Need your help for OOTP 5! - Page 3

Tiger Fan · 12-06-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
ps: What do you think of the World War draft option ?? ...could be fun. 1914 and 1941 you lose some number of random players......

Great idea. Would definately add something to historical replays.

Eclzeastes · 12-06-2002, 01:07 PM

I think it might be time for everyone to re-read the first post. It seems to me we are getting a little off-track.

I am seeing posts about "personalities" and WW2 drafts and random cash infusions....

I think the question at hand was more about how to make bad team get better. The observation at hand was that there were to many really good and too many really bad teams and not enough average teams.

I'm not sure what the best answer happens to be... there are several posted here to consider but we might be losing sight of the trees through the forest on this one.

Eclzeastes

jaymac89 · 12-06-2002, 01:18 PM

I would go back to luxury tax on the highest payrolls. Make it adjustable on a yearly basis in case teams are starting to migrate to that competitive imbalance (not having player strikes as a "feature" makes this a lot easier). It may also be the least amount of code to write to solve the problem.

I would run the numbers in a spreadsheet to see how it works out. In fact, give me some numbers in a spreadsheet and I can tweak around with it this weekend and see how the luxury tax would work out. Glad to be of service.

j

Chitown3304 · 12-06-2002, 01:23 PM

A few things i think of is
1) where the all star game is will help season ticket sales. This years ChiSoxs are holding it and season tickets have gone up 75%.
2) Also money from Minor league teams for minor league contracts and things of that sort.
3) Having to keep the rights to your minor league teams
4) then also make a staff of more then pitching and hitting coach

JWay · 12-06-2002, 01:23 PM

If someone has mentioned this sorry...

What if you had realistic city growth. And Like Baseball Populartiy growth. The Baseball Popularity rating would go up and down. And when it goes down teams suffer. Teams with less fan loyalty that others. But when it goes up. The teams that are currently winning would get a majority of the new fans. So if Baseball would go into a huge fan slump. Teams like the Cubs, Yankees, RedSox, Dodgers wouldn't take a huge hit. But the Brewers, Expos, Marlins would all be effected. In that way some changes for those teams would need to be made (tieing in Scotts Idea) Then when it begins to rise up again a couple small market teams still could be winning and they get a bunch of the new generation fans and benefit from it. Then you throw in city and local fans ratings. If a city gets bigger the team in the city is going to get some improvement off it. If a team loses constantly then the fans will move their intrests elsewhere. Then you might want to move the team to another city thats growing.

I dunno, from year to year a whole lot of change wouldn't be seen but over a 20 or 100 year period you'd notice a ton.

Lemme know if I'm on key or just making stupid things up out of my head.

J to the Way

Scott Vibert · 12-06-2002, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaymac89
I would go back to luxury tax on the highest payrolls. Make it adjustable on a yearly basis in case teams are starting to migrate to that competitive imbalance (not having player strikes as a "feature" makes this a lot easier). It may also be the least amount of code to write to solve the problem.

I would run the numbers in a spreadsheet to see how it works out. In fact, give me some numbers in a spreadsheet and I can tweak around with it this weekend and see how the luxury tax would work out. Glad to be of service.

Problem is not everyone will want to have a luxury tax on the highest teams... there needs to be a solution that fixes the problem for all situations including when there isn't a luxury tax (as there hasn't been for most of baseball history)

One of this games greatest assets is its flexibility and a luxury tax shouldn't be forced on your league just as revenue sharing, a salary cap, or even free agency is not forced on your league.

I just think there needs to be a solution that works for all scenarios, not just those who want to have something resembling the current state of baseball.

Slant · 12-06-2002, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SSG Troyer
Already exists in OOTP. Salary caps just help the rich stay rich, as they are still filling their stadiums and not able to spend the money they make (in OOTP).

Here goes my .02

So. What we're looking for is some AI-controlled Huge/Great basement dwellers and some AI-controlled Tiny/Fair playoff contenders. Or at least a force that pushes each in their respective direction. Right?

National TV deals should be a function of (~40%) performance and (~60%) market size, and slightly larger than local deals. Local TV deals should be tied to Market size only, and market size shouldn't change unless the team's home town changes. Market size should be a function of home town only. Maybe over a span of decades, a market size could increase (only) due to urban growth. Local deals might increase slowly over time due to inflation, but only if inflation is applied to the rest of the game as well. Overall TV deals should be less than what they are now ... maybe not realistic, but better for gameplay (IMHO).

Merchandising should be a combination of (~10%) Market Size and (~40%) Fan Loyalty, but with (~20%) performance tied in, and (~30%) randomness. This randomness would rarely and slowly change (once in ~10 seasons, and by no more than +/- ~3% to the modifier at a time), and be forever hidden. Merchandising totals should also be emphasized more, with TV totals lessened as mentioned above.

Fan Interest should continue to impact Loyalty, but slightly more. Interest should take a hit if a popular player is lost to FA or trade (NOT retirement) ... define "popular" as high(est)-paid, and/or career-leader/HoF candidate, and/or length of time on team if you don't want to go the FOF "Fan Favorite" route. Interest should also increase (by less) for a similar signing/trade acquisition. Fan Interest should also change at a different rate for each team. Some cities are more "fickle" than others. City "fickality" should be intangibly visible (like current market and loyalty) and near-fixed, but able to increase or decrease over lots of time tied to repeated great (or poor) performance (only).

All told, I think some great/huge perennial playoff teams would make much less than than some than other great/huge perennial bridemaids, while some tiny/fairs basement dwellers would make more than some average/averages. I believe the group would get pushed more towards the middle.

I agree with all of this except for the fan favorite part. I think fan favorite should be a visible rating alongside team leader and clutch performance.

Additionally, (internally perhaps) each player should have an interest level from each team's fans. At the start of a player's career, he has a 0 with all teams. He gets a boost from whatever team he graduates from AAA with, and his fan rating increases gradually for whatever team he is playing. The speed his fan interest increases is based on performance and the fan favorite rating on the player card.

A positive rating will gradually decrease when the player is not on the team. It can also decrease when he is player of the game for the opposing team (esp. in playoffs). A 0 rating cannot become neagative except by being the player of the game on an opposing playoff team

***********************************************

Some thoughts on owners:
Team owners should have their own owner tendencies, but only in the mode where you can be hired and fired.
Owners should have a "manager hook", how patient they are with managers, a "spending tendency" how much money they invest on the team, and some more which I can't think of right now.

Tiger Fan · 12-06-2002, 01:50 PM

Well said, Scott.

Thats why I still believe the easiest way to get that 20-60-20 split Markus mentioned without making huge changes is with the broadcasting revenue money.

If the National contracts are the same for all teams it will give each team a good starting point finance wise. Next take the local revenue and base it primarily on team market size but with a smaller influence from the teams fan interest. You could also increase it slightly based on number of allstars and award winners on the team at the time the new contract is negotiated. This adds that marquee player factor that some have mentioned to the equation.

The other factor is market size. I believe market size to begin with is tied into the team payroll. What if market size was instead set up as only one team compared to the rest of the league? What I mean is to begin a league only 10-20% of the teams should be in a Really Big or Huge Market and only 10-20% in a Tiny or Almost Nonexisting market with all the rest falling somewhere in between.

It seems to me if the majority of the teams fell into an average market size than the majority of the team revenues would also be closer to the average. There are going to be changes over time but if the league initially started out this way then perhaps we would be closer to that 20-60-20 split instead of the 40-20-40, at least for a longer period of time.

JAttractive · 12-06-2002, 01:54 PM

I don't like the idea of using "random" events to balance things much. Now keep in mind this is coming from a person who is in the fictionist camp as well and would love to see "random events" in the game that could affect everything from the player's themselves to yes, finances. However if they are put in merely as a balancing issue then it sort of destroys the whole "randomness" of them and simply makes them a semi-predictable game feature. If added they should be put in to make things more interesting and "life-like" and not as an easy solution to a balance issue.

So what is the solution?:

Really I think we need to step back a bit and try to look at how we as players overcome this very problem on our own teams. Many of us purposefully start ourselves out with seemingly impossible odds against: lowest payroll, no fan interest or market etc. and still come out on top eventually. So if we can get the computer AI to model the decisions and tactics we use you should see teams fluctuate up and down much more frequently. Using this as the basis for my suggestion I would do the following:

Small market or perennial losing teams have an AI switch. These teams will look to trade for prospects, dump salary, get younger etc. Eventually their prospects will flood the team and provide a cheap powerhouse that has a few years to bring them up to respectability before they become free agents.

Reasoning: The current AI seems to try to win *now* no matter what team it is or what the team situation is. This is a major reason you see this problem. The small market teams are essentially trying to slug it out with the large market teams using the same tactics and predictably get killed for it.

Problems: First off for realism sake this should not be overdone. Only a few teams actually engage in anything close to this actively (ie. the Expos) and it is a great way to alienate fans. Secondly if it is overdone it could create dynasty-type situations fairly regularly and may have teams fluctuate up and down more often than desired. I think this would only require a slight tweaking and perhaps should be tied in with an AI tweak for contending teams where they are more willing to overspend on veterans and trade prospects in order to win now at the expense of the future.

Personally I would rather see something like this done than a "not-really-random" event used. I REALLY want to see random events put in but not if this is the reason.

jaymac89 · 12-06-2002, 01:59 PM

Quote:

One of this games greatest assets is its flexibility and a luxury tax shouldn't be forced on your league just as revenue sharing, a salary cap, or even free agency is not forced on your league.

Nicely put. But I live close to Berkeley, CA, so the librerals and the socialism out there rubs off on me.

I, personally, would use the lux tax to "socialize" baseball a little bit. What you identify is that people would like the capitalistic approach to work well too. On the other hand, maybe the game is too accurate: The rich always get richer, the poor get poorer. And after some time the middle class disappears. There are some economists who would look at this game and say it is a very accurate model on how money works.

In that case, owners should be customized. When NYY has an owner that takes the extra cash and keeps it for himself, that would balance things out a bit. It also keeps the money supply from getting out of whack. I mean, if you have an extra 20mil, most owners would take some for themselves, that is what owning a "business" is about.

Eclzeastes · 12-06-2002, 02:43 PM

That was a great post, JAttractive.

If a human can do it then it we should be able to get the AI to do it on some level. We just need to get the AI to start behaving like we do when we are in the bottom tier of a league. Trade stars for prospects.. build from the bottom up and plan to fight in a couple years.

To prevent every team from doing this there can be "triggers" to set off a series of evens... maybe like:

A team loses 100+ games a certain number of years in a row....
Fan interest drops x% for x years...
A team with a certain average age (too high/too low) and a certain record...

Or if your looking for a non so random hardship for teams with lots and lots of dough... When a team is winning it seems like even their average players can get tons of money from them in contracts. An average player on an average team might get a million but that same type of player on a winner gets a couple million.

Along that theory there could be a financial handicapp put in effect that free agents on contenders get greedy and need more money making it harder and harder for winners to keep teams together. GREED GREED GREED. There comes a point where winners have to see payrolls go up and up or have to turn to the minors.

Eclzeastes

Treches · 12-06-2002, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slant
I agree with all of this except for the fan favorite part. I think fan favorite should be a visible rating alongside team leader and clutch performance.

Additionally, (internally perhaps) each player should have an interest level from each team's fans. At the start of a player's career, he has a 0 with all teams. He gets a boost from whatever team he graduates from AAA with, and his fan rating increases gradually for whatever team he is playing. The speed his fan interest increases is based on performance and the fan favorite rating on the player card.

A positive rating will gradually decrease when the player is not on the team. It can also decrease when he is player of the game for the opposing team (esp. in playoffs). A 0 rating cannot become neagative except by being the player of the game on an opposing playoff team.

Agree, but Markus better integrate this stuff with the rest of the features or we would end up with another source of goofy results. Look at Scott Rolen, a fan favourite who did not want to sign with the team and, therefore, became one hated persona in Philadelphia. I don't want to see my fan base decrease for not re-signing a fan favourite who didn't want to be re-signed and wanted out, nor I want to see my fan base decrease for trading a mediocre-player-though-crowd-favourite, because fans don't come to the stadium to see Mark Grace.

JAttractive · 12-06-2002, 02:50 PM

I like the financial handicap idea Eclzeastes! I was trying to think of a way that would simulate how top teams often seem to stab themselves in the foot by over-spending on players but couldn't come up with anything. The problem was my ideas kept focusing in on the league-wide free agents and I couldn't come up with a way that wouldn't hinder the lower level teams as well which would only make things worse again. Your idea though may just work.

fantom1979 · 12-06-2002, 02:53 PM

I really like JAttractive's idea. I like Rev Sharing as well.

If you dont like the Rev Sharing idea because of historical leagues, why would it matter? Dont most of you turn off finanicals anyways?

I like the idea JAttractive had for team attitude. To decided if the team is rebuilding or contending. I have gotten tired of watching 60-102 teams go out and spend 9 mil on a pitcher when they only have a 40 mil payroll.

jag2k2 · 12-06-2002, 03:20 PM

Stadium Stadium Stadium. The size of the stadium has a direct effect on how much money I can bring in every year. If I have a good team and my stadium is too small then give me the ability to save up for a new stadium. This forces me to build a "cost effective" team when I am signing free agents and when I am trade hunting. This would provide a whole new realm of consideration when trying to build a team. This would also make the game more realisitic. In real life I can't just freely add 10,000 seats to my stadium overnight!

Scott Vibert · 12-06-2002, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fantom1979
I really like JAttractive's idea. I like Rev Sharing as well.

If you dont like the Rev Sharing idea because of historical leagues, why would it matter? Dont most of you turn off finanicals anyways?

My objections with this has nothing to do with historical leagues, it has everything to do with keeping the game as flexible as possible.

I don't like the idea revenue sharing being forced on a player regardless of the league type. I can play historical league with financials on if I want. I can play a fictional league with them off if I want. I can play a league with or without a salary cap and also with/or without the games current Team Cash Maximum based revenue sharing. I shouldn't be forced to play with a luxury tax, unless I want too.

Just as you are not forced to have or not have free agency or a salary cap, you should not be forced to have a luxury tax, and making the luxury tax the sole solution to this problem ruins some of the games flexibility which is one of its greatest asseets.

For what its worth I don't play historical leagues often. I typically play fictional leagues, but the reason I like my fictional league, is because it is MY league. I don't have to be forced into resembling the current state of Major League baseball, if I don't want too.

If I hate the DH (which I do), it doesn't exist in my league. I don't like astroturf or domes so they don't exist in my league. If I don't like revenue sharing or a salary cap they don't have to exist in my league, so if I've chosen to not have any sort of fiscal restraint be put on my teams... why should I be forced into a luxury tax?

While that could be a good option to include and matter help matters related to this problem, IMO this should not me the only solution, there are several other good solutions in this thread that could be used combined with this option to help fix this issue.

Eclzeastes · 12-06-2002, 03:38 PM

Fantom - you hit it. That would be an easy line to code for rebuilding teams..

If record = crap and payrol =< 40 mil then max player contract = "make up % here".

It would be easy to restrict a losing team to spend only a set limit on a individual contract and instead rank age and potential much higher.

***

I'm still not sold on the stadium ideas. I am reading a lot about it and it seems popular but I dont think it would be a direct link to fixing the original problem. You see if you read the original post, it speaks of a problem of lots of great teams and lots of bad teams and no middle.

Now to the computer there are not too many variables that would make one stadium different from another. Heck, we could all test the theory ourselves. Just increase all teams maximum seating and see if suddenly there are fewer grets and fewer dogs and more average teams. I just dont think that changing seating capacity will suddently fix that. It might be a portion of the picture but its not the focus point.

I could have a team that has a stadium with 100,000 seating capacity but if I put 10,000 in a night I am no better off then if I had a 10,001 max capacity.

Plus - how many times do you really change stadiums. Of course it has happened much more in our era but if you did an average on all stadiums that have been in use it would be such an unrealistic thing to switch stadiums every 6-12 years. There are stadiums that have been in use for decades and decades.

Yankee stadium since 1923
Wrigley since 1914
Dodger stadium for 40+ years
etc... etc...

I dont think that something that realisticaly happens maybe every 20-40 years TOPS can FIX the problem we are supposed to be talking about. Now take it out to what is more realistaclly 50-80 years between stadiums and it becomes even more rediculous.

Would you really be impressed if a game that is a leader in realistic gameplay and stats to suddenly have teams start changing stadiums every couple years?

This problem will be fixed with small and almost unnoticable changes in a couple variables that are probably already coded. Stadiums sounds more like a new feature people want and not a viable solution to this problem.

Eclzeastes

fantom1979 · 12-06-2002, 03:53 PM

Ok, I understand what you are saying Scott. I do see your point. Sometimes when you live in your own OOTP bubble, you have a hard time seeing it objectivly.

redsox45 · 12-06-2002, 04:54 PM

I'm definitely for random events from the solo play perspective. It really would add an extra challenge to the game.

Some examples I'd like to see are "economic factors" -- if the country goes into a recession and people start spending less on tickets, merchandise, etc. that should have some effect. Afterall, the economy goes in cycles, and should be considered part of the equation. Inflation, unemployment, consumer spending, stuff like that plays into fans' support of a team.

Stadium costs should also be considered. A stadium is like a house only bigger and more costly. I doubt very much that an entire season goes by without any "disasters" at all 30 of the major ballparks.

Along this line stadium staffing could effect things. If a team cuts its staff, maybe more "random" events could happen due to lack of attention.

There area whole lot of possibilities here, and they definitely would make the game more deep.

Will

biggamejrs · 12-06-2002, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tib
O.K. My .02. Remember, Markus, you asked for ideas...

I like SSG Troyer's logic and Le Grande Orange's loyalty/interest dynamic.

...

I think stadiums could be part of the solution. They have a built-in influence on team economics, fan loyalty and fan interest. A bad team in a expensive stadium (TEX) may prove costly, and a good team in a cheap stadium (MIN) may be a gold mine.

Now off on a tangent: Perhaps the building of a stadium should be like picking items from a menu; click on the features you want and a total cost is generated. The nicer the stadium, the more fans it attracts.

Size. # of seats X cost per seat = base cost of stadium. A 40,000 seat stadium at $1000/seat = $40,000,000.

Amenities. Food service (from Snack Stands to Gourmet Restaurants), a club level, # of souvenir stands, level of security, and/or a mascot can all draw fans.

Ease of ingress/egress. Nearby mass transit, normal vs. large parking lot, normal vs. "open" stadium design can affect average attendance.

Location. Urban vs.Suburban. Custom-built vs Standard.

Have the number, type and quality of the features selected determine the cost and completion time. Every feature has its own cost and completion time. The more you want, the more expensive it'll be and the longer it'll take. A % of the cost will come out of the teams funds each year to pay for it (say 5%, that's a 20-year lease).

This "menu generated" stadium would be user-friendly and easy to comprehend. Upgrades are only a click away. Want to add skyboxes, a mass transit terminal? Just click on it, build it, and start paying.

Anyway, that's my .02.

I totally agree with this post as well as most others. I would love if this were implemented.

12-06-2002, 01:07 PM	#42
Eclzeastes Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 26	Time to review I think it might be time for everyone to re-read the first post. It seems to me we are getting a little off-track. I am seeing posts about "personalities" and WW2 drafts and random cash infusions.... I think the question at hand was more about how to make bad team get better. The observation at hand was that there were to many really good and too many really bad teams and not enough average teams. I'm not sure what the best answer happens to be... there are several posted here to consider but we might be losing sight of the trees through the forest on this one. Eclzeastes

12-06-2002, 01:50 PM	#48
Tiger Fan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ontario Canada Posts: 9,797	Well said, Scott. Thats why I still believe the easiest way to get that 20-60-20 split Markus mentioned without making huge changes is with the broadcasting revenue money. If the National contracts are the same for all teams it will give each team a good starting point finance wise. Next take the local revenue and base it primarily on team market size but with a smaller influence from the teams fan interest. You could also increase it slightly based on number of allstars and award winners on the team at the time the new contract is negotiated. This adds that marquee player factor that some have mentioned to the equation. The other factor is market size. I believe market size to begin with is tied into the team payroll. What if market size was instead set up as only one team compared to the rest of the league? What I mean is to begin a league only 10-20% of the teams should be in a Really Big or Huge Market and only 10-20% in a Tiny or Almost Nonexisting market with all the rest falling somewhere in between. It seems to me if the majority of the teams fell into an average market size than the majority of the team revenues would also be closer to the average. There are going to be changes over time but if the league initially started out this way then perhaps we would be closer to that 20-60-20 split instead of the 40-20-40, at least for a longer period of time. __________________ Cliff Markle HOB1 greatest pitcher 360-160, 9 Welch Awards, 11 WS titles

12-06-2002, 01:54 PM	#49
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	I don't like the idea of using "random" events to balance things much. Now keep in mind this is coming from a person who is in the fictionist camp as well and would love to see "random events" in the game that could affect everything from the player's themselves to yes, finances. However if they are put in merely as a balancing issue then it sort of destroys the whole "randomness" of them and simply makes them a semi-predictable game feature. If added they should be put in to make things more interesting and "life-like" and not as an easy solution to a balance issue. So what is the solution?: Really I think we need to step back a bit and try to look at how we as players overcome this very problem on our own teams. Many of us purposefully start ourselves out with seemingly impossible odds against: lowest payroll, no fan interest or market etc. and still come out on top eventually. So if we can get the computer AI to model the decisions and tactics we use you should see teams fluctuate up and down much more frequently. Using this as the basis for my suggestion I would do the following: Small market or perennial losing teams have an AI switch. These teams will look to trade for prospects, dump salary, get younger etc. Eventually their prospects will flood the team and provide a cheap powerhouse that has a few years to bring them up to respectability before they become free agents. Reasoning: The current AI seems to try to win now no matter what team it is or what the team situation is. This is a major reason you see this problem. The small market teams are essentially trying to slug it out with the large market teams using the same tactics and predictably get killed for it. Problems: First off for realism sake this should not be overdone. Only a few teams actually engage in anything close to this actively (ie. the Expos) and it is a great way to alienate fans. Secondly if it is overdone it could create dynasty-type situations fairly regularly and may have teams fluctuate up and down more often than desired. I think this would only require a slight tweaking and perhaps should be tied in with an AI tweak for contending teams where they are more willing to overspend on veterans and trade prospects in order to win now at the expense of the future. Personally I would rather see something like this done than a "not-really-random" event used. I REALLY want to see random events put in but not if this is the reason. Last edited by JAttractive; 12-06-2002 at 02:00 PM.

12-06-2002, 02:43 PM	#51
Eclzeastes Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 26	Nice That was a great post, JAttractive. If a human can do it then it we should be able to get the AI to do it on some level. We just need to get the AI to start behaving like we do when we are in the bottom tier of a league. Trade stars for prospects.. build from the bottom up and plan to fight in a couple years. To prevent every team from doing this there can be "triggers" to set off a series of evens... maybe like: A team loses 100+ games a certain number of years in a row.... Fan interest drops x% for x years... A team with a certain average age (too high/too low) and a certain record... Or if your looking for a non so random hardship for teams with lots and lots of dough... When a team is winning it seems like even their average players can get tons of money from them in contracts. An average player on an average team might get a million but that same type of player on a winner gets a couple million. Along that theory there could be a financial handicapp put in effect that free agents on contenders get greedy and need more money making it harder and harder for winners to keep teams together. GREED GREED GREED. There comes a point where winners have to see payrolls go up and up or have to turn to the minors. Eclzeastes

12-06-2002, 02:53 PM	#54
fantom1979 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 3,498	I really like JAttractive's idea. I like Rev Sharing as well. If you dont like the Rev Sharing idea because of historical leagues, why would it matter? Dont most of you turn off finanicals anyways? I like the idea JAttractive had for team attitude. To decided if the team is rebuilding or contending. I have gotten tired of watching 60-102 teams go out and spend 9 mil on a pitcher when they only have a 40 mil payroll. __________________

12-06-2002, 01:18 PM	#43
jaymac89 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Walnut Creek, CA Posts: 69	I would go back to luxury tax on the highest payrolls. Make it adjustable on a yearly basis in case teams are starting to migrate to that competitive imbalance (not having player strikes as a "feature" makes this a lot easier). It may also be the least amount of code to write to solve the problem. I would run the numbers in a spreadsheet to see how it works out. In fact, give me some numbers in a spreadsheet and I can tweak around with it this weekend and see how the luxury tax would work out. Glad to be of service. j

12-06-2002, 01:23 PM	#44
Chitown3304 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 62	A few things i think of is 1) where the all star game is will help season ticket sales. This years ChiSoxs are holding it and season tickets have gone up 75%. 2) Also money from Minor league teams for minor league contracts and things of that sort. 3) Having to keep the rights to your minor league teams 4) then also make a staff of more then pitching and hitting coach

12-06-2002, 01:23 PM	#45
JWay Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Sioux Falls, SD Posts: 5,021	If someone has mentioned this sorry... What if you had realistic city growth. And Like Baseball Populartiy growth. The Baseball Popularity rating would go up and down. And when it goes down teams suffer. Teams with less fan loyalty that others. But when it goes up. The teams that are currently winning would get a majority of the new fans. So if Baseball would go into a huge fan slump. Teams like the Cubs, Yankees, RedSox, Dodgers wouldn't take a huge hit. But the Brewers, Expos, Marlins would all be effected. In that way some changes for those teams would need to be made (tieing in Scotts Idea) Then when it begins to rise up again a couple small market teams still could be winning and they get a bunch of the new generation fans and benefit from it. Then you throw in city and local fans ratings. If a city gets bigger the team in the city is going to get some improvement off it. If a team loses constantly then the fans will move their intrests elsewhere. Then you might want to move the team to another city thats growing. I dunno, from year to year a whole lot of change wouldn't be seen but over a 20 or 100 year period you'd notice a ton. Lemme know if I'm on key or just making stupid things up out of my head. J to the Way

12-06-2002, 02:50 PM	#53
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	I like the financial handicap idea Eclzeastes! I was trying to think of a way that would simulate how top teams often seem to stab themselves in the foot by over-spending on players but couldn't come up with anything. The problem was my ideas kept focusing in on the league-wide free agents and I couldn't come up with a way that wouldn't hinder the lower level teams as well which would only make things worse again. Your idea though may just work.

12-06-2002, 03:20 PM	#55
jag2k2 Bat Boy Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 14	Stadium Stadium Stadium. The size of the stadium has a direct effect on how much money I can bring in every year. If I have a good team and my stadium is too small then give me the ability to save up for a new stadium. This forces me to build a "cost effective" team when I am signing free agents and when I am trade hunting. This would provide a whole new realm of consideration when trying to build a team. This would also make the game more realisitic. In real life I can't just freely add 10,000 seats to my stadium overnight!

12-06-2002, 03:38 PM	#57
Eclzeastes Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 26	Exactly! Fantom - you hit it. That would be an easy line to code for rebuilding teams.. If record = crap and payrol =< 40 mil then max player contract = "make up % here". It would be easy to restrict a losing team to spend only a set limit on a individual contract and instead rank age and potential much higher. *** I'm still not sold on the stadium ideas. I am reading a lot about it and it seems popular but I dont think it would be a direct link to fixing the original problem. You see if you read the original post, it speaks of a problem of lots of great teams and lots of bad teams and no middle. Now to the computer there are not too many variables that would make one stadium different from another. Heck, we could all test the theory ourselves. Just increase all teams maximum seating and see if suddenly there are fewer grets and fewer dogs and more average teams. I just dont think that changing seating capacity will suddently fix that. It might be a portion of the picture but its not the focus point. I could have a team that has a stadium with 100,000 seating capacity but if I put 10,000 in a night I am no better off then if I had a 10,001 max capacity. Plus - how many times do you really change stadiums. Of course it has happened much more in our era but if you did an average on all stadiums that have been in use it would be such an unrealistic thing to switch stadiums every 6-12 years. There are stadiums that have been in use for decades and decades. Yankee stadium since 1923 Wrigley since 1914 Dodger stadium for 40+ years etc... etc... I dont think that something that realisticaly happens maybe every 20-40 years TOPS can FIX the problem we are supposed to be talking about. Now take it out to what is more realistaclly 50-80 years between stadiums and it becomes even more rediculous. Would you really be impressed if a game that is a leader in realistic gameplay and stats to suddenly have teams start changing stadiums every couple years? This problem will be fixed with small and almost unnoticable changes in a couple variables that are probably already coded. Stadiums sounds more like a new feature people want and not a viable solution to this problem. Eclzeastes Last edited by Eclzeastes; 12-06-2002 at 03:43 PM.

12-06-2002, 03:53 PM	#58
fantom1979 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 3,498	Ok, I understand what you are saying Scott. I do see your point. Sometimes when you live in your own OOTP bubble, you have a hard time seeing it objectivly. __________________

12-06-2002, 04:54 PM	#59
redsox45 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Machias, Maine Posts: 4,573	I'm definitely for random events from the solo play perspective. It really would add an extra challenge to the game. Some examples I'd like to see are "economic factors" -- if the country goes into a recession and people start spending less on tickets, merchandise, etc. that should have some effect. Afterall, the economy goes in cycles, and should be considered part of the equation. Inflation, unemployment, consumer spending, stuff like that plays into fans' support of a team. Stadium costs should also be considered. A stadium is like a house only bigger and more costly. I doubt very much that an entire season goes by without any "disasters" at all 30 of the major ballparks. Along this line stadium staffing could effect things. If a team cuts its staff, maybe more "random" events could happen due to lack of attention. There area whole lot of possibilities here, and they definitely would make the game more deep. Will __________________ Top Five Books I Ever Read: 1. Murder of Roger Ackroyd -- Agatha Christie 2. Birds of Prey -- Wilbur Smith 3. King Solomon's Mines - H. Rider Haggard 4. Comstock Lode -- Louis L'Amour 5. Andersonville -- McKinley Kantor