Online League Free Agency: Let's Improve It

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Buane

In the real world where owners are interested in millions of dollars of profit this is a thing that could happen. What chance is there that this would take place in a fake baseball league where competition with your fellow GMs is the alpha and the omega?

Actually, you could argue the exact opposite.

If real-life owners were willing to risk potentially tens of millions of dollars in fines if found guilty of collusion in order to restrict wage growth, why wouldn't the owners of clubs in a sports sim game collude, seeing as the consequences of being caught are much lower?

[bailey]

Originally Posted by Buane

...

I just want Free Agents in my league to be able to sign at the price that the GMs are willing to pay for them. I don't think this is unreasonable. There are players that my GMs want to sign, want to pay money to, but the game literally does not allow them to. I think this is an issue, and the solution I proposed is non-intrusive and logical.

This sounds like you want F.Montoya's 3rd party auction system. High bid gets the player with plenty of time for bids and counter bids. More work for you, more fun for your GM's. It's not realistic, but it's sounds like way more fun, but I've never actually tried it.

[kon6749]

I apologize, if I'm off track a bit from the original poster.

From my perspective of free agency in all three of the online leagues that I’ve been involved with that use OOTP 13. The free agent issues stem from inflated demands (even in 15m cash capped leagues), which in turn hinder the free agency negotiation process.

Player 1 demands 6 year 20m per $120m total contract
Team A offers – 5 year 10m per $50m total
Team B offers – 5 year 15m per $75m total
Team C offers – 5 year 18m per $90m total

The current negotiation process is that Player 1 counters all offers with “Wants more $$ and more years” (which basically outright declines all offers, and at this point Player 1 will NEVER sign any of these offers) Note: He may sign one of these offers at a later date ONLY IF the offer is resubmitted when Player 1’s demands are lower.

Wouldn’t it make more sense if there was a commissioner option to allow the highest offer (or best offer depending on Player 1’s personality traits) to hold?

In other words, Player 1 would keep Team C’s offer as a possible “top” offer and maybe counter with some type of comment like “I am considering your offer, but am not ready to sign it”. This would then keep Team C’s “top” offer locked into Player 1 and available for the player to sign if it continues to be the “top” offer throughout free agency when Player 1 lowers his demands.

What’s happening now is that the Team C’s offer is being outright declined, frustrating all owners involved because sometimes the initial demands are completely off the chart (even in the 15m cash capped leagues).

Understanding that Player 1 will not always sign the BEST contract is a feature of the game and coincides with real life situations. Understanding that Player 1 is not actually “negotiating” properly is either a flaw in the game, or a poorly designed “feature of the game”. Which in turn, could be easily enhanced with a commissioner checkbox option allowing “top” offers to lock or allowing commissioners to control the initial starting offers.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by MrGreenGenes

Not sure how you keep missing the point, but this has very little to do with cash on hand, or even the initial demands that the players have. The real problem is how OOTP processes the offers that players receive, and how different people have different counters from players based on where they are in the bidding process and how far into FA it is. Everyone should be pretty much on the same page when it comes to free agents, but currently, that isn't the case.

I'd argue that the point you're missing is that the game isn't designed for players to react to the exact same amount from different teams in the same way. I can understand that there are leagues that want this as it more properly simulates real life while others would want something similar to what was posted above with essentially players taking the top offer every time.

I did address both issues, though, and as The Wolf mentioned, this seemed to be a secondary point that didn't appear until 3-4 pages into this thread. Like I said, though, I did examine the issue and gave a game mechanic reason Neef didn't come back to ask for the previous offer. However, that said, I still think it's possible he actually preferred to sign with the other team, so I don't see any major issues with the signing described.

The system isn't currently designed for players to treat offers/bidding from GMs exactly the same exactly the same. There are real other variables in the offers and the difference between what that player was looking for and his counter offer could be accounted for in other ways. It wasn't like he was offered $10M and $5M a season and took the lower. IMO, it's too small of a difference to get worked up about, knowing that other things are included in the player's consideration. The fact is he may have had little interest in playing for the team he didn't sign with.

The point is that while I think it was good to include a specific example and maybe things aren't working as they are supposed to, you'll need a lot more evidence that shows something more drastic than this one.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by kon6749

What’s happening now is that the Team C’s offer is being outright declined, frustrating all owners involved because sometimes the initial demands are completely off the chart (even in the 15m cash capped leagues).
.

I understand the majority of your post and think it explains things well, but I wanted to be clear that outrageous demands are not just controlled by capping cash. Some teams play far below the allowed payroll, farther than is realistic and this causes players to think there is/should be more money available than GMs are actually willing to spend.

[Buane]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason why free agents shouldn't just take the best offer they receive during free agency? And when I say "best" I don't just mean the most money, they can weigh all the other factors they weigh in the current system. Why does the current system have to be so needlessly complicated and have demand windows that change as free agency goes on and have players who don't remember that a team was willing to give them more two months ago?

If a player receives an offer for $6 million from a playoff contender that plays 1500 miles from his hometown and that is the BEST offer he's received during free agency, it should be the offer he favors and eventually accepts, REGARDLESS of when he receives it. This not only makes LOGICAL SENSE for all leagues in general, but it assists GREATLY with online leagues who have a limited number of sims during the offseason and members who can't afford to plan their offseason around a player who may or may not end up with more reasonable demands after every other player has already signed.


So why is trying to take a more logical look at the free agent process being met with such resistance? "This is just the way the game designed?" Well thanks for your input, The Wolf, but we're already aware of that. We're trying to discuss a better alternative. "Adapt and overcome"? There seems to be plenty of that in the history of OOTP. How about we try, "Be part of the solution," at least just in this thread?


I mean, seriously, so far the only reasons against this change that I can find are "it's too complicated," "Markus didn't design it that way," and "the owners of your online league might collude to keep salaries low."

[The Wolf]

That's because you're on a crusade and you have blinders on.

Your group's mind was clearly made up before you started this topic and you guys have shown zero interest in reality or workarounds. This pretty much makes any further discussion here really pointless and counterproductive.

Lobby Markus instead. Maybe he will give you what you want so badly.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by Buane

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason why free agents shouldn't just take the best offer they receive during free agency? And when I say "best" I don't just mean the most money, they can weigh all the other factors they weigh in the current system. Why does the current system have to be so needlessly complicated and have demand windows that change as free agency goes on and have players who don't remember that a team was willing to give them more two months ago?

I think the main limiting factor in all of this is that, at present, the process of free agent negotiation is entirely user-driven. By "user driven" I mean that the human player is responsible at all times for making an offer. Free agents can't sponteneously message you with an offer of their own. The real problem with letting free agent take "the best offer they received during free agency" is that, well, maybe you as the human player decided at some point that you were going to move in a different direction instead. Now you're going to be stuck with a player because of an offer you made (and was rejected) a month ago? I think there would have to be a substantial revision to OOTP's programming here, and I think part of what has made this thread unexpectedly contentious is that the problem is being presented as an urgent need to fix, when really, the changes necessary to fix it would be foundational changes to the way that the free agency process works in OOTP, which would probably have to be implemented over several versions.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Buane

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason why free agents shouldn't just take the best offer they receive during free agency? And when I say "best" I don't just mean the most money, they can weigh all the other factors they weigh in the current system. Why does the current system have to be so needlessly complicated and have demand windows that change as free agency goes on and have players who don't remember that a team was willing to give them more two months ago?

Because in RL people change their demands as time goes on so that is realistic. Why do we have to change FA just to suit you? Sometimes people don't always do what is best for them, you just have to deal with it. There is a reason!

Originally Posted by Buane

If a player receives an offer for $6 million from a playoff contender that plays 1500 miles from his hometown and that is the BEST offer he's received during free agency, it should be the offer he favors and eventually accepts, REGARDLESS of when he receives it. This not only makes LOGICAL SENSE for all leagues in general, but it assists GREATLY with online leagues who have a limited number of sims during the offseason and members who can't afford to plan their offseason around a player who may or may not end up with more reasonable demands after every other player has already signed.

Again why should we change the way FA just to suit the online leagues that sim days at a time. You chose to sim days at a time so you have to deal with the problems that will cause with FA, otherwise don't sim days at a time.

So if i offer a FA that contract and he declines at first why would i give him the same deal 3 months later when half the season is over, This doesn't make sense at all.

Change the whole game to suit the online players, makes perfect sense

[Buane]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

I think the main limiting factor in all of this is that, at present, the process of free agent negotiation is entirely user-driven. By "user driven" I mean that the human player is responsible at all times for making an offer. Free agents can't sponteneously message you with an offer of their own. The real problem with letting free agent take "the best offer they received during free agency" is that, well, maybe you as the human player decided at some point that you were going to move in a different direction instead. Now you're going to be stuck with a player because of an offer you made (and was rejected) a month ago? I think there would have to be a substantial revision to OOTP's programming here, and I think part of what has made this thread unexpectedly contentious is that the problem is being presented as an urgent need to fix, when really, the changes necessary to fix it would be one or more versions down the road.

I see what you're saying, and you're right, if I remove my leading offer there's no infrastructure built into OOTP that lets the player fall back to the second best offer they received.

But that's not really what I'm asking to happen (though, in future versions, I think it would be pretty cool to get "called back" by the player/agent, so to speak, in those situations). Much more simply, I just want the player to favor SOME team's offer instead of spending so much of the offseason not listening to any teams and favoring nobody's offer. If that leading offer gets pulled, then you're right, there's nothing that can be done in the current system. I'm ok with making baby steps here.

[21C]

The current system works fine for the solo player and probably most online leagues.

I don't think there is a problem with asking to get an option to allow players to "take the best offer" - basically to turn off contract demands during free agency for those leagues that want it.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Again why should we change the way FA just to suit the online leagues that sim days at a time. You chose to sim days at a time so you have to deal with the problems that will cause with FA, otherwise don't sim days at a time.

I still haven't heard a reason why this change would hurt the free agent process for non-online leagues. Like I said before, it's a one-size-fits-all system, it works for every kind of league. The AI would make the exact same offers they do currently in your solo league, and online leagues would get a bit more freedom to turn the free agent market into a Free Market system. Everybody wins.

If you have an argument against why this system would be worse, I'm still waiting to hear it.

Originally Posted by OutS|der

So if i offer a FA that contract and he declines at first why would i give him the same deal 3 months later when half the season is over, This doesn't make sense at all.

This makes me think you don't quite understand what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Change the whole game to suit the online players, makes perfect sense

Is it really so ridiculous to add functionality that helps support an already-supported game mode? It's not like I'm asking for changes to the game engine that allow me to run an OOTP Pro Football League or something.

If you're really so blindly opposed to any kind of change without offering any reasoning beyond "it ain't broke for me, don't fix it" I've already acquiesced to including it as a toggled on/off mode so it wouldn't impact your experience whatsoever.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

That's because you're on a crusade and you have blinders on.

Well, I am definitely on a crusade! But I'm told Markus appreciates intelligent discourse when it comes to his product, since he's even said before that many improvements come from threads just like this one.

Edit: in fact, it says this in your signature.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Buane

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason why free agents shouldn't just take the best offer they receive during free agency? And when I say "best" I don't just mean the most money, they can weigh all the other factors they weigh in the current system. Why does the current system have to be so needlessly complicated and have demand windows that change as free agency goes on and have players who don't remember that a team was willing to give them more two months ago?

If a player receives an offer for $6 million from a playoff contender that plays 1500 miles from his hometown and that is the BEST offer he's received during free agency, it should be the offer he favors and eventually accepts, REGARDLESS of when he receives it. This not only makes LOGICAL SENSE for all leagues in general, but it assists GREATLY with online leagues who have a limited number of sims during the offseason and members who can't afford to plan their offseason around a player who may or may not end up with more reasonable demands after every other player has already signed.


So why is trying to take a more logical look at the free agent process being met with such resistance? "This is just the way the game designed?" Well thanks for your input, The Wolf, but we're already aware of that. We're trying to discuss a better alternative. "Adapt and overcome"? There seems to be plenty of that in the history of OOTP. How about we try, "Be part of the solution," at least just in this thread?


I mean, seriously, so far the only reasons against this change that I can find are "it's too complicated," "Markus didn't design it that way," and "the owners of your online league might collude to keep salaries low."

There are plenty of examples where players take less money to play closer to home, in all pro sports. So no, the player accepting this offer simply because it's the best offer does not make logical sense.

Again, I respect your ideas but disagree. It's not so much that it creates more complexity, it's that it adds another layer over something that already works. I like options in the game, the more the better, but covering something up by adding more dressing to it doesn't make sense to me, logical or not.

[kon6749]

Originally Posted by Isryion

I understand the majority of your post and think it explains things well, but I wanted to be clear that outrageous demands are not just controlled by capping cash. Some teams play far below the allowed payroll, farther than is realistic and this causes players to think there is/should be more money available than GMs are actually willing to spend.

I'm with you. There is a mythical formula that takes cash, budget room, greed, + whatever else into account for a players demand. I think what a quite a few of the posters on this thread are asking is that there be an option to limit or give the commissioner the option to limit this formula (in regards to the demand, not in regards to how they negotiate), because some of the demands seem to be highly irregular in OOTP 13 versions previous versions. In turn, allowing the commissioner and/or owners to control the free market system themselves and not the formula. The cash on hand and budget room of the owners would then determine the supply and demand itself, instead of the formula (which seems to be more irregular than ever in OOTP 13).

In two of the leagues I play, the commissioner doesn't even control a team on a regular basis, so what's it hurt to actually give them "more" options and/or control over their league than less.

[Buane]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

There are plenty of examples where players take less money to play closer to home, in all pro sports. So no, the player accepting this offer simply because it's the best offer does not make logical sense.

No, we agree on that! I am fine with the way that the game currently weighs the "best" offer. I do NOT want it to simply favor the team that offers the most money. We agree 100% on that. When I say "best" offer, I mean taking into account everything - money, team, location, etc.

[Jontler]

Originally Posted by Buane

No, we agree on that! I am fine with the way that the game currently weighs the "best" offer. I do NOT want it to simply favor the team that offers the most money. We agree 100% on that. When I say "best" offer, I mean taking into account everything - money, team, location, etc.

Current system: Chosen algorithm A, whose details are irrelevant, determines which offers a free agent favors. To get a favored offer, some minimum barrier X must be crossed.

Desired system: Chosen algorithm A, whose details are irrelevant, determines which offers a free agent favors, but the free agent has no minimum barrier of entry to favor an initial offer.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Buane

Well, I am definitely on a crusade! But I'm told Markus appreciates intelligent discourse when it comes to his product, since he's even said before that many improvements come from threads just like this one.

Edit: in fact, it says this in your signature.

Excellent! Communication established.

Markus appreciates input, no doubt about that. But you have brought this up at essentially the end of the OOTP 13 development cycle, and this would require a fairly significant change which I doubt he would be interested in making this far along (note: he's fooled me before, but this analysis is in keeping with his typical behavior). So here's some well-intentioned, friendly advice: make this an important topic on the OOTP 14 suggestions board when it opens soon. I'm sure that a well-written suggested first-class FA model for OOTP 14 would garner lots of support. Spend some of the time between now and then polishing your arguments and suggestion.

In the meantime, work around your problem. Good luck.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jontler

Current system: Chosen algorithm A, whose details are irrelevant, determines which offers a free agent favors. To get a favored offer, some minimum barrier X must be crossed.

Desired system: Chosen algorithm A, whose details are irrelevant, determines which offers a free agent favors, but the free agent has no minimum barrier of entry to favor an initial offer.

Some players do have minimum requirements, and I disagree with any free agency system that does not account for that fact and therefore allows for the lowballing of offers. If OOTP Player Awesome J. Slugger gets an offer from a team for a fraction of his value and it's the best offer that he gets and the free agency model requires that he accept it, that's unreasonable when in reality MLB player Awesome J. Slugger would tell the offering team to take their insulting offer and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by kon6749

I'm with you. There is a mythical formula that takes cash, budget room, greed, + whatever else into account for a players demand. I think what a quite a few of the posters on this thread are asking is that there be an option to limit or give the commissioner the option to limit this formula (in regards to the demand, not in regards to how they negotiate), because some of the demands seem to be highly irregular in OOTP 13 versions previous versions. In turn, allowing the commissioner and/or owners to control the free market system themselves and not the formula. The cash on hand and budget room of the owners would then determine the supply and demand itself, instead of the formula (which seems to be more irregular than ever in OOTP 13).

In two of the leagues I play, the commissioner doesn't even control a team on a regular basis, so what's it hurt to actually give them "more" options and/or control over their league than less.

I think that's a fair and simplistic way to put it, and I think it would be great if the Dev team to give more control options to commissioners, so if they want more simplistic bidding or whatever, it's available.

It does seem that this is far different from the thread title and initial, though of "More Broken Than Ever," and I'd suggest that's why things ran up against a bit of a wall here midway through.

The other issue of course is that we don't have all the answers behind the curtain so we're just guessing. It seems that most people don't see the same issue overall with how free agency works (or at least don't see this issue as very significant), so even just for my own interest, I'd like to see more examples. Obviously, this league looked at it more closely, but that can be good, but it can also lead to trying to draw conclusions from examples that don't necessarily fit the problem or are very minor ones.