Can we get a way to just turn budgets off?

[mad0die]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

The only fix is to add cash to the club. Merely a band-aid, IMO however.

Yeah, we've had to implement cash infusions at the beginning of the season that will be removed at the end. This should be fun.

[goldfinger77]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

OOTP is actually calculating REAL budgets and not fictional ones. It's taking into account the future value of player contracts. Since they tend to rise as each year progresses, your payroll will increase each year. Plus you have to pay out any bonuses as well. So OOTP is calculating the REAL value of your payroll for subsequent seasons, and it's budgeting accordingly.

This is realistic. The way that this should be addressed is that there should be a feature added to request additional investment by the ownership beyond the current and projected funds that are available. An owner has the option to approve that kind of spending in real life, but a GM does NOT have the authority to write checks for more than the current and projected costs on the books. That requires permission and possible investment from the ownership.

So even if the game is set up so the owner does NOT determine the budget, the human GM should still have to seek approval to go beyond the full budget. Think about it: you're asking the game to allow you to use MORE than the club's entire funds available to spend on players. This is literally impossible in the real world without seeking a loan or asking for a cash injection by the ownership.

Fine - then let us turn off owners.

[Charlie Hough]

So let me ask this: why bother to play with finances if you're going to ignore the real life limitations that they involve?

Don't get me wrong: I fully support the idea of people having options to set up the game the way they'd like. But there comes a point where certain requests start to conflict with the game's purpose, which is to be a simulation of managing a real baseball club. And if we're simulating baseball clubs with finances, then there are owners, there are budgets, there are projected budgets, and there is NEVER the freedom to unilaterally disregard financial reality as a GM.

If we start turning off aspects of a major feature that are realistic but inconvenient for the GM, then we're defeating the purpose of the feature and taking away from the game's status as a true simulation. There is already an editor that allows you to override budgets or inject cash and work around things. But I don't think it's very compelling to ask the developer to program options to take away realism so it's easier to circumvent the financial restrictions that are entailed by using the feature that the human player has turned on!

I can tell you one thing: if this was Football Manager, the biggest selling sports simulation of all time, this request would fall on deaf ears. This is because the developers of that game have made a commitment to programming a realistic simulation of real life football. And that means that if you're going to buy the game and take on the challenge of simulating the experience of a real life football manager, then you have to deal with financial realities. You can't even turn off finances in that game.

OOTP has taken a similar approach, though with much more flexibility for personal preference. But if you're going to commit to playing a simulation of baseball with finances turned on, then I believe the game needs to maintain its commitment to realism and require that you go through the same process that a real life GM would go through in order to get more freedom to extend or sign players.

In the end, however, Markus and the rest of the crew have been pretty democratic. So, if enough people really want the option to disregard budgets or owners with no consequences, then they may be willing to allow it. But don't be surprised if they decline the idea. Markus has been known to do that if he feels that certain options would erode the integrity of the game as a realistic simulation.

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

So let me ask this: why bother to play with finances if you're going to ignore the real life limitations that they involve?

Don't get me wrong: I fully support the idea of people having options to set up the game the way they'd like. But there comes a point where certain requests start to conflict with the game's purpose, which is to be a simulation of managing a real baseball club. And if we're simulating baseball clubs with finances, then there are owners, there are budgets, there are projected budgets, and there is NEVER the freedom to unilaterally disregard financial reality as a GM.

If we start turning off aspects of a major feature that are realistic but inconvenient for the GM, then we're defeating the purpose of the feature and taking away from the game's status as a true simulation. There is already an editor that allows you to override budgets or inject cash and work around things. But I don't think it's very compelling to ask the developer to program options to take away realism so it's easier to circumvent the financial restrictions that are entailed by using the feature that the human player has turned on!

I can tell you one thing: if this was Football Manager, the biggest selling sports simulation of all time, this request would fall on deaf ears. This is because the developers of that game have made a commitment to programming a realistic simulation of real life football. And that means that if you're going to buy the game and take on the challenge of simulating the experience of a real life football manager, then you have to deal with financial realities. You can't even turn off finances in that game.

OOTP has taken a similar approach, though with much more flexibility for personal preference. But if you're going to commit to playing a simulation of baseball with finances turned on, then I believe the game needs to maintain its commitment to realism and require that you go through the same process that a real life GM would go through in order to get more freedom to extend or sign players.

In the end, however, Markus and the rest of the crew have been pretty democratic. So, if enough people really want the option to disregard budgets or owners with no consequences, then they may be willing to allow it. But don't be surprised if they decline the idea. Markus has been known to do that if he feels that certain options would erode the integrity of the game as a realistic simulation.

No one's asking to 'turn them off'. We're asking for the OPTION to turn them off. Just b/c its the 'real life' way things are done does not mean that everyone that plays this game wants to play it in that manner. It also doesnt mean that those people want to play entirely without financials.

What we're asking for is either a way to edit future budget projections OR allow us to turn budgets off.

Is that so hard to understand?


Who cares if it errodes the 'realistic simulation' if some of the users want that option?

[Cliche]

God forbid I impede the realism of a game that lets Barry Bonds play on a team with Ty Cobb.

One of the many reasons we did away with following OOTP budgets is because they were heinously inconsistent and made no sense. Rebuilding teams with low payrolls and revenues were getting budgets of 100 million, while contending teams were having their budgets slashed into the 70 million range or lower even when they turned profits yearly. This is all AFTER we "turned off" owner budgeting.

Given the impact this was having on multiple teams in terms of planning and competing, it was decided that we would just do what we had always wanted anyway, and just remove the "owner" from the equation. Because in an online league, you're the owner of the team and the GM and the manager. You can relocate. You can set ticket prices. You can make trades, sign draft picks, do lineups, etc.

Do GMs normally submit lineups and choose ticket prices? They do not to my knowledge. So if you want to lay this down on the pulpit of realism, be my guest. It's just not the way the game works. I've been playing this game for almost a decade, and "realistic" is not the first word that comes to mind. I've played in leagues that featured JFK Jr, Cuba Gooding Jr and Dwight Gooden Jr as active players. I've played in leagues where a guy won a battle title by bunting his way on base at a .350 clip. I've seen teams win 130 games and lose 130 games. I'm not looking for a picture perfect simulation of the experience of a general manager and ONLY a general manager. I'm looking for the same great experience I've had playing in online leagues going back to OOTP4.

If this issue falls on deaf ears... then that's fine. I didn't make the game, I just bought it. I just don't understand why you have the option to turn off the owner budgeting, if it doesn't actually turn off owner budgeting. I don't see how allowing people to do this if they wish to is going to cause harm to OOTP's commitment to being a realistic baseball simulation.

[iowahawkeyedave]

Agree completely that there should be an option to turn it off. To argue against having the option to turn something off on the premise that it isn't realistic, I believe is a pretty shortsighted approach.

OOTP is a very realistic game, but it has options to make the game as unrealistic as you want, which is the beauty of the game. You already have the option to make fictional leagues, turn rule 5 draft off, have a 200 game season, etc, so why not have the option to turn off owners or turn off projected budgets? It would not effect realism at all if you choose to not use the option of turning budgets off.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

No one's asking to 'turn them off'. We're asking for the OPTION to turn them off.

Yes, that much is obvious. And it is extremely rare for me to object to adding much of anything as an option, but I don't believe you should have it. I disagree in this case and believe it should be denied. The difference here is that people want finances, but they want to reject the actual meaning of finances in the context of baseball management and they want to reject a hugely important financial element that has been laboriously coded to help make sure that the ENTIRE financial system works properly and realistically.

As I've said, it will be up to Markus. But be careful what you wish for and how it might negatively impact your games. And don't be surprised if the request is denied because it's unrealistic, could skew finances, or otherwise cause unintended, negative consequences that Markus doesn't want to have to 'fix'.

[OldFatGuy]

I see Charlie touched upon this, but I just wanted to throw this thought in as well. There's probably a very good reason why budgets aren't optional, and that's because without them, the ability to completely break finances comes up.

Now please, don't get me wrong, I'm on YOUR side on this. I happen to agree with the cnocept of folks playing anyway they want. (It's your game, play it your way).

But without budgets, what does happen to that team that has 235 million dollars of payroll and only 110 million dollars of revenue?? Do you let that team get away with it? do you make the game force them to trade away players? Do you institute an in game bankrupt feature, where teams fold?

Again, I agree with your premise, wholeheartedly. I want folks to be able to play however they want to. I just wanted to make the point that there is very likely a very good reason why they aren't optional because it opens up the possibility of some very, very bad and questionable consequences.

By the way, I also wanted to add, isn't there an option to toggle off team owner control of budgets? Where it lets you instead use all revenue?? I guess that's not good enough, but to me that's a reasonable compromise as at least it allows you to use the entirety of a teams revenue. Because if you're allowed to spend more than revenue, what's the penalty?? I guess I'm a little more confused on this than I thought. Sorry. ADDED IN EDIT: Ahh, I think I understand now. Probably even when you disable owner control of budgets the team's budget still isn't a realistic amount based on revenues?? In other words, it's too conservative on future year revenues and thus ties your hands too much on signing extensions and long term contracts???

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Yes, that much is obvious. And it is extremely rare for me to object to adding much of anything as an option, but I don't believe you should have it. I disagree in this case and believe it should be denied. The difference here is that people want finances, but they want to reject the actual meaning of finances in the context of baseball management and they want to reject a hugely important financial element that has been laboriously coded to help make sure that the ENTIRE financial system works properly and realistically.

As I've said, it will be up to Markus. But be careful what you wish for and how it might negatively impact your games. And don't be surprised if the request is denied because it's unrealistic, could skew finances, or otherwise cause unintended, negative consequences that Markus doesn't want to have to 'fix'.

Explain to me why an online league with 130M salary cap and budgets in that area for year 1 sees budgets at the 80M range for the upcoming season. That handcuffs GMs into not being able to extend contracts 'in season' even though they would remain under the cap. Show me one real MLB club that has that situation.

All anyone has asked for is either an option to edit projected budgets OR turn budgets off.

Why you think the ability to either edit the projected budget or do away with budgets altogether somehow hurts the game is beyond me.

This would damage the realistic nature of the game? How about my ability to choose whether to use the DH or not in the NL? Is that realistic? I have that option. Why shouldn't I have this option to run the financial portion of the game the way that I want to rather than either all or nothing as is now?

In summation, what do you care if I want to play the game in this manner? It doesnt have an effect on you/your game play.

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

ADDED IN EDIT: Ahh, I think I understand now. Probably even when you disable owner control of budgets the team's budget still isn't a realistic amount based on revenues?? In other words, it's too conservative on future year revenues and thus ties your hands too much on signing extensions and long term contracts???

Correct.

[goldfinger77]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Yes, that much is obvious. And it is extremely rare for me to object to adding much of anything as an option, but I don't believe you should have it. I disagree in this case and believe it should be denied. The difference here is that people want finances, but they want to reject the actual meaning of finances in the context of baseball management and they want to reject a hugely important financial element that has been laboriously coded to help make sure that the ENTIRE financial system works properly and realistically.

As I've said, it will be up to Markus. But be careful what you wish for and how it might negatively impact your games. And don't be surprised if the request is denied because it's unrealistic, could skew finances, or otherwise cause unintended, negative consequences that Markus doesn't want to have to 'fix'.

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?

[mad0die]

Budgets <> Finances.

OOTP ran many versions with finances and no budgets.

Budgets came along with the fictional owners.

We are an online league, we don't need, want or use fictional owners. We are the owners. The option to have budgets use full revenue still applies too many financial calculations that we don't like. However, OOTP allows us to edit those budgets!

Now, OOTP is also calculating and using a projected future budget amount. All we are asking is for the ability to edit projected future budgets just like we already can edit current season budgets.

That is extremely consistent with the customization that Markus has allowed and doesn't impact your ability to play your solo league however the heck you want.

[turkeybird86]

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?

Why are you so defensive over a simple question?

[mad0die]

We don't need the ability to turn off budgets. I know that is the title of this thread, but Cliche approached this in the wrong way.

Allowing us to edit current budgets is already in there. We simply want to also be able to edit projected future budgets.

I understand that turning off budgets is a lot more complicated for Markus with consequences that would be hard to predict given the evolution of OOTP's financial engine. We don't want Markus to spend time on that.

Just give us edit ability on one additional field on the team front office screen.

THAT'S IT

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by mad0die

Just give us edit ability on one additional field on the team front office screen.

THAT'S IT

In a nutshell. This.

[TGH-Adfabre]

Hell, I would take the budgets being listed somewhere I can see them. One of my online leagues justed wrapped the regular season adn I am trying to sign an extension, 15+ offers later I still cannot get past the owner, very frustrating.

[mikev]

While we're at it, can we fix the Rule 5...

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by mikev

While we're at it, can we fix the Rule 5...

While your at it can you explain what's wrong with it?....

[mikev]

thats a whole other thread of its own.

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by mikev

thats a whole other thread of its own.

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