[Le Grande Orange]

While I agree with the general sentiment being expressed, I do not think making this area excessively detailed is of real benefit. First there is the problem of real-world reference data—in order for OOTP to build a good simulation, it needs real data as a reference point. And there is virtually no financial data in the kind of detail that would be needed. While you can look up total attendance, for example, there is nothing which breaks down that attendance by seat type/cost. Furthermore, one must keep in mind the game's flexibility which means the rather different financial environments of earlier years or other leagues have to be considered.

Note too that as detail increases that means the AI has even more it has to deal with and utilize effectively, making it even harder to program. There is also the question of how many users would actually use fine levels of detail versus simply delegating such matters to an AI assistant, which raises the question of a cost/benefit analysis as to whether the detail is worth the time to incorporate. Personally, I think it best to focus on a more abstracted or simplified approach that is, giving the user the feeling of reality without bogging them down in a myriad of details. Of course, where that line is drawn will vary by the user, but it's an important one to consider.

Now, with that introduction out of the way...

Originally Posted by Aumakua

Maybe something like EA Sports has in their Madden games, lobby for city contributions as well, so a $1 billion stadium might cost the team $500 million if the city agrees to half, but then some profits also go to the city.

IMO more detail than is necessary. There is the question of how such 'negotiating' routines would work: what's in it for the city? Cities themselves would now need an AI algorithm. I'd simply abstract out the public portion by reducing the cost of a new ballpark, based upon the era (in the U.S. these days the public tends to fund much or even most of a ballpark's cost, but that was not always the case).

Originally Posted by Aumakua

-concession prices, beer-hotdogs-soda-jerseys-hats...

Again IMO more detail than is necessary.

Originally Posted by Aumakua

-tiers of seat pricing, luxury, box, bleacher

Generally agree, though I would keep it simple: a 'regular' seat and a 'premium' seat (which would represent luxury suites and club seats). The user would decide on the percentage of their park's capacity would be which type. The average ticket price would apply to all seats, but premium seating produces an extra amount of revenue beyond the ticket price, in essence a revenue bonus. Basically, X% of capacity which is premium produces Y% of additional revenue beyond the ticket sales amount. This system mimics reasonably well what happens in real life without having to go into more detail.

There would also have to be some sort of control on how much of a park can be converted to premium seating to mimic the kind of real-life constraints that clubs face in this area.

Originally Posted by Aumakua

-stadium upkeep

Agreed. However, I view this as more of a simple expense line on the cost side.

Originally Posted by Aumakua

-renovations

To me this means (a) increasing the capacity of the park, as was common in the early part of the 20th century; (b) increasing the amount of premium seating in the park; and (c) adding lights to a park. That last one is very much overlooked. In the early years of night baseball there was a huge attendance difference between night and day games, which is why night games became the standard (though these days the night game advantage is minimal). Of course, to make adding lights meaningful the game's attendance algorithms would need to be updated to be more reflective of such real-world attendance patterns.

Personally I think managing these three renovations would be enough.

Originally Posted by Aumakua

-relocation expense (moving Montreal to Washington...)

I don't think costs need to be involved. But I do think there ought to be more interaction with the league when it comes to relocations, via interactive winter meetings where owners vote whether to approve certain proposals.

Originally Posted by Aumakua

-new stadium costs

Agreed. The trick is how to handle this. I see it working like this: the user has a choice of stadium 'models' from which they can choose based upon the era they're playing. The 'models' range from the cheap to the expensive, and are based on representative real-world ballparks of that era. The user then makes the choice based upon the stadium 'model' they think their club can afford. The cost to the club is a fixed dollar amount, which is then paid for by either (a) paying a fixed dollar amount every season for a set number of seasons, e.g. $10 million per year for ten years; or (b) a set percentage of revenue for a given number of seasons, e.g. 2% of revenue for ten years. I'm not sure which method is better, but either seems a reasonable approach easy for the user (and AI) to weigh.

Originally Posted by Aumakua

-parking prices

Not needed IMO. Plus not every stadium has parking spaces and parking revenue.

Originally Posted by Aumakua

-maybe ability to change the quality of food/service levels, higher costs equal better quality but also might bring in more fans...

Again, I don't think this level of detail is really necessary. Just getting attendance to be more realistic in terms of which days and times fans typically show up for games will be a big enough advance (see earlier comment about night games).

Originally Posted by Aumakua

-season tickets vs single game tickets

I don't think this is necessary. It's simpler to have OOTP count when folks show up at the ballpark and then collect the money.