Stop Auto-Suggesting/Including Contract Incentives when opening negotiations

[the doctor]

It seems like it is nearly the default behavior of the game to include some sort of incentive(s) when opening negotiations with an FA or an extension candidate. I'd love to see that go away.

For example, I see an incentive for 550 PA auto-included/suggested for a large number of contracts. The players aren't asking about these things, so they shouldn't be included in the initial defaulted proposal.

I recently offered one of my players a 1 year, 850k extension (this is what he was asking for and I simply met his demand), and the contract negotiations also included a $1m Cy Young bonus. It would be one thing if the player specifically called out wanting incentives in the text portion of the contract negotiations, but since he didn't, the contract proposal shouldn't default to including this.

There's no good reason/purpose for auto-including these incentives, and given where they display on the screen it's rather easy to miss noticing they're even there. Offering any incentives should be purely at the discretion of the GM, and the negotiations interface should require a manual adjustment to include them, rather than frequently defaulting them in and then requiring the GM to remove them.

[froren]

As an online commissioner who has strict contract rules in place, this change would be a lifesaver as this is easily the most overlooked aspect of contracts offered by GMs.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by the doctor

For example, I see an incentive for 550 PA auto-included/suggested for a large number of contracts. The players aren't asking about these things, so they shouldn't be included in the initial defaulted proposal.

I recently offered one of my players a 1 year, 850k extension (this is what he was asking for and I simply met his demand), and the contract negotiations also included a $1m Cy Young bonus. It would be one thing if the player specifically called out wanting incentives in the text portion of the contract negotiations, but since he didn't, the contract proposal shouldn't default to including this.

I don't understand why you are saying that the player didn't ask for the incentives. The only reason the incentives are included in the player's proposal is that he wants them. Why do you think the player should have to say everything in text and numbers?

[the doctor]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Why do you think the player should have to say everything in text and numbers?

i think the player should say what he wants because the text, and the style it's written in, strongly imply (for immersion purposes) that those are literally the words the player/agent is saying to you. the text blurbs don't ever (to my knowledge) include any mention of the desired incentives.

you've made me think about this a little bit more, and I realize this is really a UI issue more than anything - the area that the incentives are displayed in is extremely easy to overlook given its positioning on the screen. is it the end user's fault for overlooking that?

yeah, maybe to some degree - but the player/agent's literal text box "ask" should align with what's displayed in the financial section below that - this doesn't feel like an unreasonable "quality of life" improvement to me.

additionally, from a realism perspective, contract incentives are the exception, not the rule. the "average" major league contract doesn't include them, and incentives are typically reported independently from the years/values figures for the exact reason that they have a degree of uniqueness to them. to use my example again, a bum 27 year old reliever who's bounced between AAA and the majors for three seasons isn't going to be asking for a bonus for winning the Cy Young, because there's no expectation he could ever realistically hit that incentive.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by the doctor

you've made me think about this a little bit more, and I realize this is really a UI issue more than anything - the area that the incentives are displayed in is extremely easy to overlook given its positioning on the screen. is it the end user's fault for overlooking that?

I think so, yes. You can easily train yourself to check it, and you should. You should also carefully check the role that the player is requesting. If you have morale enabled, that can be important.

[the doctor]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I think so, yes. You can easily train yourself to check it, and you should. You should also carefully check the role that the player is requesting. If you have morale enabled, that can be important.

i'm not disagreeing with you, but you seem to be implying that we shouldn't bother trying to improve the UI, because any failure on the part of the player to notice something is the player's fault as opposed to a potential opportunity for the game to be more intuitive/user friendly.

again, it doesn't strike me as a particularly large ask to include some additional default text that simply calls a little more attention to the fact that the player's desired deal includes incentives - it could even be something as generic as "I'd also be interested in including the incentives I've outlined below."

and this also still doesn't address the issue of players asking for incentives that aren't realistic given their experience or historic performance. perhaps that's the real issue.

[froren]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I think so, yes. You can easily train yourself to check it, and you should. You should also carefully check the role that the player is requesting. If you have morale enabled, that can be important.

The OOTP UI is SO dense, it's often easy to overlook things. If multiple people are struggling with the ability to notice that, as in my entire online league, then this is something that could more than likely improved by just a UI tweak. Wouldn't a guy in his voicemail or phone call lay out all those things he wants in the quoted text at the top of a contract offer like he does the dollar amount?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by the doctor

i'm not disagreeing with you, but you seem to be implying that we shouldn't bother trying to improve the UI, because any failure on the part of the player to notice something is the player's fault as opposed to a potential opportunity for the game to be more intuitive/user friendly.

No, I did not say that.

Your original point was that demands for incentives should go away. You said "there is no good reason/purpose for auto-including these incentives". I am responding to that, and my point is that the player wants them. It is your job as GM to negotiate them away if you don't want to give them.

I wouldn't have the same response if the original point of your thread had been to suggest that the incentive demands be presented in a different manner. I am responding to a thread titled "Stop including contract incentives..." I think it is fair game for some players to demand unique incentives, and it is done all the time in real life. I don't want to see that removed from the game.

[the doctor]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I wouldn't have the same response if the original point of your thread had been to suggest that the incentive demands be presented in a different manner. I am responding to a thread titled "Stop including contract incentives..." I think it is fair game for some players to demand unique incentives, and it is done all the time in real life. I don't want to see that removed from the game.

my apologies for being a little unclear in what i think the real problem is. at the end of the day i think it's a couple of things:

1. the UI needs to call more attention to when players want these incentives (as they are very easy to overlook)
2. the frequency with which players "demand" contract incentives is unrealistic
3. the specific types of desired incentives are frequently non-nonsensical (i.e. a quad-A type player wanting a Cy Young based incentive, or a career utility player asking for a 550 plate appearance incentive)

in the absence of addressing all three of the above issues, i'd continue to argue that the game should stop defaulting incentives in, for both ease of use reasons and realism purposes. of course, GMs would/should still be able to offer them at their discretion.