Need your help for OOTP 5! - Page 4

Roxtar · 12-06-2002, 10:31 PM

Here are a couple things I have been bouncing around. What if...

When you start you have an amount of 'start up' money and you had to decide and pay for, Market size, Stadium size, Players etc out of that money. Costs would have to be something looked in to. That could work some penalties and benifits depending on what decisions you make in the beginning. I think that putting more stadium costs in could also tweak the financials in a way that could put you closer to the 20/60/20 mark. I love the idea posted earlier that you select the immenities you want and you are leasing the stadium.

And/Or

Start all teams out with an even Market size. That way if you choose New York you are not automagically getting a huge Market size and by choosing Montreal you are not getting hosed just because you like Canadian cities. Then you could randomly influx the Market size over time in a 20/60/20 manner. That way no one knows at the start who is getting the Huge Market team.

And/Or

Implement some kind of Income Tax on the teams. Where the taxing structure could be along the lines of 20/60/20. The top 20% would pay the most taxes and so on.

I do really like the stadium costs that someone mentioned earlier. Where the teams had to pay for upkeep in one way or another. The more people filing through your turnstiles the more upkeep you would have to do. I also like the one where you had to build your stadium.

Eclzeastes · 12-06-2002, 11:30 PM

Stadiums seem to be the hot topic... so lets add more confusion for the debate (wood for the fire).

In most situations in the real MLB the team does not actually own the stadium. To my knowledge all new parks are owned in some fasion by the taxpayers of that area. The older parks tend to be owned by the actual team owner.

Typically the city taxpayers get their money back through vendor sales and a portion of the ticket price. The teams themselves do not usually run the hot dog stands. These services are contracted out (by the city) and a portion of the profits go to the city and the team.

The actual team ownership does not usually care about such things as upkeep because they just get a cut of the ticket and typically the city pays the rest.

So I dont see how all this enhances my baseball experience at all. Real MLB owners and general managers could care less what the cost of a hot dog at the stadium is or how many people they need to hire to clean the toilets. They just dont need to worry about these things. I will have to crank out some actual research for everyone to show just how boring the stadium portion of this is.

But since no one actually wants to address the original post I will agree to just walk the path with you....

We can select retractable roofs. They will cost more but then there will be no rain delays! Yeah.

I can decide just how many levels there will be and how many toilets there will be per level. If I choose too few then the attendance will go down because the lines are too long for the bathroom. If there are too many then I pay for the extra plumbing and my profits go down.

I need to decide how many luxury boxes I create. I then have to sell them all to large corp's to make money. If I dont then I lose profits. I then have to decide how many waiters to staff at each. If I choose too few then the VP's of the corp's will get pissed and switch funding to other teams. Now we are talking.

I get to pick a mascot and decide what color he wears. Having a good mascot will increase youth attendance. A bad mascot scares little kids away killing your organization in less than a decade.

Canadian clubs serve good beer and it increases drunks in the stadium. Although I get increased beer revenue I need more security to deal with it. If I have too few security officers then I might have riots causing damage to the stadium. Too many though and I waste money.

You have to pick if you want AA guns around your stadium incase there happens to be a quick and unexpected air attack from the baseball hating Russians. If you have them it costs money but if you dont and you hear those sirens.... oh well. Better drink a beer.

For the love of God.... please.

Eclzeastes.

Roxtar · 12-07-2002, 12:15 AM

Eclzeastes,

You may be right. It may not be the the duty of the GM or the owner to make these decisions, but instead of being an A** in your post maybe you could actually come up with an idea of your own and let everyone take a look. I am not saying any of the ideas I had were stellar or even original. Just don't bash other people's ideas. It isn't needed and it doesn't help anyone.

Scott Vibert · 12-07-2002, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roxtar
Eclzeastes,

You may be right. It may not be the the duty of the GM or the owner to make these decisions, but instead of being an A** in your post maybe you could actually come up with an idea of your own and let everyone take a look. I am not saying any of the ideas I had were stellar or even original. Just don't bash other people's ideas. It isn't needed and it doesn't help anyone.

I don't believe he's trying to be an ass, I believe he's trying to get the post back on topic from asking for a stadium construction interface to something that will help resolve Markus's issue with the financials. (His ideas actually show up on Page 2 of the thread

)

IMO a stadium building interface might be neat, but wouldn't really resolve this issue, I suspect he feels similarly hence the reason for his last couple of posts trying to steer things from asking for new features, back onto resolving the issue Markus raised.

I'm not trying to start a flame war in this thread... I'm hoping any potential flame fest will end.

Back on topic. There have been lots of good Ideas here so far... lets here some more about how to fix this issue of the class seperation in OOTP.

IMO we need to find a solution that impacts the revenue teams are making without resorting to a tax. Forcing a tax on all types of leagues ruins some of the games flexibility IMO. So we need to find a way to adjust revenues/cash in the game. If owners are added that would be one way to do it, but shouldn't be the only way (a little random owner influence = good, too much = bad/annoying feature). The ideas towards making some of the influence on factors more dynamic are good. As would splitting some of the attendence/local broadcast revenue with the visiting team. Setting some stadium factors that can impact attendence would work, but it is not the ultimate solution IMO, I think we need to blend a lot of these ideas together.

(*Note* I'm not trying to single you or anyone else out, I know your idea was on topic, just trying to avoid a flame war breaking out in what I consider to be an important thread)

Roxtar · 12-07-2002, 12:37 AM

My appologies to Eclzeastes. Read through earlier posts but don't usually read the names. Sorry. Game on!

Eclzeastes · 12-07-2002, 12:38 AM

You were batting 1.000 with that repsonce ScottVib. The ending of my post was more on the dry humor side and not indended to offend. This thread has gotten so long that we have forgotten what we started it for.

Thanks for pointing out that I have made some of my own ideas public. You were correct that I posted on page 2 my own suggestions but I also posted some on page 4!

I'm not about to bash anyone and my apologies for coming off like that... I just decided to have some fun since we were running off the tracks anyway. Lets start a thread dedicated to stadium effects and get this thread back on target.

Eclzeastes

Eclzeastes · 12-07-2002, 01:30 AM

Here is some quick research done regarding stadiums and team records for everyone to look at.

I used some National League World Series of the 90's and on for this. They included Mets, Braves, Phillies, Padres, Reds. I eliminated a few teams because because data was taking awhile to locate or team was not around long enough to tabulate (ie Marlins).

METS 64'+ 4 World Series 21 Sub-.500 seasons
BRAVES 66'-96' 4 World Series 17 Sub-.500 seasons
PHILLIES 71'+ 4 World Series 18 Sub-.500 seasons
PADRES 69'+ 2 World Series 22 Sub-.500 seasons
REDS 70'+ 5 World Series 10 Sub-.500 seasons

The numbers are pretty amazing considering the sample. The Reds stand out as a solid team for the last 30 years but you can see the other 4 teams listed have seen alot of the bottom.

During these years the teams above played in the SAME ballpark the entire time. What I mean to illustrate is that even though the stadium remained the same... records varied a lot. Teams go from top to bottom and bottom to top without needing a stadium change to do so.

Although I did not list them above the Yankees have played in the same stadium since 1923 and have finished 1st an amazing 32 times... but have finished 3rd or worse 23 times as well.

EVERY NL team listed above finished 6th or worse at some point during the periods listed yet somehow were able to win World Series without new stadiums.

Now the original post put forth the problem that the OOTP sim was creating too many great (rich, winning, etc) teams and a lot of piss poor (broke, losing, etc) teams. There was a weakness in the middle.

If in real life MLB there is an certain ratio and this game bases its model on the statistics of MLB then why is it that ratio of winners/losers is coming out so odd?

I propose that stadiums should not be the focus. As you can see above, in the real MLB which is the model, stadium changes are not a huge factor in creating winners and losers.

Also as a trivia fact for everyone that was discovered by accident... PacBell was the first privately financed ballpark in the MLB since Dodger Stadium in 1962.

That trivia fact would put forth evidence that GM's and owners have little to do with how the stadiums are actually run in a majority of ballparks in MLB.

Captain Spaulding · 12-07-2002, 03:40 AM

That has happenned in my solo league. What I decided to do when we expanded last time after over 85 years of play was to average every team's merchandising income with $15,000,000. The top team went down to about $120,000,000 and the bottom team came up to about $10,000,000. The tv revenue hasn't been a big problem. I think if I had to do it again, I'd average the numbers out every 5 or 10 years. I'm sure that the programmers can come up with something a lot better, but that seemed to work OK for me.

Tib · 12-07-2002, 08:18 AM

Eclzeastes,

Hilarious! Point taken on the stadium comments. This is an intricate baseball game, not Sim Stadium. I've read the posts since mine and decided I wasn't off on a tangent, I was waaaayy off on a tangent.

But I still think stadiums can be part of a solution. Let's face it, stadiums are just about the only part of game financials not fully represented (besides agents, and nobody wants that). I think ScottVib's right when he says a blend of relevent changes might solve the problem.

Obviously, there are many factors influencing team financial structure. What's the blend going to be?

Owners would represent an outside influence. Owner/player "personalities" or tendencies could introduce the randomness spoken about earlier. And owners control the money, which could justify cash infusions to balance the scales. But it shouldn't become predictable. If an owner starts spending (or selling out) just because the game realizes its ratio is out of balance, then we have a bigger problem.

GMs can control things like stadium size (again with stadiums!) which can affect income, but GMs will never have the kind of power needed to affect game financials as a whole.

I'm deferring to those more experienced with finances. Do what you need to, I'm buying OOTP5 anyway. My hope is that this solution not be simply a financial "band-aid" that kicks in whenever the AI decides there is an imbalance.

Chitown3304 · 12-07-2002, 12:46 PM

I would like to see there be an automatic Exapansion feature. This would make the game in a sense some what harder.

Scott Vibert · 12-07-2002, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chitown3304
I would like to see there be an automatic Exapansion feature. This would make the game in a sense some what harder.

I agree this would be VERY nice... but how would it address the financial situation that Markus asked for help with?

(Maybe I'm just a little slow, becauase I don't see that.)

GoldenPelicans · 12-07-2002, 02:47 PM

Markus-

There are some things that might not benefit from being totally random.. This may be one, since the perfrmance of the team is based on player perfornce/development (impact by a number of random features) and the team owner/managers skills (less random for human managers).

I like the impact on attendence though the adding or subtracting of great players..players setting records, going for their 20th win, team winning and losing streaks. etc.

I also think that CITIES HAVE DIFFERENT EXPECTATION LEVELS based on the past performances of teams. Therefore a team coming off a series of poor seatsons would get a better attendence/merchandise/tv - financial result than a team with the same record that has had recent past success. Building a bad team into a contender is often more difficult than building a constant contender into a winner. In a similar fashion the eveluation of a teams performance should reflect the current results versus the previous results.

lynchjm24 · 12-07-2002, 06:12 PM

Have more free agents and players bust after changing teams. Takes a lot of money to overcome bad free agent signings like Hampton.

Henry · 12-07-2002, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Have more free agents and players bust after changing teams. Takes a lot of money to overcome bad free agent signings like Hampton.

This reminds me of an old thread that discussed the fact that OOTP players "tend" to stay too consistent... there is somethin to e said for the above comment in that if more players "went bust" from time to time, the internal AI already in place (the new one in v5) would have to re-adjust more often, sometimes changing directions all together. I wonder if this would be enough to result in more average teams......

Henry

JWay · 12-07-2002, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ScottVib
I agree this would be VERY nice... but how would it address the financial situation that Markus asked for help with?

(Maybe I'm just a little slow, becauase I don't see that.)

This may be far fetched but an expansion team could be a team another lower market team can beat up on and gain a few extra games and maybe work themselves up. And I base that on absolutly nothing. But the feature would rock.

JWay · 12-07-2002, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
This reminds me of an old thread that discussed the fact that OOTP players "tend" to stay too consistent... there is somethin to e said for the above comment in that if more players "went bust" from time to time, the internal AI already in place (the new one in v5) would have to re-adjust more often, sometimes changing directions all together. I wonder if this would be enough to result in more average teams......

Henry

As long as it didn't happen too often. And have players bounce back. Griffey could bounce back anytime......

blmeanie · 12-07-2002, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JWay
Griffey could bounce back anytime......

Don't hold your breath...

SSG Troyer · 12-07-2002, 08:09 PM

I like the idea of fixed national TV revenue and non-payroll based starting market sizes. Heck, I went through my league at the beginning and set my market sizes to a roughly 20-60-20 ratio, only to have the game totally destroy the balance after a decade. 50 years into it now, and there is one (1) Tiny market and 18 HUGE markets in a 36 team league. Near-fixed market size is needed badly, IMHO.

I believe revenue-sharing and luxury taxes should only be implemented as an option, as Scott says. I hate these things, too, and would not like to see them forced on me.

The player-card-readable Fan Favorite idea is much more elegant than mine. Kudos, and I hope something like that can be implemented.

lynchjm24 · 12-07-2002, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
This reminds me of an old thread that discussed the fact that OOTP players "tend" to stay too consistent... there is somethin to e said for the above comment in that if more players "went bust" from time to time, the internal AI already in place (the new one in v5) would have to re-adjust more often, sometimes changing directions all together. I wonder if this would be enough to result in more average teams......

Henry

I probably started a lot of those threads.

lynchjm24 · 12-07-2002, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SSG Troyer
I like the idea of fixed national TV revenue and non-payroll based starting market sizes. Heck, I went through my league at the beginning and set my market sizes to a roughly 20-60-20 ratio, only to have the game totally destroy the balance after a decade. 50 years into it now, and there is one (1) Tiny market and 18 HUGE markets in a 36 team league. Near-fixed market size is needed badly, IMHO.

I believe revenue-sharing and luxury taxes should only be implemented as an option, as Scott says. I hate these things, too, and would not like to see them forced on me.

The player-card-readable Fan Favorite idea is much more elegant than mine. Kudos, and I hope something like that can be implemented.

I don't really understand why the word 'market' is in place. Markets don't change quickly or because a team wins or loses.

'Fan Favorites' don't really effect ticket sales. 1996 when the Yankees had Tino Martinez instead of Don Mattingly I don't see where that changed ticket sales. Also, Safeco looks pretty full without Griffy and A-Rod in town. There are places where a player leaving happens at the same time that ticket sales fall , but it is normallly a situation like Cleveland's - where they are already on the downslide and losing one player just turns the fans off more. If people still thought the team was going to compete in the AL Central, they wouldn't stay away - now it's even more painfully obvious that they won't. Teams pretty much sell tickets based on their recent win/loss percentage and the prospects of their win/loss percentage in the future. Yes there have been a few players who transend this. Gretzky was always a draw, same as Jordan, and some might come out to see Bonds in some places, but those players are few and far behind, and I'm talking about ticket sales on the road anyway - which wouldn't really effect what we are talking about here.

Teams that were good in the mid 90's like Cleveland and Baltimore have seen smaller crowds in their beautiful stadiums because the teams are not as good and are boring. Even Fenway has softer ticket sales when the Red Sox are down - think around about 1991. The only team that seems to be able to not have a W/L record impact on ticket sales is the Cubs. Wrigley is just different then everywhere else.

I don't know how the ticket sales part of OOTP works, but to model real life, you would have a season ticket base - you'd collect that money up front. Then, you'd sell tickets through the season based on how the team was playing. I remember a night when the Hartford Whalers had walk up ticket sales in the single digits on a weeknight against Tampa. Also, to truly model revenues, actual game attendance would matter - as people that buy tickets and stay home don't park their cars or buy 7$ beers.

12-06-2002, 11:30 PM	#62
Eclzeastes Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 26	More info needed Stadiums seem to be the hot topic... so lets add more confusion for the debate (wood for the fire). In most situations in the real MLB the team does not actually own the stadium. To my knowledge all new parks are owned in some fasion by the taxpayers of that area. The older parks tend to be owned by the actual team owner. Typically the city taxpayers get their money back through vendor sales and a portion of the ticket price. The teams themselves do not usually run the hot dog stands. These services are contracted out (by the city) and a portion of the profits go to the city and the team. The actual team ownership does not usually care about such things as upkeep because they just get a cut of the ticket and typically the city pays the rest. So I dont see how all this enhances my baseball experience at all. Real MLB owners and general managers could care less what the cost of a hot dog at the stadium is or how many people they need to hire to clean the toilets. They just dont need to worry about these things. I will have to crank out some actual research for everyone to show just how boring the stadium portion of this is. But since no one actually wants to address the original post I will agree to just walk the path with you.... We can select retractable roofs. They will cost more but then there will be no rain delays! Yeah. I can decide just how many levels there will be and how many toilets there will be per level. If I choose too few then the attendance will go down because the lines are too long for the bathroom. If there are too many then I pay for the extra plumbing and my profits go down. I need to decide how many luxury boxes I create. I then have to sell them all to large corp's to make money. If I dont then I lose profits. I then have to decide how many waiters to staff at each. If I choose too few then the VP's of the corp's will get pissed and switch funding to other teams. Now we are talking. I get to pick a mascot and decide what color he wears. Having a good mascot will increase youth attendance. A bad mascot scares little kids away killing your organization in less than a decade. Canadian clubs serve good beer and it increases drunks in the stadium. Although I get increased beer revenue I need more security to deal with it. If I have too few security officers then I might have riots causing damage to the stadium. Too many though and I waste money. You have to pick if you want AA guns around your stadium incase there happens to be a quick and unexpected air attack from the baseball hating Russians. If you have them it costs money but if you dont and you hear those sirens.... oh well. Better drink a beer. For the love of God.... please. Eclzeastes.

12-07-2002, 12:38 AM	#66
Eclzeastes Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 26	Right on You were batting 1.000 with that repsonce ScottVib. The ending of my post was more on the dry humor side and not indended to offend. This thread has gotten so long that we have forgotten what we started it for. Thanks for pointing out that I have made some of my own ideas public. You were correct that I posted on page 2 my own suggestions but I also posted some on page 4! I'm not about to bash anyone and my apologies for coming off like that... I just decided to have some fun since we were running off the tracks anyway. Lets start a thread dedicated to stadium effects and get this thread back on target. Eclzeastes

12-07-2002, 01:30 AM	#67
Eclzeastes Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 26	Research Here is some quick research done regarding stadiums and team records for everyone to look at. I used some National League World Series of the 90's and on for this. They included Mets, Braves, Phillies, Padres, Reds. I eliminated a few teams because because data was taking awhile to locate or team was not around long enough to tabulate (ie Marlins). METS 64'+ 4 World Series 21 Sub-.500 seasons BRAVES 66'-96' 4 World Series 17 Sub-.500 seasons PHILLIES 71'+ 4 World Series 18 Sub-.500 seasons PADRES 69'+ 2 World Series 22 Sub-.500 seasons REDS 70'+ 5 World Series 10 Sub-.500 seasons The numbers are pretty amazing considering the sample. The Reds stand out as a solid team for the last 30 years but you can see the other 4 teams listed have seen alot of the bottom. During these years the teams above played in the SAME ballpark the entire time. What I mean to illustrate is that even though the stadium remained the same... records varied a lot. Teams go from top to bottom and bottom to top without needing a stadium change to do so. Although I did not list them above the Yankees have played in the same stadium since 1923 and have finished 1st an amazing 32 times... but have finished 3rd or worse 23 times as well. EVERY NL team listed above finished 6th or worse at some point during the periods listed yet somehow were able to win World Series without new stadiums. Now the original post put forth the problem that the OOTP sim was creating too many great (rich, winning, etc) teams and a lot of piss poor (broke, losing, etc) teams. There was a weakness in the middle. If in real life MLB there is an certain ratio and this game bases its model on the statistics of MLB then why is it that ratio of winners/losers is coming out so odd? I propose that stadiums should not be the focus. As you can see above, in the real MLB which is the model, stadium changes are not a huge factor in creating winners and losers. Also as a trivia fact for everyone that was discovered by accident... PacBell was the first privately financed ballpark in the MLB since Dodger Stadium in 1962. That trivia fact would put forth evidence that GM's and owners have little to do with how the stadiums are actually run in a majority of ballparks in MLB.

12-07-2002, 03:40 AM	#68
Captain Spaulding Bat Boy Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 8	My solo solution That has happenned in my solo league. What I decided to do when we expanded last time after over 85 years of play was to average every team's merchandising income with $15,000,000. The top team went down to about $120,000,000 and the bottom team came up to about $10,000,000. The tv revenue hasn't been a big problem. I think if I had to do it again, I'd average the numbers out every 5 or 10 years. I'm sure that the programmers can come up with something a lot better, but that seemed to work OK for me. __________________ CUBL: Kitchener Fighting Beavers DK: Kansas City Royals Last edited by Captain Spaulding; 12-07-2002 at 03:46 AM.

12-07-2002, 08:18 AM	#69
Tib All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Paso Robles, CA Posts: 995	Eclzeastes, Hilarious! Point taken on the stadium comments. This is an intricate baseball game, not Sim Stadium. I've read the posts since mine and decided I wasn't off on a tangent, I was waaaayy off on a tangent. But I still think stadiums can be part of a solution. Let's face it, stadiums are just about the only part of game financials not fully represented (besides agents, and nobody wants that). I think ScottVib's right when he says a blend of relevent changes might solve the problem. Obviously, there are many factors influencing team financial structure. What's the blend going to be? Owners would represent an outside influence. Owner/player "personalities" or tendencies could introduce the randomness spoken about earlier. And owners control the money, which could justify cash infusions to balance the scales. But it shouldn't become predictable. If an owner starts spending (or selling out) just because the game realizes its ratio is out of balance, then we have a bigger problem. GMs can control things like stadium size (again with stadiums!) which can affect income, but GMs will never have the kind of power needed to affect game financials as a whole. I'm deferring to those more experienced with finances. Do what you need to, I'm buying OOTP5 anyway. My hope is that this solution not be simply a financial "band-aid" that kicks in whenever the AI decides there is an imbalance. __________________ https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...ad.php?t=64219

12-06-2002, 10:31 PM	#61
Roxtar Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 43	Here are a couple things I have been bouncing around. What if... When you start you have an amount of 'start up' money and you had to decide and pay for, Market size, Stadium size, Players etc out of that money. Costs would have to be something looked in to. That could work some penalties and benifits depending on what decisions you make in the beginning. I think that putting more stadium costs in could also tweak the financials in a way that could put you closer to the 20/60/20 mark. I love the idea posted earlier that you select the immenities you want and you are leasing the stadium. And/Or Start all teams out with an even Market size. That way if you choose New York you are not automagically getting a huge Market size and by choosing Montreal you are not getting hosed just because you like Canadian cities. Then you could randomly influx the Market size over time in a 20/60/20 manner. That way no one knows at the start who is getting the Huge Market team. And/Or Implement some kind of Income Tax on the teams. Where the taxing structure could be along the lines of 20/60/20. The top 20% would pay the most taxes and so on. I do really like the stadium costs that someone mentioned earlier. Where the teams had to pay for upkeep in one way or another. The more people filing through your turnstiles the more upkeep you would have to do. I also like the one where you had to build your stadium.

12-07-2002, 12:15 AM	#63
Roxtar Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 43	Eclzeastes, You may be right. It may not be the the duty of the GM or the owner to make these decisions, but instead of being an A** in your post maybe you could actually come up with an idea of your own and let everyone take a look. I am not saying any of the ideas I had were stellar or even original. Just don't bash other people's ideas. It isn't needed and it doesn't help anyone.

12-07-2002, 12:37 AM	#65
Roxtar Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 43	My appologies to Eclzeastes. Read through earlier posts but don't usually read the names. Sorry. Game on!

12-07-2002, 12:46 PM	#70
Chitown3304 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 62	I would like to see there be an automatic Exapansion feature. This would make the game in a sense some what harder.

12-07-2002, 02:47 PM	#72
GoldenPelicans Bat Boy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 7	Markus- There are some things that might not benefit from being totally random.. This may be one, since the perfrmance of the team is based on player perfornce/development (impact by a number of random features) and the team owner/managers skills (less random for human managers). I like the impact on attendence though the adding or subtracting of great players..players setting records, going for their 20th win, team winning and losing streaks. etc. I also think that CITIES HAVE DIFFERENT EXPECTATION LEVELS based on the past performances of teams. Therefore a team coming off a series of poor seatsons would get a better attendence/merchandise/tv - financial result than a team with the same record that has had recent past success. Building a bad team into a contender is often more difficult than building a constant contender into a winner. In a similar fashion the eveluation of a teams performance should reflect the current results versus the previous results.

12-07-2002, 06:12 PM	#73
lynchjm24 All Star Reserve Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hartford Posts: 978 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Have more free agents and players bust after changing teams. Takes a lot of money to overcome bad free agent signings like Hampton.

12-07-2002, 08:09 PM	#78
SSG Troyer All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somewhere to the left of 2nd base Posts: 1,598	I like the idea of fixed national TV revenue and non-payroll based starting market sizes. Heck, I went through my league at the beginning and set my market sizes to a roughly 20-60-20 ratio, only to have the game totally destroy the balance after a decade. 50 years into it now, and there is one (1) Tiny market and 18 HUGE markets in a 36 team league. Near-fixed market size is needed badly, IMHO. I believe revenue-sharing and luxury taxes should only be implemented as an option, as Scott says. I hate these things, too, and would not like to see them forced on me. The player-card-readable Fan Favorite idea is much more elegant than mine. Kudos, and I hope something like that can be implemented. __________________ MWT Did Tennesee Delaware Mississppi's New Jersey? Idaho ... Alaska!