Amaroq
Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/3/2005 From: San Diego, California Status: offline
|
I'd say the 35 v 70 debate is all about fictional players vs real. If you want to ensure no fictional players, you need to play with a 35 man roster (or contracted, a great suggestion, rowech). If you're going all-fictional-players, there can be no doubt, more, with a deep minor league system, provides a rich experience. However, two things start to happen with very large roster sizes. First, you start getting "ridiculous" budgets. Quality minor leaguers ask for low-end major-league salaries, even if they're going to be sitting down in AA or A - so you can easily wind up with a total payroll of $250M or more just 'playing naturally'. To allow that, the game gives you huge budgets - $300M is not uncommon, when real ML teams are spending less than $50M on their major-league salaries. (I can't imagine they're spending $200M on the minors...) Second, combining the two, it becomes too easy to 'player hoard', stockpiling on great young talents. Finances aren't really limiting to you, and with the 70-man roster limit, you can load up your minors with quality youngsters. The unlucky ones, who aren't developing in your system, you can trade away for other quality youngsters. So, I think the game may actually be *harder* with a smaller roster size, 50 or even 35.
|