|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Nov 12, 2015 11:31:58 GMT -5
I find it odd that the largest budget cut was 15 million and it happened to 13 teams. Sent from my SM-N900V using proboards Why is that odd? We set a MAX Budget Reduction and that number was $15,000,000. Prior to this off-season there was never a budget reduction from an owner of more than $12,000,000. There were 13 teams that their owner slashed budgets by over $15m. The average budget slash among those teams were $27.5 million. Under the previous budgets set by the game those 13 teams lost $358,000,000 in budget room this year from last. Under the new budget rule those teams lost $195,000,000 in room which I think is far more reasonable. My bad, I didn't realize you could set that. I guess I should know better that the developers thought of that too. Sent from my SM-N900V using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 11:53:49 GMT -5
Just to clarify I read everything correctly....and I read everything twice.
Detroit had a budget of 104 million based on what the game did. With what we changed I gained 4 million and now have a budget of 108 million?
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 12:36:15 GMT -5
Yes your budget is $104m. I believe it did not get changed during the review
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 13:05:10 GMT -5
This list stated I now have a budget of 108. So did it go up by 4 or stay at 104?
|
|
|
Post by Nick_BrewersGM on Nov 12, 2015 13:18:11 GMT -5
Commish u have to delete that one everyone keeps getting confused... There's another graph man those numbers are wrong
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 13:42:44 GMT -5
Nick, I meant to three times and kept forgetting, LOL.
Its fixed. I put real budgets in initial statement and erased any quoted ones.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Nov 12, 2015 15:43:35 GMT -5
... If Tim started his league with OOTP16 and and we started on different versions then that means Tim's research does nothing to help the PBL. ... I hope you didn't mean to convey the meaning as I read this. I think the extreme budget reductions triggered two research efforts that had two, slightly different objectives. You needed to determine what needed to be done right now in the best interest of the PBL. Meanwhile... I launched into the research I conducted in order to attempt to better understand how the current game logic works in the current version. Given that several/many GM's reported the extreme budget budget reductions we have been discussing, I thought I would examine results over time in an AI driven environment with no human interaction and attempt to determine some basic drivers of budget changes, whether increases or decreases. I shared the results in order to try to help every GM in the PBL identify a few, basic areas to focus on that should increase the probability of budget increases or decreases that will be within the realm of expected and reasonable. The research I have done to date suggests to me that a GM should focus on winning, profits, and trending. These are factors we all can see. And they are straight-forward. Sure additional factors influence results, but the game logic is so complex and integrated that I think it would be next to impossible for one to determine for certain how some considerations (e.g., achieving or not achieving owner goals; owner personality characteristics) impact the financials, especially year-to-year budget changes. Winning and profits may be intuitively obvious to many. At least the results support that assumption. Trending over time also appears to be an important consideration. In addition, one of the examples I shared illustrated that a team that loses more games than it wins for a period of ten straight seasons can maintain a relatively stable budget if the team turns a profit each year. In the independent league, overall results for the league remained very stable over the ten seasons. Not so, in the PBL. Something worked into the mix that resulted in the in-game reductions we experienced. I don't know what happened, either. Clearly, something had to be done. In the independent, test league I observed a number of teams that experienced severe budget reductions. In an online league, I think you are on the right track in limiting the magnitude of a reduction. To incorporate large vs. small market/budget differences, perhaps a combination of either a maximum dollar reduction or a maximum percentage reduction might be in order (e.g., the lesser of $Xm or Y%). In an online league where interest must be maintained and where some GM's may be very new to the game, I think a constraint such as this is in order. Even though the research I conducted was conducted in an independent league, I believe the findings, in general, are transferrable to the PBL. I hope PBL GM's find some value in the research I conducted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 15:49:16 GMT -5
Ah I understand.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Nov 12, 2015 16:31:45 GMT -5
... If Tim started his league with OOTP16 and and we started on different versions then that means Tim's research does nothing to help the PBL. ... I hope you didn't mean to convey the meaning as I read this. I think the extreme budget reductions triggered two research efforts that had two, slightly different objectives. You needed to determine what needed to be done right now in the best interest of the PBL. Meanwhile... I launched into the research I conducted in order to attempt to better understand how the current game logic works in the current version. Given that several/many GM's reported the extreme budget budget reductions we have been discussing, I thought I would examine results over time in an AI driven environment with no human interaction and attempt to determine some basic drivers of budget changes, whether increases or decreases. I shared the results in order to try to help every GM in the PBL identify a few, basic areas to focus on that should increase the probability of budget increases or decreases that will be within the realm of expected and reasonable. The research I have done to date suggests to me that a GM should focus on winning, profits, and trending. These are factors we all can see. And they are straight-forward. Sure additional factors influence results, but the game logic is so complex and integrated that I think it would be next to impossible for one to determine for certain how some considerations (e.g., achieving or not achieving owner goals; owner personality characteristics) impact the financials, especially year-to-year budget changes. Winning and profits may be intuitively obvious to many. At least the results support that assumption. Trending over time also appears to be an important consideration. In addition, one of the examples I shared illustrated that a team that loses more games than it wins for a period of ten straight seasons can maintain a relatively stable budget if the team turns a profit each year. In the independent league, overall results for the league remained very stable over the ten seasons. Not so, in the PBL. Something worked into the mix that resulted in the in-game reductions we experienced. I don't know what happened, either. Clearly, something had to be done. In the independent, test league I observed a number of teams that experienced severe budget reductions. In an online league, I think you are on the right track in limiting the magnitude of a reduction. To incorporate large vs. small market/budget differences, perhaps a combination of either a maximum dollar reduction or a maximum percentage reduction, might be in order (e.g., the lesser of $Xm or Y%). In an online league where interest must be maintained and where some GM's may be very new to the game, I think a constraint such as this is in order. Even though the research I conducted was conducted in an independent league, I believe the findings, in general, are transferrable to the PBL. I hope PBL GM's find some value in the research I conducted. I haven't had to time to throughly read through everything yet, however I believe that while both Tim's and Derek's research is important, I think that Tim's research is more valuable to the PBL. The budget issues started becoming a problem when we switched to OOTP 16, and so I think that it is apparent that it is something in the OOTP 16 financial engine that is causing the problems. I would echo Sean's statement: "Derek, the flaw in your "research" is that you're basing it off of a completely different game engine. Tim's research is based on the current game. So yes, I believe Tim's research is more accurate to the game environment we currently play with. " It shouldn't matter what game engine we started off on, but rather which one we are currently on. We are currently experiencing the massive budget reductions BECAUSE we are on OOTP 16. What has happened to the budgets in the league in previous years where we were on OOTP 15 and 14 doesn't matter, since the way the budget's worked then isn't the same as they do now. So I would think that while it is great to have a 3000+ sample size, I would argue that that sample is flawed because it is containing data from previous versions of the game. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding Derek's research/conclusions, but I think that it would be a big mistake to not think Tim's research is important because it is only from OOTP 16 -- IMO that makes it even more important, and should be the data that we base our budget decisions off of
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Nov 12, 2015 16:38:47 GMT -5
So, after all of this, The Angels budget has actually gone UP from $77mil to $84mil after Derek's adjustment. It had originally dropped from $99mil last season to $77mil (-$22mil) and, frankly, I was totally fine with that and was working to that number for the coming season.
This will not change my rebuild plan one bit, it will simply put money to my bottom line I guess. So, thank you.
Again, will be anxious to see how this plays out over the coming season.
Good luck to everyone (regardless of whether you benefited from the adjustment or not)!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 17:44:05 GMT -5
After reading all this I understand the descion and agree with it. I believe a cut of 15 is o.k but more is crazy. With my case of the expos we have been bad for the past four years and have been having our budget decrease by 10 million each year which I find is reasonable. I have been able to get rid of high salary players to form to my budget.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Nov 12, 2015 22:25:14 GMT -5
I sent a PM to Tim to explain my stance personally but I'll say this publicly, I do not think tim's research is pointless to the PBL or any league and nobody appreciates the work he done more than I do.
Even if switching game engines and the new version is trying to balance things out based on its new formula, etc the bottom line is a $40m budget cut is absolutely insane and unrealistic and actually quite foolish for OOTP to even allow such an unrealistic change to happen in a game that strives for realism.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Nov 12, 2015 22:36:11 GMT -5
I sent a PM to Tim to explain my stance personally but I'll say this publicly, I do not think tim's research is pointless to the PBL or any league and nobody appreciates the work he done more than I do. Even if switching game engines and the new version is trying to balance things out based on its new formula, etc the bottom line is a $40m budget cut is absolutely insane and unrealistic and actually quite foolish for OOTP to even allow such an unrealistic change to happen in a game that strives for realism. Thanks. I totally agree.
|
|