bumping winners even more. The rich get richer is a bad plan, IMO.Here's the general thinking. Right now, if you are building a team up, it is generally better to lose as many games as possible because that results in a better draft pick. My goal was to design a system where winning more games might be an equal path during a rebuild, or even a superior rebuilding strategy.
Tyson
I don't disagree with that philosophy, and I'm on board with dinging teams that lose a lot...though as I said, I agree that 75 games is too high a threshold. You can easily lose that many while making every legit effort to win.
What I disagree with is bumping the % for winning teams. If you want to bump those guys, let them continue to accrue IC's during the post-season. But don't bump their IC conversion %.
Admin
Dinging teams that lose a lot can be accomplished through other means, such as a loss penalty. I wanted to provide something a bit more dynamic than just a loss penalty. Leagues are welcome to use this option or ignore it.
Tyson
September 08, 2010 at 02:52PM View BBCode
I'd like to give an incentive for winning each additional game, up until the point where you are really fighting for the playoffs which is at 91 or so. This should present a lot of interesting decisions for owners on whether they play a mentor, a young player, or a stud that is a bad mentor.Dinging teams that lose a lot can be accomplished through other means, such as a loss penalty. I wanted to provide something a bit more dynamic than just a loss penalty. Leagues are welcome to use this option or ignore it.
Tyson
Pages: 1