Can we get a way to just turn budgets off?

[mad0die]

Originally Posted by sundevil

all the more reason not to mention it in this thread.....

+1

[knudlen]

So let me get this straight. We have teams making 105 mil in revenue in the previous year, on pace to make 107 mil in revenue in the current year, and are being given a projected budget for the next year of... 80 mil?! And with no way to disable or edit this 'feature', there isn't any sort of consensus that this is clearly an issue? And, the only person in this thread who has anything resembling an official response, the person representing the company, is basically saying 'i will begrudgingly pass this on but colored with my personal views and with a recommendation that no change be made, because I cannot imagine a world where someone wants to have a different OOTP experience than I do'. Wow. How is it that in a medium specifically based around direct communication, there isn't a way to pass on obvious issues without it being filtered through the lens of someone with an internet Napolean complex? Am I the only one who suddenly has Office Space jumping to mind?



So, honestly, what would you say you do here?

[snepp]

So basically the "Team Owner Controls Budget" setting doesn't actually work when set to "No," correct?

How is that not a problem?

[PlinyTheElder]

Originally Posted by snepp

So basically the "Team Owner Controls Budget" setting doesn't actually work when set to "No," correct?

How is that not a problem?

Because it makes the feature unrealistic?

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by PlinyTheElder

Because it makes the feature unrealistic?

What is unrealistic is to turn off said feature by selecting "No" and really the feature is not turned off.

[snepp]

Originally Posted by PlinyTheElder

Because it makes the feature unrealistic?

That makes no sense. Why does the option to turn off owner controlled budgets already exist if it's so unrealistic? (nevermind the silliness of calling it unrealistic, when the game is loaded with options that can get as unrealistic as you want)


Per the manual:

Team Owner Controls Budget?

Determines whether or not the team owner controls the budget. Either the team owner controls the budget, and the general manager has limited use of money, or the team's entire revenue is available to the general manager.

It's apparent that the bolded portion of the setting doesn't work, at least not as it's written.

[PlinyTheElder]

Originally Posted by snepp

That makes no sense. Why does the option to turn off owner controlled budgets already exist if it's so unrealistic? (nevermind the silliness of calling it unrealistic, when the game is loaded with options that can get as unrealistic as you want)


Per the manual:



It's apparent that the bolded portion of the setting doesn't work, at least not as it's written.

Did you guys read the rest of the thread..sarcasm alert. I am actually in that league they are talking about and scratching my head at the same question. How turning budgets off only effects the present not the future, wonky indeed.

[Cooleyvol]

I will not allow this to fall off the front page.

[greenrebellion]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

I will not allow this to fall off the front page.

Good, neither will I. This is a big issue and needs to be addressed as soon as reasonably possible.

[TGH-Adfabre]

I would like to see this resolved. I ended up haveing to offer a flat contract to my pitcher when I wanted to load the money differently.

It is a pain to deal with.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by Cliche

I've played in leagues where a guy won a battle title by bunting his way on base at a .350 clip.

Curse you, Dash Kelly.

[mad0die]

Yes, we just hit free agency and the projected budget has reared it's ugly head once again.

Apparently, the game is checking it when determining how much (or if it all) it's going to let you offer a free agent in subsequent seasons in a multi-year deal.

So, until we can edit the projected budgets free agency is basically going to be almost all one-year deals.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by mad0die

Yes, we just hit free agency and the projected budget has reared it's ugly head once again.

Apparently, the game is checking it when determining how much (or if it all) it's going to let you offer a free agent in subsequent seasons in a multi-year deal.

So, until we can edit the projected budgets free agency is basically going to be almost all one-year deals.

I've looked at this now in solo leagues, so I'm curious about the overall effect in an online league. And this is just that, curiosity, not advocating this is lieu of your request, what if at this point in the season the commish elected to option the Assign Fictional Finances to Teams? Is that even an available option in an online league setting?

From what I can roughly gather perusing the tables after using the option, it doesn't look to affect much beyond budgets and frees up dollars. It may consequently, free up a tad more in the FA dollars, but all of it wasn't available in the first place, nor will it neccessarily be in this case either. It doesn't affect salaries, etc... just adjusts across the board unilaterally- at least it appears that way to me -according to current payroll budgets.

So, it's just a thought. It served the purpose I was looking for in my solo situation and stablized a shaky league in its early creation. The option to turn off the future budget is likely your ultimate goal, but thought maybe someone could see if this option has the same effect, without ill effect, with the exception it would- and I'm only assuming -have to be manually selected annually. If anyone checks it out, I'd be curious about what you see in the actual results. FWIW

[mad0die]

I don't even know what that is supposed to do (Assign Fictional Finances to Teams). It doesn't sound like something we would want to do in our league that has been running for 27 seasons and jack with all finances.

And we want whatever is easiest and quickest for Markus to implement. That would seem to be simply allowing the commish to edit the game-generated future budget figures. Turning off budgets altogether would be nice, but it's not essential.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by goldfinger77

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that some people might not want to play a game in exactly the same way you do?

It's not. It's very easy to understand, actually. But this is not really a matter of my preference vs. your preference. As I've stated, it's also about what impact this can have if the option is provided, and it's about whether it fits the developer's goals for the product.

So let's not blindly assume that this is a simple proposition or that it can be implemented without potentially causing other, major problems. Maybe it is. Or maybe not. Sure, I have my personal views on it when it comes to logical consistency and realism, but I'm not the developer, and my preferences are not part of the equation for Markus.

Maybe the option can be implemented simply and successfully. Or maybe the budgets are working this way for very specific reasons that cannot be overturned without recoding the entire financial system.

The developer has the choice to NOT allow you to play the game in the way you want because it's completely inconsistent with the intention of a major feature, could possibly BREAK the finances in your games, is too difficult to code, or might destabilize online leagues if it's abused.

You or I may WANT to play the game in a certain way, but if we ask for the option to do that, it could cause unanticipated problems or otherwise be considered a bad idea by the developer. We don't have a right to demand it regardless of consequences or other considerations.

Then again, the developer also has the choice to give you the option if it makes sense.

But many of the people here have missed these points, so I don't think there is much use in repeating them.

As I've said three times now, it will be up to Markus to decide on this. And if he deems this to be feasible, sensible, and relatively harmless, then I'm sure he'll add the option. If he doesn't, then there will be some solid reasoning behind it, and you'll have to find other ways around it.

Enjoy the rest of the discussion.

[goldfinger77]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

The developer has the choice to NOT allow you to play the game in the way you want because it's completely inconsistent with the intention of a major feature, could possibly BREAK the finances in your games, is too difficult to code, or might destabilize online leagues if it's abused.

When we can't offer multi-year deals to players because the game thinks our future budgets are going to be drastically lower than they really are, that's a problem. When we have to add millions and millions of dollars in cash to each team in order to sign players, that's a problem. The finances are already broken. That's the issue we're asking for a fix to. Are you seriously not seeing that?

[knudlen]

Originally Posted by endgame

I've looked at this now in solo leagues, so I'm curious about the overall effect in an online league. And this is just that, curiosity, not advocating this is lieu of your request, what if at this point in the season the commish elected to option the Assign Fictional Finances to Teams? Is that even an available option in an online league setting?

From what I can roughly gather perusing the tables after using the option, it doesn't look to affect much beyond budgets and frees up dollars. It may consequently, free up a tad more in the FA dollars, but all of it wasn't available in the first place, nor will it neccessarily be in this case either. It doesn't affect salaries, etc... just adjusts across the board unilaterally- at least it appears that way to me -according to current payroll budgets.

So, it's just a thought. It served the purpose I was looking for in my solo situation and stablized a shaky league in its early creation. The option to turn off the future budget is likely your ultimate goal, but thought maybe someone could see if this option has the same effect, without ill effect, with the exception it would- and I'm only assuming -have to be manually selected annually. If anyone checks it out, I'd be curious about what you see in the actual results. FWIW

The problem is it's already assigning fictional budgets without it even being turned on. No matter what the current year's budget is manual set to, it 'remembers' what it wanted it to be, and bases next years budget off of what OOTP wanted the current year to be regardless of what you set it to.

In other words, if ootp thinks a team should have a budget of 80 mil in 2012, and in my solo league I had the team change to a new park with 20k more seats so i adjust the budget to 100 mil, it still wants the budget to be 80 mil so its going to set it to 82 next year. And the even more fustrating part is, say I sim out the year and make 110 mil in revenue. Does OOTP actually care? Nope! Next years budget is still going to be somewhere in the 80s. It takes about 4 seasons for OOTP to catch up to any sort of financial change, regardless of what you do in terms of setting revenue or budget.

[knudlen]

[snipped]

[SandMan]

I am thinking that the problem is that people are backloading the player contracts in future years. Add the arbitration eligible salaries and you will quickly go over the budget in the future. I don't think that this is a bug, and I believe the game is working as intended. I just think that players need to look at future years and offer contracts that are stable and stay within the budget. Arbitration is the big killer on the future budget in this game. Add backloaded contracts and this multiplies the problems.

I also don't think it is a problem that the future budgets don't increase when making trades. There is no way to know what the future budget will be so the game just uses the current budget for future seasons. I still don't think that this is broken.

I am probably in the minority here when I say I don't think is a problem, but that is just my feeling with the game. Watch your future signings and finances/budgets will work fine.

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by SandMan

I am thinking that the problem is that people are backloading the player contracts in future years. Add the arbitration eligible salaries and you will quickly go over the budget in the future. I don't think that this is a bug, and I believe the game is working as intended. I just think that players need to look at future years and offer contracts that are stable and stay within the budget. Arbitration is the big killer on the future budget in this game. Add backloaded contracts and this multiplies the problems.

I also don't think it is a problem that the future budgets don't increase when making trades. There is no way to know what the future budget will be so the game just uses the current budget for future seasons. I still don't think that this is broken.

I am probably in the minority here when I say I don't think is a problem, but that is just my feeling with the game. Watch your future signings and finances/budgets will work fine.

Negative.

In MoneyBall, initial contracts were determined (and hand input) based on the # of stars. All contracts are the same through the end of said contract. We are seeing this in that league.