|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 30, 2020 1:06:52 GMT
Can't say i disagree with much, other than i only see 6 rookie mins thus far. One per team would be on par with a draft, so i think an extension for each is appropriate owing to the fact we solved the equal access problem a draft presents that FA solves. i have two of those mins and both players would have been udfa in a draft season |
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Oct 30, 2020 2:05:16 GMT
if we end up in a scenario where overcap teams have exactly as much flexibility to acquire and retain rookies as they did in a draft system, what's the point? i'm not sure keeping good teams from acquiring and retaining talent was ever the goal of rookie fa, at least not from my perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Oct 30, 2020 13:26:55 GMT
i'm extremely hesitant to increase free bucks because 10k missing playoffs + 8k on time correct DC + 3k boxes is 21k, doing a podcast for 30k once every three seasons would be enough to fully upgrade a player every year, so the "not enough to upgrade" doesn't seem right to me. if scouting specifically is what's too expensive the appropriate answer to me seems to be to reduce scout costs or introduce scout tokens, with the point of scout tokens being to address the specific issue of scout expense while by definition not impacting anything else - we'd have to reevaluate the trade cap, amnesty costs, lab costs, camp costs, extension costs, coach costs, Germany costs, fines... that seems like a big can of worms we could avoid really easily if the problem is just scout costs, especially since they've always been malleable I disagree with the first statement. As I said in shout the other day, thinking/expecting people to write more articles or participate in more podcasts is not going to happen, we have 30+ seasons of evidence. I am also not sure what the concern is to increase the ability to earn bucks. We have strict limits on the spending a team can do in the areas that truly benefit the GM/Team, IE Upgrades, Coaching. All other bucks would be used for scouting or trades, and each of those have built in limitations to what you can spend or gain. I agree with the reduction in scouting costs as it is now far more important for everyone to use. Previously, we had maybe an average of 3-4 GM's that used scouting in a particular draft, and they would likely only scout 2-3 guys. With rookie FA its important for every team to scout with them needing to scout 5-6 guys each. Not all will do this obviously, but if we want to create a some-what fair system of information then thats roughly the number I would guess. Thats alot of bucks to earn/spend every seasons and lowering the amount it would take would help. With that |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 30, 2020 14:00:47 GMT
From what I am reading, it sounds like we should address two things:
1. Extensions (Do we want to add any? If so, how many and with what limitations? And do we want to make them tradeable?)
2. Inflation vs cost reduction - Reduce costs of high priced items or increase income to cover high priced items (I.e. Scouting)
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 30, 2020 16:01:35 GMT
we've seen a lot of rookies go for mins early in FA (i.e. before day five) so i'm hesitant to go "hog wild" on min extensions also, to my mind the reduced ability for overcap teams to retain young talent is a feature, not a bug, so i don't think more extensions (rookie or otherwise) for them makes sense. teams over the cap SHOULD feel like they have reduced retention ability, and as above with how many rookies are going for mins and no one really knowing how they'll turn out, i don't think we have reason to believe that if rookies are good they'll get big money and keep overcap teams out of the picture that way with all that said, i think an undercap extension on top of the extension everyone gets would be good, and making the everyone extension tradeable would also work pretty easily. i would want to try this before we tried rookie scale extensions, since those would obviously be much more powerful, and again would expect those to be limited to undercap teams . it's not clear to me what we gain from removing the soft cap for trading purposes. if we end up in a scenario where overcap teams have exactly as much flexibility to acquire and retain rookies as they did in a draft system, what's the point? . i'm extremely hesitant to increase free bucks because 10k missing playoffs + 8k on time correct DC + 3k boxes is 21k, doing a podcast for 30k once every three seasons would be enough to fully upgrade a player every year, so the "not enough to upgrade" doesn't seem right to me. if scouting specifically is what's too expensive the appropriate answer to me seems to be to reduce scout costs or introduce scout tokens, with the point of scout tokens being to address the specific issue of scout expense while by definition not impacting anything else - we'd have to reevaluate the trade cap, amnesty costs, lab costs, camp costs, extension costs, coach costs, Germany costs, fines... that seems like a big can of worms we could avoid really easily if the problem is just scout costs, especially since they've always been malleable just a couple of follow ups 1. thoughts on removing the cap on tradeable bucks? 2. i'm not sure keeping good teams from acquiring and retaining talent was ever the goal of rookie fa, at least not from my perspective. while close but not the same, the goal for me was to prevent elite player acquisition and retention based off of things such as "because it was their turn to have a good pick". previously title winners could end up with 1.1, now not only does no one have 1.1 but most anyone that an overthecap team can end up signing will be players that have been passed on by everyone with space (unless they use mle which you and others consider foolish). plus not having that bad player with birds will hurt trading because we will be more limited in the ability to match contracts without giving up someone we dont want to give up. i want to stay at the 70k cap for a season or two just to see if people start hitting it more frequently. granted, there are hypothetical trades that a GM would agree to for 200k but not for 70k and so we aren't getting complete information, but in general in this experimental phase i don't want to change too many different variables at once, otherwise it's hard to see what variable had what effect, and we just changed a really big one. of course we have to balance this against a very limited number of seasons to experiment with too i hear you but i definitely think we need to wait for a season to see how well higher bids are actually correlated with better rookies. it's obvious this will be true at the tippy top extremes (no one's getting kareem on a min) but when guys like hezonja and lucas end up elite players, it's easy to imagine elite or at least very good rookies going for mins. and overcap teams will still have the one extension, but keeping it at $5m makes it tougher for them (what with being overcap) and giving undercap teams another makes it more likely the elite rookies stay with undercap teams, since they can offer mins too i also don't think overcap teams will be bereft of bad players with birds either - sign the worst rookie to a min, sign them again in FA to a min, sign them again in FA to a min, boom, bird rights. it's not as convenient as a second rounder and especially a second rounder mostly in the minors, but it's what a lot of us did in 4.0 and i found it reliable enough as a #neverdrafter |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 30, 2020 16:02:29 GMT
i'm extremely hesitant to increase free bucks because 10k missing playoffs + 8k on time correct DC + 3k boxes is 21k, doing a podcast for 30k once every three seasons would be enough to fully upgrade a player every year, so the "not enough to upgrade" doesn't seem right to me. if scouting specifically is what's too expensive the appropriate answer to me seems to be to reduce scout costs or introduce scout tokens, with the point of scout tokens being to address the specific issue of scout expense while by definition not impacting anything else - we'd have to reevaluate the trade cap, amnesty costs, lab costs, camp costs, extension costs, coach costs, Germany costs, fines... that seems like a big can of worms we could avoid really easily if the problem is just scout costs, especially since they've always been malleable I disagree with the first statement. As I said in shout the other day, thinking/expecting people to write more articles or participate in more podcasts is not going to happen, we have 30+ seasons of evidence. I am also not sure what the concern is to increase the ability to earn bucks. We have strict limits on the spending a team can do in the areas that truly benefit the GM/Team, IE Upgrades, Coaching. All other bucks would be used for scouting or trades, and each of those have built in limitations to what you can spend or gain. I agree with the reduction in scouting costs as it is now far more important for everyone to use. Previously, we had maybe an average of 3-4 GM's that used scouting in a particular draft, and they would likely only scout 2-3 guys. With rookie FA its important for every team to scout with them needing to scout 5-6 guys each. Not all will do this obviously, but if we want to create a some-what fair system of information then thats roughly the number I would guess. Thats alot of bucks to earn/spend every seasons and lowering the amount it would take would help. With that quite to the contrary, over 30 seasons we've seen very different participation rates both in type and quantity of articles. the only article assessment we can say for sure is incorrect is "nothing will change" - the only constant IS change the concern stems from the claim (that i find plausible) that there is a current de facto limit below the de jure limits on buck spending - people don't have enough bucks to get everything they could get with unlimited bucks. therefore, if we remove that de facto limit we will be altering game balance, which is something i don't want to do if there's a more direct solution that won't (i.e. cheaper scouting) |
|
|
|
Post by andrewluck on Oct 30, 2020 16:03:34 GMT
1) yes
2) sure
3) yes, either option seems fine.
4) definitely, or at least add tradable scouting tokens. Scouting info is far too overpriced IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 30, 2020 16:16:44 GMT
just a couple of follow ups 1. thoughts on removing the cap on tradeable bucks? 2. i'm not sure keeping good teams from acquiring and retaining talent was ever the goal of rookie fa, at least not from my perspective. while close but not the same, the goal for me was to prevent elite player acquisition and retention based off of things such as "because it was their turn to have a good pick". previously title winners could end up with 1.1, now not only does no one have 1.1 but most anyone that an overthecap team can end up signing will be players that have been passed on by everyone with space (unless they use mle which you and others consider foolish). plus not having that bad player with birds will hurt trading because we will be more limited in the ability to match contracts without giving up someone we dont want to give up. i want to stay at the 70k cap for a season or two just to see if people start hitting it more frequently. granted, there are hypothetical trades that a GM would agree to for 200k but not for 70k and so we aren't getting complete information, but in general in this experimental phase i don't want to change too many different variables at once, otherwise it's hard to see what variable had what effect, and we just changed a really big one. of course we have to balance this against a very limited number of seasons to experiment with too i hear you but i definitely think we need to wait for a season to see how well higher bids are actually correlated with better rookies. it's obvious this will be true at the tippy top extremes (no one's getting kareem on a min) but when guys like hezonja and lucas end up elite players, it's easy to imagine elite or at least very good rookies going for mins. and overcap teams will still have the one extension, but keeping it at $5m makes it tougher for them (what with being overcap) and giving undercap teams another makes it more likely the elite rookies stay with undercap teams, since they can offer mins too i also don't think overcap teams will be bereft of bad players with birds either - sign the worst rookie to a min, sign them again in FA to a min, sign them again in FA to a min, boom, bird rights. it's not as convenient as a second rounder and especially a second rounder mostly in the minors, but it's what a lot of us did in 4.0 and i found it reliable enough as a #neverdrafter i appreciate your open mindedness here however i once again must stress two things: 1. we dont have a ton of time left in 5.0 so letting things play out at our normal speed may be less than ideal 2. even if we overtune something it wont cause long term damage because 5.0 is ending soon |
|
|
|
Post by andrewluck on Oct 30, 2020 16:17:25 GMT
P.s.
It seems weird to me that a general consensus does not dictate how things are governed in this league. If a vast majority of the GMs are in favor of changes, why not try? Commish makes the rules regardless?
Reading this thread it seems like a bunch of folks are all leaning one way and then the top guy in charge tells us why we can't have nice things. Nothing against Eric in particular. I respect your viewpoints and certainly understand that your experience is far greater than mine. I just don't understand why his say is the only one that matters?
|
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Oct 30, 2020 16:42:27 GMT
yeah eric i understand your want for scientific validity by changing just 1 thing at a time to see what variables are effecting what HOWEVER when you only have 4-5 seasons left and you have a HYPOTHESIS of what will be the most effective you usually try the hypothesis first. We have all these ideas that when put together we think it will work better, then you just try it. Then if it doesn't work then you start working backwards taking out things that might be causing issues. Just changing 1 thing at a time is not always the best way to set up an experiment |
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Oct 30, 2020 16:54:05 GMT
What do people think about making scouting available at all times? And youre able to scout players currently in the league? Makes bucks more valuable
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 31, 2020 4:01:26 GMT
yeah eric i understand your want for scientific validity by changing just 1 thing at a time to see what variables are effecting what HOWEVER when you only have 4-5 seasons left and you have a HYPOTHESIS of what will be the most effective you usually try the hypothesis first. We have all these ideas that when put together we think it will work better, then you just try it. Then if it doesn't work then you start working backwards taking out things that might be causing issues. Just changing 1 thing at a time is not always the best way to set up an experiment but how would we know what specific idea of all those might be causing issues? better to know for sure that a few things do or don't work than to only know that a dozen things put together don't work. consider this thread, if we implement [lift the soft cap for trades] * [more extensions] * [cheaper extensions] * [tradeable upgrades] * [multiply free bucks] * [cheap scouts] * [scout tokens] * [tradeable scout slots] * [limit bids] * [whatever else] surely the odds of it happening to work out better are slim, and if it doesn't how could we possibly know which one (or combination) of those is the bad egg? you know factorials, how many combinations would we expect to try before we identified them? Logan this also applies to your point, the concern is not long term damage (as you correctly point out, what long term?) but long term knowledge. i don't know if slow and steady will get enough information for rookie FA to be the best option for 6.0, but i do know 'move fast break things' won't. we haven't seen any rookie play a single minute and we already have a dozen ideas how to fix rookie fa, you know what i mean? |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 31, 2020 4:02:36 GMT
P.s. It seems weird to me that a general consensus does not dictate how things are governed in this league. If a vast majority of the GMs are in favor of changes, why not try? Commish makes the rules regardless? Reading this thread it seems like a bunch of folks are all leaning one way and then the top guy in charge tells us why we can't have nice things. Nothing against Eric in particular. I respect your viewpoints and certainly understand that your experience is far greater than mine. I just don't understand why his say is the only one that matters? there are times both can happen. for example when GMs wanted to do weighted lotto because it would bring back GMs, i said "sure! and if it doesn't we'll do wheel" - if it did we'd have more GMs, if it didn't we'd have a manifestly superior draft system, win-win. or when GMs wanted to do college players instead of an amalgam of NBA classes for 6.0 creation i said "sure! and if there aren't enough i'll add in NBA classes" - we ended up with pretty much 50/50, which makes half as much work for me and GMs getting half as much as they wanted, win-win this specifically to my mind isn't one of those times because the point of 5.0 twilight is to experiment with rookie FA, and a good experiment can't change too many variables at once, so i'm not really talking as a commissioner but as a scientist rookie FA is a completely novel system, which is exciting! and i don't want to tamp down anyone's excitement, i'm excited too, and i have no doubt at least one idea in here would be an improvement. but if we really want to know for sure which one specifically is the good idea, we've got to be patient |
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 31, 2020 5:28:24 GMT
yeah eric i understand your want for scientific validity by changing just 1 thing at a time to see what variables are effecting what HOWEVER when you only have 4-5 seasons left and you have a HYPOTHESIS of what will be the most effective you usually try the hypothesis first. We have all these ideas that when put together we think it will work better, then you just try it. Then if it doesn't work then you start working backwards taking out things that might be causing issues. Just changing 1 thing at a time is not always the best way to set up an experiment but how would we know what specific idea of all those might be causing issues? better to know for sure that a few things do or don't work than to only know that a dozen things put together don't work. consider this thread, if we implement [lift the soft cap for trades] * [more extensions] * [cheaper extensions] * [tradeable upgrades] * [multiply free bucks] * [cheap scouts] * [scout tokens] * [tradeable scout slots] * [limit bids] * [whatever else] surely the odds of it happening to work out better are slim, and if it doesn't how could we possibly know which one (or combination) of those is the bad egg? you know factorials, how many combinations would we expect to try before we identified them? Logan this also applies to your point, the concern is not long term damage (as you correctly point out, what long term?) but long term knowledge. i don't know if slow and steady will get enough information for rookie FA to be the best option for 6.0, but i do know 'move fast break things' won't. we haven't seen any rookie play a single minute and we already have a dozen ideas how to fix rookie fa, you know what i mean? i dont think we need to see the rookies play to know we definitely need a couple of these changes, particularly scouting amd trade cap |
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Oct 31, 2020 12:33:49 GMT
yeah eric i understand your want for scientific validity by changing just 1 thing at a time to see what variables are effecting what HOWEVER when you only have 4-5 seasons left and you have a HYPOTHESIS of what will be the most effective you usually try the hypothesis first. We have all these ideas that when put together we think it will work better, then you just try it. Then if it doesn't work then you start working backwards taking out things that might be causing issues. Just changing 1 thing at a time is not always the best way to set up an experiment but how would we know what specific idea of all those might be causing issues? better to know for sure that a few things do or don't work than to only know that a dozen things put together don't work. consider this thread, if we implement [lift the soft cap for trades] * [more extensions] * [cheaper extensions] * [tradeable upgrades] * [multiply free bucks] * [cheap scouts] * [scout tokens] * [tradeable scout slots] * [limit bids] * [whatever else] surely the odds of it happening to work out better are slim, and if it doesn't how could we possibly know which one (or combination) of those is the bad egg? you know factorials, how many combinations would we expect to try before we identified them? Logan this also applies to your point, the concern is not long term damage (as you correctly point out, what long term?) but long term knowledge. i don't know if slow and steady will get enough information for rookie FA to be the best option for 6.0, but i do know 'move fast break things' won't. we haven't seen any rookie play a single minute and we already have a dozen ideas how to fix rookie fa, you know what i mean? You must have low confidence in our pool of GMs or yourself to be able to identify a best guess hypothesis. I literally don't know any scientist that just try 1 thing at a time slowly when they have a hypothesis of what the true answer is. They try the true one first. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 31, 2020 13:59:40 GMT
- Reduce scouts by 50% (so people want to buy them)
- Allow 2 extensions (using existing 5 mil salary cap)
I think those 2 changes are very conservative and wont have enough of an impact on rookie FA to change how we feel about it overall. However, they will help improve the market for bucks traded and scouts purchased, and I think that is a positive that we need.
We have data on how no draft picks affects the trade market - negatively. Let's give a slight injection to the areas we see immediate and broad concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 31, 2020 14:32:46 GMT
- Reduce scouts by 50% (so people want to buy them) - Allow 2 extensions (using existing 5 mil salary cap) I think those 2 changes are very conservative and wont have enough of an impact on rookie FA to change how we feel about it overall. However, they will help improve the market for bucks traded and scouts purchased, and I think that is a positive that we need. We have data on how no draft picks affects the trade market - negatively. Let's give a slight injection to the areas we see immediate and broad concerns. i do think scout cost reduction is a good and direct solution, especially since we've done it so many times historically i still don't think we can determine how or if we should change extensions until we see the rookies play though. i want to stress that i'm not hinting some rookies who went for mins are studs, i haven't checked and even if i did until a player plays nobody really knows |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Oct 31, 2020 14:37:10 GMT
but how would we know what specific idea of all those might be causing issues? better to know for sure that a few things do or don't work than to only know that a dozen things put together don't work. consider this thread, if we implement [lift the soft cap for trades] * [more extensions] * [cheaper extensions] * [tradeable upgrades] * [multiply free bucks] * [cheap scouts] * [scout tokens] * [tradeable scout slots] * [limit bids] * [whatever else] surely the odds of it happening to work out better are slim, and if it doesn't how could we possibly know which one (or combination) of those is the bad egg? you know factorials, how many combinations would we expect to try before we identified them? Logan this also applies to your point, the concern is not long term damage (as you correctly point out, what long term?) but long term knowledge. i don't know if slow and steady will get enough information for rookie FA to be the best option for 6.0, but i do know 'move fast break things' won't. we haven't seen any rookie play a single minute and we already have a dozen ideas how to fix rookie fa, you know what i mean? You must have low confidence in our pool of GMs or yourself to be able to identify a best guess hypothesis. I literally don't know any scientist that just try 1 thing at a time slowly when they have a hypothesis of what the true answer is. They try the true one first. in a brand new system that none of us have ever had any experience with, that has never existed in real life, for which we as yet have no player data whatsoever? you bet your sweet bippy i have low confidence in us, let alone whatever ad hoc amalgam of our hypotheses we'd end up agreeing(?) on as "the true one" |
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Oct 31, 2020 14:42:39 GMT
You must have low confidence in our pool of GMs or yourself to be able to identify a best guess hypothesis. I literally don't know any scientist that just try 1 thing at a time slowly when they have a hypothesis of what the true answer is. They try the true one first. in a brand new system that none of us have ever had any experience with, that has never existed in real life, for which we as yet have no player data whatsoever? you bet your sweet bippy i have low confidence in us, let alone whatever ad hoc amalgam of our hypotheses we'd end up agreeing(?) on as "the true one"
but in this case youre running against the clock. you have two things working against your slow-experiment model here:
lack of time left in 5.0 gms that get annoyed that the league blows because we cant hardly trade shit and quit
not changing things faster has potential negatives that far outweigh the bad that happens if we implement some of these ideas, where the bad consequences are merely changing them back if they dont work
|
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 31, 2020 14:55:15 GMT
id rather have no cap on trades as the first change tbh
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 31, 2020 14:55:37 GMT
OK, then let's start with reducing scouting costs. That doesn't come into play until Sim 8 so there is no fall out of changing the rule before that time.
I would be fine with waiting to change extension rules. Let's see how season one plays out then we go from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 31, 2020 14:55:57 GMT
id rather have no cap on trades as the first change tbh No cap on bucks? |
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 31, 2020 15:00:06 GMT
id rather have no cap on trades as the first change tbh No cap on bucks? yeah that one |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Oct 31, 2020 15:02:43 GMT
That too I think would not impact our view on Rookie FA. It again would help with the previously identified problem of lacking tradeable assets. Increasing the amount we can trade def would help tip the scales for more trades with bigger names moving.
eric, if you're hesitant to make this move, why don't we just keep moving the scale up until we feel like we have the right number? It would bump to 80K this year? |
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Oct 31, 2020 15:30:27 GMT
You must have low confidence in our pool of GMs or yourself to be able to identify a best guess hypothesis. I literally don't know any scientist that just try 1 thing at a time slowly when they have a hypothesis of what the true answer is. They try the true one first. in a brand new system that none of us have ever had any experience with, that has never existed in real life, for which we as yet have no player data whatsoever? you bet your sweet bippy i have low confidence in us, let alone whatever ad hoc amalgam of our hypotheses we'd end up agreeing(?) on as "the true one" i think theres knowledge to be gained either way. over tuning - you quickly learn what is too much under tuning - you slowly learn what isnt enough and everyone in the league prefers the former. again, this has always been a democracy. theres a good number of changes that we want to see but we have some disagreements on the exact system to use in some scenarios. from my perspective, we decide what kind of changes need to be made and the timeline for those while you decide the exact interpretation of the new systems for example min extensions vs additional extensions |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 1, 2020 21:19:47 GMT
in a brand new system that none of us have ever had any experience with, that has never existed in real life, for which we as yet have no player data whatsoever? you bet your sweet bippy i have low confidence in us, let alone whatever ad hoc amalgam of our hypotheses we'd end up agreeing(?) on as "the true one" but in this case youre running against the clock. you have two things working against your slow-experiment model here: lack of time left in 5.0 gms that get annoyed that the league blows because we cant hardly trade shit and quit not changing things faster has potential negatives that far outweigh the bad that happens if we implement some of these ideas, where the bad consequences are merely changing them back if they dont work
i'll say once more, the bad consequence is that we don't learn which of those ideas were helpful for a possible 6.0 rookie fa. we're running against the clock either way, making 12 changes and taking 1 back at a time we definitely won't get useful data |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 1, 2020 21:20:18 GMT
OK, then let's start with reducing scouting costs. That doesn't come into play until Sim 8 so there is no fall out of changing the rule before that time. I would be fine with waiting to change extension rules. Let's see how season one plays out then we go from there. this works for me, as does going to 80k next year and so on |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 1, 2020 21:32:38 GMT
in a brand new system that none of us have ever had any experience with, that has never existed in real life, for which we as yet have no player data whatsoever? you bet your sweet bippy i have low confidence in us, let alone whatever ad hoc amalgam of our hypotheses we'd end up agreeing(?) on as "the true one" i think theres knowledge to be gained either way. over tuning - you quickly learn what is too much under tuning - you slowly learn what isnt enough and everyone in the league prefers the former. again, this has always been a democracy. theres a good number of changes that we want to see but we have some disagreements on the exact system to use in some scenarios. from my perspective, we decide what kind of changes need to be made and the timeline for those while you decide the exact interpretation of the new systems for example min extensions vs additional extensions when what we're over tuning is one thing, sure. if i make sorcerer dps way too high yes that's obvious to see. if i change sorcerer dps and fighter dps and ranger dps and enemy toughness and wizard buffs and bard buffs and heals and gear and pets all at the same time, how could anyone possibly know which one of all those changes caused what result? i'm not saying we should make a little change instead of a big change, i'm saying we should make one or two changes instead of ten changes as we can see from this thread GMs have a lot of different ideas of what to do, just go down the line: you want to get rid of the trade cap, majic wants bid limits, skrouse wants no soft cap for trades, jhb wants scout slots, half the people think bucks are worthless, half the people think we should dramatically devalue bucks with more freebies, half the league hasn't weighed in at all - if this was a democracy the runaway winner would be "none of the above", and the half a dozen people who do want things all wanting different things would be a deadlock |
|
|
|
Post by Logan on Nov 1, 2020 23:10:49 GMT
i think theres knowledge to be gained either way. over tuning - you quickly learn what is too much under tuning - you slowly learn what isnt enough and everyone in the league prefers the former. again, this has always been a democracy. theres a good number of changes that we want to see but we have some disagreements on the exact system to use in some scenarios. from my perspective, we decide what kind of changes need to be made and the timeline for those while you decide the exact interpretation of the new systems for example min extensions vs additional extensions when what we're over tuning is one thing, sure. if i make sorcerer dps way too high yes that's obvious to see. if i change sorcerer dps and fighter dps and ranger dps and enemy toughness and wizard buffs and bard buffs and heals and gear and pets all at the same time, how could anyone possibly know which one of all those changes caused what result? i'm not saying we should make a little change instead of a big change, i'm saying we should make one or two changes instead of ten changes as we can see from this thread GMs have a lot of different ideas of what to do, just go down the line: you want to get rid of the trade cap, majic wants bid limits, skrouse wants no soft cap for trades, jhb wants scout slots, half the people think bucks are worthless, half the people think we should dramatically devalue bucks with more freebies, half the league hasn't weighed in at all - if this was a democracy the runaway winner would be "none of the above", and the half a dozen people who do want things all wanting different things would be a deadlock i see this like irl, no vote is no vote not "no" vote |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 5, 2020 21:21:04 GMT
just wanted to get peoples' takes on the extension front
currently on the rookie ladder we have one max, three MLEs, two LLEs, and two mins
this is out of three rookie maxes signed (as well as three other four year deals that we'd expect to beat an MLE), five MLEs, the 13/4 lamelo deal, five LLEs, and a lot of mins although i'm not sure how many were signed in FA as opposed to later
clearly the batting average is worse for the big deals. i don't think more scouting will do much to equalize it because we let all teams scout, whether they've got cap or not, so even if one of those MLEs goes for a max instead, one of those mins could go for an MLE instead too
what will definitely give the teams that offer big deals the edge is if we keep limiting extensions, since the big deals we're talking about are four years by definition, and even more so if we add a version of the tiered extension system i talked about before, where teams under a certain $ in salary like $50m ($60m?) can extend twice (three times?)
|
|
