Need your help for OOTP 5!

[Markus Heinsohn]

Development of OOTP 5 is in full swing. As already mentioned, the player development and financial AI have been completely recoded, and things look great. There is the right amount of star players, teams are spending money wisely and there is no problem of good free agents being left unsigned because no team has any money. The cash hording problem is also a thing of the past, as teams with loads of cash approach free agents a lot more aggressively. Also, when looking at the record books, career stat leaders etc. eveything looks great and in line with what you would expect from a baseball universe.

However, there is one exception, and I need some ideas in order to fix the problem. Here is the deal:
Teams in OOTP make money from TV deals, ticket sales and merchandising. All of those sources are 100% effected by the team's success. Sure, TV deals are also based on market size, but market size increases/decreases also depending on team success, only a lot slower than for example the fan interest. Now to the problem: After simming many leagues for 120+years, the result is always roughly the same. 40% of the teams have a lot of income and a payroll of $100 million+. Those teams win 95 games every year, with as many as 115 wins not being unusual. 10% of the teams have about an average payroll, and win 75-82 games on average. The remaining 50% have a payroll between 30 and 40 million, and average 95 losses per season, sometimes losing 120. This sucks. I would like the ratio to be like 20/60/20. Not 40/10/50.
Now, since the the income is entirely based on team success, these results seem to make sense. But I do not want this kind of results. So, what I need is an idea to fluctuate the income more and not base it entirely on team success. Maybe random events? Owner wanting to take the $$ out of his team into his own pocket, like the 1997 Marlins? If you have any ideas, please post here... help me make it a better game

Thanks in advance!

[markgrace]

Perhaps you could institute a "managment costs" type function that deducts a pecentage of money based on the profit made and the size of the organization. In real life the bigger the company the more you need to spend to keep it functioning,?@maybe the same should be applied here. Just a thought

[Scott Vibert]

The first idea would be to tie in market size more and see how that works.

The second idea would be to assign each team a 'owner' after several years of losing perhaps the old 'owner' sells the team and the new 'owner' infuses more cash into the team, allowing the club to spend and hopefully turn itself around.

Coupled with this, you could add a fiscal personality rating for each team. I'd think of this as an 'owner tendency' similar to the 'manager tendencies'. The owner tendency could go from cheapskate to freespender and would help govern the amount of cash the AI would try to spend. Cheapskate owners would never give an infusion of cash and perhaps for the ultimate challenge, might take cash away if the team is profitable (perhaps a Super Cheapskate owner type that wouldn't be used by the AI but could be used by the humans that would give this 'ultimate' challenge), while freespender owners might give cash infusions to the team frequently, helping to keep the team solvent and spending, and ideally keep the team winning.

(BTW Coupled with the ownership tendency ratings, you could have a rating for tendency to fire managers, so that certain owners are a lot less paitient and would fire their manager more often; I'd envision Super Cheapskate level, with a frequently firing owner being a bit of a challenge for humans (at least for awhile))

[John]

a few ideas... and I'm by no means a long term player or an expert. It seems like a teams initial income levels for TV (local and national) and more improtantly, merchandizing, are established as a function of the INITIAL Payroll from the opening draft. Teams that draft a high payroll from the start automatically seem to get an income advantage that lasts forever (has anyone simmed over time to see if the highest 2 or 3 teams in initial payroll end up as teams with great long term success?)

I'd be curious if starting teams on relatively equal incomes made a difference (identical national tv, some disparity in local tv to reflect market size, loyalty, etc and merchandizing based on the prior years attendance, not based on what is needed to meet the initial draft's payroll). Maybe to offset the first years payroll to income disparity, start the teams with a higher cash balance, which would tend to disapper over a year or 2 as the high payrolls come down to salary cap...

just some thoughts... I try to do something similar as a "house rule" in my solo league to try to even the dollar playing field somewhat.

[doubles]

I like the idea of random events, especially with ownership coming into the picture. Having a stupid owner to work for is one of the things real GMs have to deal with, so why not bring it into the OOTP world.

[Steve Kuffrey]

I think that for solo play adding the element of random events would personalize the game more, but would be careful that it could maybe be an adjustable option so that it isn't overdone. Maybe have an adjustable setting in league setup.

[blmeanie]

IRL there are teams that do not have a huge negative effect from poor play when looking at gate and merchandising receipts. Take the Cubs and RedSox for example. No matter where they fall in the standings, both these teams have tremendous followings and in the OOTP world the Cubs would bottom out pretty quickly I would guess and have their revenue plummet and reduce their ability to compete. But in real life the Cubs have an incredible fan base with an incredibly sweet tv deal and can provide teams that don't always compete (I'm being nice) and get away with it.

I think there can be a link to loyalty for attendance but maybe some randomness for loyalty to performance. Some teams might not get affected the same way when they drop their performance.

I also think the market size should not really fluctuate. I interpret market size to be the potential fan base. Does that really change much (at least in the home area)?

Good questions, glad that all rocks are being looked under!

[bbo4]

What about revenue sharing and luxury tax? Is this possible to incorporate into the game? If the Yankees (not to single them out)
have a payroll of $100m then tax a certain % and dump it to the bottom 5 teams. Kinda like real life

[alinkens]

I like the random idea, I also think you should give a team a BIG boost if they "build" a new stadium. I would increase market size, fan interest and give them $75-$100 million in cash.

Off the subject of money, I would love to see managers included in the coach signing. That would give the managerial tendencies a better hold, each manager would have his own tendencies as opposed to setting them yourself. Also on the subject of managers I would like to see a rating for how good they are with young players and how good they are with seasoned players.

[Scott Vibert]

I don't see building stadium giving the team a big boost in cash.. if anything it should cost money (over a period of time to build a stadium) The increase in market size, fan interest, attendence,merchandising, etc. I would agree with, but just giving a significant amount of cash for building a stadium doesn't sound right too me.

[chrisj]

I like the random idea, I also think you should give a team a BIG boost if they "build" a new stadium. I would increase market size, fan interest and give them $75-$100 million in cash.

Well, as many teams have found out recently, getting a new stadium doesn't really mean an increase in market size or fan interest, unless you have the team to keep them interested (see Tigers, Detroit).

Off the subject of money, I would love to see managers included in the coach signing. That would give the managerial tendencies a better hold, each manager would have his own tendencies as opposed to setting them yourself. Also on the subject of managers I would like to see a rating for how good they are with young players and how good they are with seasoned players.

I agree that this would add to the solo play. That way I wouldn't have to go through and keep editing the manager tendencies, because each manager that was hired would have his own. I have the impression that with the new manager mode, that maybe added - although I could be totally wrong.

I'd also like to see individual player tendencies - so we can let Rickey Henderson run like crazy, but tell Cecil Feilder not to take one step off that bag!

[SSG Troyer]

Originally posted by bbo4
What about revenue sharing...

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.

[spleen1015]

If you look back over the last couple years, Atlanta hasn't been able to sell out playoff games. I believe this is a result of them always making it to the playoffs, but not winning a World Series. Maybe you could code something along these lines where the fan interest delines because a team continuely makes the playoffs, but can't make it to the World Series.

The Cubs are a good eample of a not so good team having a lot of exposure and money. Every where I've lived in this country has had WGN and TBS. I have always been able to watch a Cubs or Braves game. The Cubs aren't so good. The Braves are good. There should be some random factor(s) in with the tv contracts.

Maybe some sort of 'Star Power' rating could be implemented. Maybe when you have someone approaching a league record, more fan going to watch them play. Say the fans in cities that have bad teams go to the games when the teams with star players come to town. I know a lot of people went to games this past year because Bonds was playing and their team stunk. People flocked to the stadiums when McGwire and Sosa were chasing the record. Something happened when Ripken was breaking the Iron Man record.

When Ripken announced his retirement, attendence went up because people wanted to see him play because they wouldn't get the chance anymore.

Say a team has a promising young club, like the Twins. People might want to go see the hot young team even when their not that good, yet.

I don't know how much of an impact these ideas would have, but they are ways to have bad teams generate more revenue.

How was the Angels attenence at the beginning of 2002? How was it at the end when they were in the pennant race? I'm sure they were selling out if not close to it. How is this modeled in the game? I know in OOTP4, if a team has a fan interest of 25 at the beginning of the year, there's not way they'll start selling out their games when they win their division because attendence depends on the Fan Interest. I'm sure the Fan Interest in some places changes drastically and remains relatively the same in others.

Just some ideas.

[Erich Ingram]

Originally posted by ScottVib
I don't see building stadium giving the team a big boost in cash.. if anything it should cost money (over a period of time to build a stadium) The increase in market size, fan interest, attendence,merchandising, etc. I would agree with, but just giving a significant amount of cash for building a stadium doesn't sound right too me.

Scott I agree with you on this. I think it should cost the team money out of pocket or through a loan or something but increase the quality of the other areas like fan interest, attendance and merchandising that will help to cover that cost.

[Erich Ingram]

Maybe tie some of the stuff to players, kind of like FOF has the players that become worshipped. Have something like that where a player becomes a local hero kind of like Jim Thome was or Mark McGwire. Or have the teams fan interest increase when the team goes out and signs a player that has this Icon type label kind of like happened in Boston when Manny signed or in St. Louis when they got McGwire or should happen in Philly with Thome.

Maybe give the scouts more of a personality as well. I know they have ratings in how they scout hitting and pitching but maybe make them lean toward one or the other when drafting. Maybe make scout A really believe hitting is the way to build a team even if he is rated fair in scouting it. Give them the choice of wanting to build a team through the draft or by trading or by free agency. Put in a win now at all costs type mentality in some of them, kind of like Duquette was in Boston, even though he wasn't that good at it.

With managers have them have a little difference in their abilities with respect to younger players and veterans. Have managers that just can't work with younger players while other thrive with it. Just a couple of ideas on ways to use things to make changes

[sporr]

I would agree with the statements made that Market Size really shouldn't change much at all.

I also like the idea of various owner tendencies that affect spending patterns. In OOTP, the teams with the cash and revenue spend it, so the high income teams always seem to have high payrolls and therefore better team records. In real life, though, a team like the Cubs pulls in revenue but doesn't usually spend it. The Cubs seem content (since the fans keep coming no matter what) to have an average-below average team and keep making the money.

You could have some owners who make it a goal to bring in big revenue (weighing team success and payroll to revenues), while other teams want to win regardless of cost.

[Eclzeastes]

I agree with Spleen and MarkGrace.

Those two positions make the most sense. Random events are hard to side with because half the time they can make no sense at all, or wose they can randomly help those they are meant to hurt.

It is an accepted principle that it takes money to make money. The more a team makes the more it has to spend to feed its money making machine. For instance the Yankees marketing budget might be more than it costs to fund the smaller teams. They have great TV revenues because they have a great team and market their team.

What you need is a mathmatical combination of the two positions proposed by Spleen & MG.

I am no mathmatician though... so the best way I can imagine it would be a reverse bell curve with the following theory:

A bottom of the bucket team suffering from low interest, market size and record would have a much easier time being stimulated upward through a few quality enhancements. Maybe that blue chip prospect that comes up through the minors and hits 45 homeruns his rookie year quickly generates fan interest.

A top of the line team with a high interest, huge market and 1st place record would have a harder and harder bar to hit to keep things going. Spleen hit it on the money with his analysis. If a team keeps getting 1st place but can't turn out the rookies or the record slips a little will see a much harder hit in fan interest than normal.

Maybe a meaningless numerical example...

Last place team loses 10 more games than it did previous year = -1 fan interest
First place team loses 10 more games than it did previous year = -5 fan interest.

Both had similiar ranking decrease but the results are harder for the team everyone expects to win. This would be the "Atlanta" problem. The reverse numbers would work too. A first place team goes up 10 wins gets a minimal boost and a last place team wins 10 more games and gets a super boost.

There would have to be a point that the first place team could not feed its fire needed to keep the money coming in at previous levels. There are only so many games to win anyway!

No random penalties... use economic principles to fix it. Then everyone knows the score.

Eclzeastes
Vermont

www.eclzeastes.com

[Henry]

Wow... lot's of good ideas - plenty to pick from - but let me add my 2 cents.

First, I think you need to pick a couple of these ideas rather than just a single solution, and I do think some form of "random" events would add a lot to the game. We live in a world of random events, and yes... when it happens to me I get upset, angry, etc. but that IS reality and I would love the game more for it.

On the other hand, I will be first to say that shouldn't be the ONLY adjustment you need here to get your 20/60/20 results (which by the way I feel is a good target). Adding owner characteristics would be nice if you have the coding around it to react to a "bad" owner (results in the owner being forced out?).

Some minor adjustments on how the variables relate to each other... a simple example is that a new stadium will "likely" help attendance for a while even if the team stinks - but on field results must be there or attendance will slip even in a new stadium after a couple years.

I guess my main suggestion. Markus, would be don't make it ONLY a mathematical solution. Realism is randomness. As long as you keep some of that in the game, it will be awesome

Henry

PS: I still remember "Replay Baseball" and its "Rare events" book. I used to LOVE IT when the dice results said "go to Rare Play Book" !!!

[Kurtis R.]

I don't know if this would work... but...

What if you made it so stadiums were part of the finances?

1. Building stadiums

2. Upkeep of stadiums (the more fans that come to the games... the quicker the stadium wears out..)

3. Eventually... the stadium would cost so much to "upkeep"... you would HAVE to build a new stadium.

That would keep the rich teams from just steam-rolling the league for years and years... as they would have the most fans.... thus their stadium would "wear out" the fastest.

I don't know... just a thought that popped into my head when I read this thread... maybe it's a stupid idea

Kurtis

[ctorg]

I like the idea of having a new corporate owner take control of a team and infuse the team with money. I agree that there should be owner ratings. Good teams could have fire sales like the 1997 Marlins after they took the series.