Financial Engine Critique: It can't be made to work right now

jscott991 · 04-23-2004, 11:46 AM

I bought the game and have played with it a lot and I can't make the engine work, though it is an improvement on what I've seen in the past.

I'm not going to write a long essay, as I already did that and little of what I said has changed.

The basic problem right now is that the AI will not spend its money intelligently. Giving NYA a ton of revenue does not mean that it will be the top payroll. Money flows around too easily in the game, even with heavy editing of the local TV deals to make them more accurate. Playing with the most common MLB roster patch, I have watched the NYA payroll fall from 130M to 80M as their contracts expire and they fail to resign ANY significant free agents. Spending on free agents does not seem based either on means or needs. I can't figure out why the AI signs certain free agents and doesn't sign others. NY stinks in my game now. They haven't made the playoffs in three years and have finished last for two. They NEED every position, yet they never bid on any free agents. They have the max cash available (300M) and their profits are nearly 80 M a year. Still they won't spend money. The AI seems broken in this respect. It trends socialist, with teams uncomfortable being over/under the 80M threshold, so everyone seems to want to hang around there. Again, this is designer prejudice and it doesn't seem a player can overcome it.

A second problem is in local TV deals. If you set them to be accurate (70M to 500K spread), they will simply reset themselves upon expiration. The Expos might earn 500,000 on their first deal, but will be around 20M when that first deal expires. This makes no sense, except the engine's bias towards every market having a TV deal of around 20M (with some change based on performance I guess). When all my preset deals expired, the spread was like 15 to 28M in local deals, based on team performance and not market. This is, of course, ludicrous (what cable provider in Montreal is paying 20,000,000 for the Expos' games?). This is another serious issue, since now you must simply put in the realistic deal numbers and give them infinite lengths.

A third problem is in player salaries. The spread is excellent. A major improvement over OOTP4. However, this just means teams don't resign their own free agents, since they don't want to be over 80M or whatever in payroll. Once again, socialism is at work. The good players spread out since no one team wants too many of them. There is something in the engine that seems to preclude a team from carrying too many of these realistically large contracts despite their revenues.

So once again, the game is very socialist. No matter what you try to do, no team wants to dominate the payroll race and the engine will try to reset all revenues to be basically equal. I'd like to see this changed, at least give us the option to change it. Would it be so hard to base TV deals on the baseline first deal? Would it be so hard to let the AI spend up to its revenues? Would it be so hard to turn off the bias against carrying multiple large contracts if you can afford it? I just don't understand why the game is so harsh in this area.

Incidentally, the rest of the game is great, but I am starting to regret the purchase. It turns out the golden goose is only wrapped in foil.

joncarlos · 04-23-2004, 12:07 PM

What I've done in my leagues to combat this is to set the NATIONAL tv contracts to a length of 100 years and let the AI handle the LOCAL ones. This way it's somewhat performance based but also somewhat realistic.

jscott991 · 04-23-2004, 12:12 PM

You are wrong. This is the worst solution you could possibly do. The local TV deals are among the most socialist of features in OOTP 6. They will always be around 20M, with a slight dip or increase based on performance. This is not realistic in the slightest. Local TV deals are based on market size and then effected by performance. The Yankees make 70M a year from YES while the Expos make 500,000 a year from their broadcasts. In OOTP6, the spread is like 15 to 28M or something around there if you leave the deals alone.

The most realistic solution is to set the local TV deals to their real values and then give them infinite lengths.

The real solution is for the game engine's to set the new local TV deal as some percentage of the original baseline and then allow performance to slightly influence it. But the game's engine will not do that now.

Response to below: You are right. I didnt' understand what you meant. It is a backwards way to go about it, but if it works, it works. The problem in 6 is that they won't spend their money anyway so it doesn't matter how realistic you make it.

Quote:

Originally posted by joncarlos
What I've done in my leagues to combat this is to set the NATIONAL tv contracts to a length of 100 years and let the AI handle the LOCAL ones. This way it's somewhat performance based but also somewhat realistic.

joncarlos · 04-23-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jscott991
You are wrong. This is the worst solution you could possibly do. The local TV deals are among the most socialist of features in OOTP 6. They will always be around 20M, with a slight dip or increase based on performance. This is not realistic in the slightest. Local TV deals are based on market size and then effected by performance. The Yankees make 70M a year from YES while the Expos make 500,000 a year from their broadcasts. In OOTP6, the spread is like 15 to 28M or something around there if you leave the deals alone.

The most realistic solution is to set the local TV deals to their real values and then give them infinite lengths.

The real solution is for the game engine's to set the new local TV deal as some percentage of the original baseline and then allow performance to slightly influence it. But the game's engine will not do that now.

Maybe I didn't explain well enough.

I haven't seen OOTP6 yet, but OOTP5 has 2 different TV contracts, one for local and one for national. To make things work (you're right, it would be best if the AI did this for me) I have set the National contracts to be approximately the real revenue of the team (5 mil for Montreal, 75 mil for NYY or something like that) and then let the "socialist" OOTP5 engine dictate the local contract based on performance.

In reality I guess it would be the opposite - National being the one that doesn't change that much and Local being the one that varies widely - but I started out the other way and it is the same result either way.

obaslg · 04-23-2004, 01:16 PM

I know that this is an ugly workaround, but you could adjust merchandising revenue (even setting it negative) to change overall income, and I think that will stay pretty consistent year to year.

The problem of teams not spending their money is tougher, and probably unworkable. I thought that it had been improved in v.5, so I'm sorry to hear that - it does make playing a reality-based league pretty tough.

jscott991 · 04-23-2004, 01:23 PM

Well Obas, you can get semi-realistic revenue numbers, that's not the real issue. They will be static, but they are not too off base.

The big problem is that the AI won't spend its money. There are some other little problems with the game outside the financial engine (resigning your own free agents is ridiculously hard and ludicrously structured) but the AI not spending will ruin any "reality" in the game's simulation of professional baseball.

William4192 · 04-23-2004, 05:36 PM

I hate the idea I can't splurge (ala Devil Rays a few years ago). I hate that the game only gives you so much money to spend. I wish I could be the owner and only be the GM in manager mode. That way I could spend a lot one final year to go for it all. I can set a budget if I want (perhaps an option to turn it off or on). This way, your finances could get into trouble. Right now, it seems you can't go in debt like this.

BURNS81 · 04-23-2004, 06:41 PM

Is it possible a patch could be made to correct this problem??? if so someone should bring it up.

jscott991 · 04-23-2004, 07:19 PM

A patch could easily correct this problem. You simply would have to tell the AI to spend its money.

Will a patch be made to correct it? I doubt it. I don't think this is a bug. I think this is how the designer wants the game to work. For whatever reason, OOTP is against giving players the option to play a realistic league. It always has been. The socialism so prevalent in the engine is not their by mistake.

But I'd like to see this problem fixed. Its ridiculous for the AI to set their payroll at a certain level regardless of income. its almost like those aspects of the game aren't operating in tandem at all.

Mike D · 04-23-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jscott991
A patch could easily correct this problem. You simply would have to tell the AI to spend its money.

Dear god I didn't know that the financial aspects of this game was so easy to code. Markus, I demand you to get on this, stat. I mean, who cares that you haven't been able to get the financial coefficent to work properly, and never mind that you still haven't been able to put H2H in there despite the fact that there are a lot of people demanding it. Apparently, this new financial solution for Jscott is easy to correct.

Henry · 04-23-2004, 11:16 PM

Mike D, your killing me

Henry

Dan Theman · 04-23-2004, 11:28 PM

My goodness. Oh, no. What ever will we do. We should run all those dang OOTP Commie dastards out of town.

Karl Marx · 04-23-2004, 11:47 PM

NO Please....... this is my favorite part of the game!!!!!!!! LOL

Mike D · 04-23-2004, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
Mike D, your killing me

Henry

Thanks Henry, keep up the good work.

BleacherBum · 04-23-2004, 11:58 PM

This has been either a very difficult area to address, or a low priority one. Your observations sound very familiar.

From OOTP4, over 2 years ago...
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...3927#post63927

I do also recall someone else mentioning in v5 a 65-70% CPU spending pattern in their league, so I think the issue remained.

Here's my OOTP5 experience, where I tried different tactics by giving all the CPU teams the 80 mil that they wanted. Note that they struggled with that too.
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...747#post246747

jte87 · 04-24-2004, 12:10 AM

I would like to point out that I think these concerns are valid. I am running a solo league wilth Cincinnatti, and one of the appeals is building up a team that doesn't have the rescources of New York teams. I am moving slowly by playing all the games, so I haven't witnessed the effects mentioned, but I would like to competre against a financial monster, rather than a bunch of teams hovering around 80M.

Le Grande Orange · 04-24-2004, 12:27 AM

Well it would appear revenue isn't the problem, it's the team's willingness to spend that revenue.

Given that everyone probably has a different idea of what they want the spread of team's payrolls to be in their league, perhaps it's time for a slider in the settings somewhere which controls how willing a team is to spend money on payroll if it's sitting on a large cash reserve.

If trade settings can have trading frequency and favour prospects/veterans sliders added, then adding a "Willingness to spend available cash on players" would seem a good solution.

By making it a slider option everyone can put it to wherever they feel it's appropriate. Since it's not really changing the basic financial system, but merely adjusting the AI's willingness to spend the money it has, hopefully it wouldn't be too much of a problem to put in.

gordyhulten · 04-24-2004, 12:55 AM

AI GM personalities could fix this. You could then have some big spenders, some Carl Pohlads/Bud Seligs, and some Brian Sabeans (who insist on spending money in dribs and drabs on worthless spare parts who can't hit).

Dan Theman · 04-24-2004, 01:05 AM

here's my idea:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...threadid=62023

jscott991 · 04-24-2004, 11:09 AM

I don't see why its so hard to tell the AI to spend at its revenue level. Obviously there is something in the code now telling them to not exceed it, since they never do.

I did enjoy the sarcastic remarks earlier. Quite constructive. I think that its kind of obvious this is a low priority area. No one is calling for an AI overhaul. How hard can it be to tell the AI to spend at 90-100% of its resources rather than 50-60 or less?

04-23-2004, 11:46 AM	#1
jscott991 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 62	Financial Engine Critique: It can't be made to work right now I bought the game and have played with it a lot and I can't make the engine work, though it is an improvement on what I've seen in the past. I'm not going to write a long essay, as I already did that and little of what I said has changed. The basic problem right now is that the AI will not spend its money intelligently. Giving NYA a ton of revenue does not mean that it will be the top payroll. Money flows around too easily in the game, even with heavy editing of the local TV deals to make them more accurate. Playing with the most common MLB roster patch, I have watched the NYA payroll fall from 130M to 80M as their contracts expire and they fail to resign ANY significant free agents. Spending on free agents does not seem based either on means or needs. I can't figure out why the AI signs certain free agents and doesn't sign others. NY stinks in my game now. They haven't made the playoffs in three years and have finished last for two. They NEED every position, yet they never bid on any free agents. They have the max cash available (300M) and their profits are nearly 80 M a year. Still they won't spend money. The AI seems broken in this respect. It trends socialist, with teams uncomfortable being over/under the 80M threshold, so everyone seems to want to hang around there. Again, this is designer prejudice and it doesn't seem a player can overcome it. A second problem is in local TV deals. If you set them to be accurate (70M to 500K spread), they will simply reset themselves upon expiration. The Expos might earn 500,000 on their first deal, but will be around 20M when that first deal expires. This makes no sense, except the engine's bias towards every market having a TV deal of around 20M (with some change based on performance I guess). When all my preset deals expired, the spread was like 15 to 28M in local deals, based on team performance and not market. This is, of course, ludicrous (what cable provider in Montreal is paying 20,000,000 for the Expos' games?). This is another serious issue, since now you must simply put in the realistic deal numbers and give them infinite lengths. A third problem is in player salaries. The spread is excellent. A major improvement over OOTP4. However, this just means teams don't resign their own free agents, since they don't want to be over 80M or whatever in payroll. Once again, socialism is at work. The good players spread out since no one team wants too many of them. There is something in the engine that seems to preclude a team from carrying too many of these realistically large contracts despite their revenues. So once again, the game is very socialist. No matter what you try to do, no team wants to dominate the payroll race and the engine will try to reset all revenues to be basically equal. I'd like to see this changed, at least give us the option to change it. Would it be so hard to base TV deals on the baseline first deal? Would it be so hard to let the AI spend up to its revenues? Would it be so hard to turn off the bias against carrying multiple large contracts if you can afford it? I just don't understand why the game is so harsh in this area. Incidentally, the rest of the game is great, but I am starting to regret the purchase. It turns out the golden goose is only wrapped in foil. Last edited by jscott991; 04-23-2004 at 11:57 AM.

04-23-2004, 12:07 PM	#2
joncarlos All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2003 Location: Pittsburgh PA Posts: 693	What I've done in my leagues to combat this is to set the NATIONAL tv contracts to a length of 100 years and let the AI handle the LOCAL ones. This way it's somewhat performance based but also somewhat realistic. __________________ <a href =http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35167> 2003 Pirates Regular Season </a> <a href=http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40941> 2003 Pirates playoffs and off-season </a> <a href=http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44242> 2004 Pirates Season </a> <a href=http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47658> 2004 Pirates Playoffs and Off-season </a> <a href=http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48039>2005 Pirates Regular Season </a>

04-23-2004, 01:16 PM	#5
obaslg All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 887	I know that this is an ugly workaround, but you could adjust merchandising revenue (even setting it negative) to change overall income, and I think that will stay pretty consistent year to year. The problem of teams not spending their money is tougher, and probably unworkable. I thought that it had been improved in v.5, so I'm sorry to hear that - it does make playing a reality-based league pretty tough. __________________ Realy good musition of many insterments, including the hyperbolic vitriol.

04-23-2004, 05:36 PM	#7
William4192 All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 1,625	I hate the idea I can't splurge (ala Devil Rays a few years ago). I hate that the game only gives you so much money to spend. I wish I could be the owner and only be the GM in manager mode. That way I could spend a lot one final year to go for it all. I can set a budget if I want (perhaps an option to turn it off or on). This way, your finances could get into trouble. Right now, it seems you can't go in debt like this. __________________ What is this about Rhode Island? It is neither Road or Island. Come check out the PBA. http://www.pioneerbaseballassociation.com Or email at pbacommish@pioneerbaseballassociation.com

04-23-2004, 11:47 PM	#13
Karl Marx Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 213	NO Please....... this is my favorite part of the game!!!!!!!! LOL __________________ "The art of remembering and forgetting will also insure against sticking fast in some relationship of life, and make possible the realization of a complete freedom." Kierkegaard

04-23-2004, 01:23 PM	#6
jscott991 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 62	Well Obas, you can get semi-realistic revenue numbers, that's not the real issue. They will be static, but they are not too off base. The big problem is that the AI won't spend its money. There are some other little problems with the game outside the financial engine (resigning your own free agents is ridiculously hard and ludicrously structured) but the AI not spending will ruin any "reality" in the game's simulation of professional baseball.

04-23-2004, 06:41 PM	#8
BURNS81 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 187	Is it possible a patch could be made to correct this problem??? if so someone should bring it up.

04-23-2004, 07:19 PM	#9
jscott991 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 62	A patch could easily correct this problem. You simply would have to tell the AI to spend its money. Will a patch be made to correct it? I doubt it. I don't think this is a bug. I think this is how the designer wants the game to work. For whatever reason, OOTP is against giving players the option to play a realistic league. It always has been. The socialism so prevalent in the engine is not their by mistake. But I'd like to see this problem fixed. Its ridiculous for the AI to set their payroll at a certain level regardless of income. its almost like those aspects of the game aren't operating in tandem at all.

04-23-2004, 11:16 PM	#11
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Mike D, your killing me Henry

04-23-2004, 11:58 PM	#15
BleacherBum All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 672	This has been either a very difficult area to address, or a low priority one. Your observations sound very familiar. From OOTP4, over 2 years ago... http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...3927#post63927 I do also recall someone else mentioning in v5 a 65-70% CPU spending pattern in their league, so I think the issue remained. Here's my OOTP5 experience, where I tried different tactics by giving all the CPU teams the 80 mil that they wanted. Note that they struggled with that too. http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...747#post246747 __________________ Right Field Sucks!

04-24-2004, 12:10 AM	#16
jte87 Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 305	I would like to point out that I think these concerns are valid. I am running a solo league wilth Cincinnatti, and one of the appeals is building up a team that doesn't have the rescources of New York teams. I am moving slowly by playing all the games, so I haven't witnessed the effects mentioned, but I would like to competre against a financial monster, rather than a bunch of teams hovering around 80M.

04-24-2004, 12:27 AM	#17
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	Well it would appear revenue isn't the problem, it's the team's willingness to spend that revenue. Given that everyone probably has a different idea of what they want the spread of team's payrolls to be in their league, perhaps it's time for a slider in the settings somewhere which controls how willing a team is to spend money on payroll if it's sitting on a large cash reserve. If trade settings can have trading frequency and favour prospects/veterans sliders added, then adding a "Willingness to spend available cash on players" would seem a good solution. By making it a slider option everyone can put it to wherever they feel it's appropriate. Since it's not really changing the basic financial system, but merely adjusting the AI's willingness to spend the money it has, hopefully it wouldn't be too much of a problem to put in. Last edited by Le Grande Orange; 04-24-2004 at 12:30 AM.

04-24-2004, 12:55 AM	#18
gordyhulten All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Champaign, IL Posts: 1,175	AI GM personalities could fix this. You could then have some big spenders, some Carl Pohlads/Bud Seligs, and some Brian Sabeans (who insist on spending money in dribs and drabs on worthless spare parts who can't hit). __________________ Gordy Hulten Owner / General Manager Red Willow Roadrunners -- Kennel Series Champions: 1951, 1959, 1964, 1965, 1972, 1975, 1980, 1982, 1983 Dog Days Baseball - "The World's Best Online OOTP League" Creator inactive: Republican League - OOTP 2009 Dynasty inactive: Republican League Dynasty - Version 2.0 inactive: Republican League Dynasty

04-24-2004, 11:09 AM	#20
jscott991 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 62	I don't see why its so hard to tell the AI to spend at its revenue level. Obviously there is something in the code now telling them to not exceed it, since they never do. I did enjoy the sarcastic remarks earlier. Quite constructive. I think that its kind of obvious this is a low priority area. No one is calling for an AI overhaul. How hard can it be to tell the AI to spend at 90-100% of its resources rather than 50-60 or less?