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

[canute]

Well, in real life, fincancial revenues tie closely to team performance as well as to market size. See, e.g, St. Louis or Cleveland.

That said, I agree that it would be nice to see huge teams spend huge piles of money to win. Which they don't.

I confess I find it really funny, though, to refer to computer 'owners' who rake in huge profits by supressing spending on workers as "socialist". Take your politics out of it, dude.

[Mel_Ott]

Originally posted by gordyhulten
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).

That Barry Bonds - what a lousy hitter! Ray Durham, Marquis Grissom - feh! And let's not forget busts like Ellis Burks or Jeff Kent - they were pretty clueless at the plate, too!

[TLBOrioles]

My basic observations throughout OOTP 3-5 seem to indicate that players have a particular perceived financial value based on ratings. The AI teams may pay a little more or a little less based on their team needs, but the amount is negligible. Giving NYY a billion dollars won't make them any more aggressive in outbidding the other teams for players they want.

The only advantage high-income teams seem to possess is that they will be able to bid on every free agent of interest to them - but if many teams in your league are at the cash cap or have significant budget surplus, many teams will fall into this category. I don't think there's actually a secret payroll limit in place, but the game will tend to give 80% of the teams a similar payroll level based on the relatively equal interest in and access to talent.

Resigning players seems to be similar - teams recognize a player's default cash value and their organizational strengths, and if the player wants 5 dollars more than what they want to pay, the player walks. Teams are not willing to "overpay" a player no matter how much money they can spend. The only exception to this seems to be players that a human bids on in FA - sometimes the computer says "I'll sign this guy if it costs me 50 million!"

The most basic fix I can think of - inflate player salary values based on the overall league profitability. If the total league payroll is say, 3 billion dollars, and the league generates an extra 300 million in profits that turn into cash this season, make each player "worth" 10% more to the AI. If my hunches as to how the current system functions are correct, you should eventually get a better payroll spread.

[jscott991]

I'm not referring to the owners as socialist. I'm referring to the system as socialist, meaning that the game artificially enforces payroll equality by limiting what AI owners spend on payroll.

The game also introduces socialist economics into the area of local TV deals, as every team, regardless of market size, will receive a local deal of around 20 M a year, adjusted slightly up or down for performance.

Through these two techniques, the game keeps payroll parity in the game even if the player makes adjustments to introduce real economics. One problem is solvable, ableit in a crude way. You can enter the real local TV deals and then give them 100 year durations and not worry about it. That's not totally realistic, but it eliminates the game's desire to equalize TV money. You can't, however, solve the AI issue.

If you don't think the game has a socialist model for its finances, that's fine. But if you play at the default settings where every team makes nearly the same amount of revenue and spends nearly the same amount on players, I'm not sure what you would call that.

[TLBOrioles]

Another note that I didn't really highlight but should have been evident - running a large cash cap tends to equalize payrolls when most teams are profitable. And in most leagues that I've seen, most teams are profitable. Since teams will generally have large cash reserves, they'll tend to push themselves up to the standard league payroll level even if they're going to lose money this season, and you get the consistent, even salary distribution that you talk about.

If you set the cash cap low, teams that are afraid of running out of cash will be somewhat less aggressive. This of course isn't an overall fix to what you're talking about, but it does provide more year-to-year variation in who's spending. OOTP's default engine creates inflation and doesn't know what to do with it - the best thing you can do without editing the financials of individual teams, is just keep it from hoarding money. Your 300 million cash cap is likely making your problem worse.

[dougaiton]

Originally posted by jscott991
I'm not referring to the owners as socialist. I'm referring to the system as socialist, meaning that the game artificially enforces payroll equality by limiting what AI owners spend on payroll.

I don't mean to be an ass, but that isn't necessarily socialist. Protectionist yes, and if you describe each team as a single unit, you could even describe it as communist, but it seems to have very little to do with the nationalisation of the industry. What you would have to have for a socialist MLB would be that the organisation held all the players under contract and allocated players to teams, potentially for equality but more likely for the good of the game (i.e. the more fans the team has, the larger salaried players that the team would be allocated).

It is a protectionist state, or more accurately a limited (as in non-free) market that you are describing.

I happen to think it happens for the following reason. In-built into the game is the player evaluation model, whereby an AI figures out the true worth of a player, and then that worth depreciates exponentially as his salary goes past a certain level (say, if a player costs twice as much as he should, then he is valued by the AI as only half the worth of a player).

Sound sensible? Well, it does in A-Rod's case - we wouldn't like to see the AI shell out 40mil for him. However, if the case is say Matt LeCroy, a terrible defensive player with no true position, then the AI might value him at say, 1.5million per year. However, we could see his platoon potential, and be willing to go to 3 mil. Well, the AI is probably programmed that x% over his true worth makes him x% less valuable to the team, and thinks that paying twice the worth is a waste. We, as human GMs, can make this decision without thinking twice - what's another 1.5 mil for a guy we can use? The AI, like in real-life, weighs up the profitability of the move in terms of the player's value - NOT is it worth overpaying to fill the need but rather does this player deserve this amount of money? The AI has a mathematical answer that must apply to Andy Fox, Shawn Estes, A-Rod and Pedro Martinez. We can have a pretty good guess, and we can also move people around to resign our particular favourites. The AI cannot.

[jscott991]

You could be right. It makes sense, but that seems a very limited AI model. OOTP is probably best as an online/multiplayer game, but I certainly would expect a more complicated AI than what you are suggesting.

I hate to bring Baseball Mogul into the discussion since its become so limited, but the BM AI certainly spends up to its revenue level or beyond. I'm unclear why its so hard for the OOTP AI to do so.

Also, check your Free Agent bidding in the offseason in OOTP6. The NYA do not bid on that many free agents despite a huge cash reserve and massive revenues. They bid just like any other team. They bid in dribs and drabs.

Its a massive AI flaw as far as I'm concerned, unless you want to play a game where every team is spending and making about 70-80M. But where is the challenge there? Evaluating talent? Playing the game? I'm not sure where the fun is playing in a single player league where all the teams are the same and the AI doesn't spend up to its revenue level. Right now, as Cin's GM, I'm creaming the AI. I spend up to my revenue level and he doesn't. No realism, no challenge, little long term fun (although the game looks so realistic its addictive, but its not working behind the scenes).

[obaslg]

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.

From the response when I complained about this a long time ago, I don't think that it's intentional. It is, apparently, a low priority, and I bet it's actually fairly tough to code.

I happen to think it happens for the following reason. In-built into the game is the player evaluation model, whereby an AI figures out the true worth of a player, and then that worth depreciates exponentially as his salary goes past a certain level (say, if a player costs twice as much as he should, then he is valued by the AI as only half the worth of a player).

I think that's dead-on. In placing a salary value on players, the AI doesn't to factor in its needs, the pool of available players, and most importantly its resources.

[mlyons]

For what it's worth, I designed my solo league as a poverty-stricken one; all markets were initially "Almost Non-existent". After 10 seasons (mostly in V5), I have huge disparities in team payrolls, ranging from a high end of $85 million to a low end of $30 million. Most of the revenue difference comes from attendance right now. Almost every team spends up to their revenue limit (I'm 2/3 of the way through the free agency period right now, and something like 24 out of the 30 teams have $0 available to spend on free agents). I'm even starting to see a Yankees-like financial juggernaut beginning to emerge, as one team just got a TV contract worth about twice as much as anyone else's. It still remains to be seen whether they'll take their spending to the next level, but considering the number of top-flight free agents who are going to end up being left out in the cold and signing for much less than they're worth, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally posted by mlyons
For what it's worth, I designed my solo league as a poverty-stricken one; all markets were initially "Almost Non-existent". After 10 seasons (mostly in V5), I have huge disparities in team payrolls, ranging from a high end of $85 million to a low end of $30 million. Most of the revenue difference comes from attendance right now. Almost every team spends up to their revenue limit (I'm 2/3 of the way through the free agency period right now, and something like 24 out of the 30 teams have $0 available to spend on free agents). I'm even starting to see a Yankees-like financial juggernaut beginning to emerge, as one team just got a TV contract worth about twice as much as anyone else's. It still remains to be seen whether they'll take their spending to the next level, but considering the number of top-flight free agents who are going to end up being left out in the cold and signing for much less than they're worth, I wouldn't be surprised.

Interesting idea. I wonder if this will end up being a credible workaround for this problem, which is one of my major annoyances with the AI.

[Shorty]

I hope this discussion isn't falling on deaf ears.

[jscott991]

That's interesting, but that's a pretty unacceptable workaround if you want realism. It does show you can get salary disparity into the game, but it doesn't really matter if the markets aren't matching up to reality. If the point is to play in a MLB-like environment, who wants Tampa Bay to the league's payroll leader?

We're going to need a patch for this. For now, I'm compensating for it by taking control of NYA, Boston, and NYN in the offseason and bidding on free agents to get their payroll in line with the resources. Its not working well, because they trade these free agents subsequently for lower priced guys, despite still being immensely profitable (for example, I just had NYA sign Derek Lowe for 15M a year and by July he had been dealt for two nearly worthless prospects making 300k each. NYA has successfully trimmed 18M off of the payroll of 130M I had pushed them up by intervention. Its extremely frustrating.)

Originally posted by Eckstein 4 Prez
Interesting idea. I wonder if this will end up being a credible workaround for this problem, which is one of my major annoyances with the AI.

[mikekobeski]

I would like to see some type of response from the creators of the game on this issue. I haven't played enough solo leagues to make an informed judgement. But I am curious as to Marcus et al's reaction to this indictment of the financial system.

Are the posters accurate? Is this worth a fix? My limited experience tells me that the critique is dead on. I have seen ai trades that are ridiculous from any standpoint except salary dumping from teams that have no business dumping salary. So I have a sense that it is true.

At this point, I want a response from the game's creator. Or at least some of the testers. Do you consider the financial system broken? Is it worth a fix? Is a fix probable? Or can I just file this under "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

Mike

[theblackadder]

I have to agree with most of the posters in this thread. I think this is an absolutely fantastic game, and I'm having the BEST time playing 95% of it, and I'm very thankful for the great customer service provided by Markus, Steve, et al.

But this payroll thing is really killing me. No matter what I do, teams REFUSE to spend money. EVERY year my standings are littered with teams all with the same record. 2 out of 5 years, no team won a divison with higher than a .560 winning percentage. The sameness that seems to be ingrained in the game makes things really dull after awhile.

[Henry]

The current financial system has been in place since it was remodeled for Version 4. That would suggest that it's probably due for an update - but certainly not as a patch to V6. It will most likely be a major update in of itself.

I've been around since V3 and would agree there's room for improvement, but I would hardly call it a massive flaw. We've had a number of suggestions for enhancements to the financial platform and will certainly add these comments as well.

And as a PS, everything on this board is read - so there's no fear of anything "falling on deaf ears"

Henry

[jscott991]

This is dead on. Almost every year, I lead the leage in winning % and my percentage has only been above .600 once (and I've never won 100 games).

Originally posted by theblackadder
I have to agree with most of the posters in this thread. I think this is an absolutely fantastic game, and I'm having the BEST time playing 95% of it, and I'm very thankful for the great customer service provided by Markus, Steve, et al.

But this payroll thing is really killing me. No matter what I do, teams REFUSE to spend money. EVERY year my standings are littered with teams all with the same record. 2 out of 5 years, no team won a divison with higher than a .560 winning percentage. The sameness that seems to be ingrained in the game makes things really dull after awhile.

[jscott991]

How is it not a massive flaw? The AI won't spend up to its resources? And it dumps salary if you force it to? What would the definition of a massive flaw in this area be?

Originally posted by Henry
The current financial system has been in place since it was remodeled for Version 4. That would suggest that it's probably due for an update - but certainly not as a patch to V6. It will most likely be a major update in of itself.

I've been around since V3 and would agree there's room for improvement, but I would hardly call it a massive flaw. We've had a number of suggestions for enhancements to the financial platform and will certainly add these comments as well.

And as a PS, everything on this board is read - so there's no fear of anything "falling on deaf ears"

Henry

[Henry]

Massive flaw is unplayable -which this game is obviously not.

Henry

[jscott991]

That's a very narrow definition.

Originally posted by Henry
Massive flaw is unplayable -which this game is obviously not.

Henry

[Henry]

But true. Can it be improved? Certainly. Will it be improved? Certainly. By the time we get to Version 9, will someone be claiming "massive flaw"? Certainly.

Henry