• Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.

WBL Rule Change Thread

OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
TonyGin&Juice said:
This makes zero sense. Can you clarify this a bit?
Click to expand...

For me, I don't care if I lose flexibility. Salary dumps for picks and buying picks is inefficient compared to playing the IFA lottery IMO (could be wrong) so I can push myself further into the danger zone than someone who has needs to fill in FA and would be wise to keep financial flexibility in case of injury to work a trade later in the year.

So if doh has $50m for FA/IFA/Trades and I have $50m for FA/IFA/Trades I can throw all $50m into IFA while he may reserve $15m for the other two.
 
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
So after looking at the financial options page in the manual, you have either:

Gate Share - basically another form of revenue sharing
Revenue Sharing - what are our current settings? Several options to consider here
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
It would make me spend less if I wasn't rebuilding, but that's just me. It doesn't necessarily help either side, it just means that big markets hit their target amount a bit quicker and maybe don't spend quite as freely with other needs. Maybe not.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
Gate share and revenue share are each 20%. Gate share just helps the visiting team so it benefits everyone.

For revenue share you can do straight income or luxury tax. I think we concluded income was the better route, but @OU11 would know better. He did most those "models". I just did redundancies.
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
Income sharing is at 20%. I can't remember why except that it had to have given better results as far as budgets staying in the range.

That's the thing though, the game has changed a lot since I ran these in OOTP15 or 14 or whenever I did it so if someone runs some test sims with alternate settings there is probably a couple tweaks we could make to the financial system.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
OU11 said:
It would make me spend less if I wasn't rebuilding, but that's just me. It doesn't necessarily help either side, it just means that big markets hit their target amount a bit quicker and maybe don't spend quite as freely with other needs. Maybe not.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I'm just not sure if the cap manipulates their demands. Which might not matter if it's competitive enough, but something to consider.
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
DgpqYpG.png
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
OU11 said:
Income sharing is at 20%. I can't remember why except that it had to have given better results as far as budgets staying in the range.

That's the thing though, the game has changed a lot since I ran these in OOTP15 or 14 or whenever I did it so if someone runs some test sims with alternate settings there is probably a couple tweaks we could make to the financial system.
Click to expand...
I may be dumb for saying this, but I can't imagine an increase in revenue sharing would need 50 sims. In theory it would lower the revenue of good teams in increase the revenue if bad.

Equalizing loyalty may help teams bounce back faster once they start winning. It wouldn't change things for the good teams since most are high loyalty anyway.

Famous last words I guess.
 
TonyGin&Juice

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Orlando said:
I may be dumb for saying this, but I can't imagine an increase in revenue sharing would need 50 sims. In theory it would lower the revenue of good teams in increase the revenue if bad.

Equalizing loyalty may help teams bounce back faster once they start winning. It wouldn't change things for the good teams since most are high loyalty anyway.

Famous last words I guess.
Click to expand...

You could always do what one of the leagues I was in did - make it completely fair for all involved. No scouts, no star system, no owner increases, just gate revenue and revenue sharing.
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
You're not dumb, but 20 years down the line who knows. I changed some stuff I thought was insignificant that caused teams to balloon to $220m in some of the alternate universes. They've probably tightened it up since they've added a lot to it but back then minor changes could have drastic effects. It definitely wouldn't need a full set of test sims but you'd probably want to know what the range is you're creating. If you raise it too much that range may be $130m-$160m.
 
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
I'm curious how removing the cash limit would change things. Theoretically it would help teams who stay under their budget, regardless of the budget itself.

Teams could theoretically spend only minimum contracts on the WBL and go crazy with IFA every other year (and buy picks, players, etc). Of course, playoff teams tend to always finish in the black.
 
Wooly

Wooly

Well-Known Member
I think it would be good to have more than anecdotal evidence in deciding the contract rules. It would be nice if we could make offers to different young players, and see what they do. That would take some research. I am willing to do it.

If the AI can't handle pre-Arb contracts, then we are better off just going back to no contracts before Arb, then whatever you want after Arb. Do we really know how pre-Arb contracts are working now, or just guessing?
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
I think it would help big budget teams more because they have a greater chance to make up a deficit at the gate and with playoff revenue. A low budget team could really screw themselves over.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
Wooly said:
I think it would be good to have more than anecdotal evidence in deciding the contract rules. It would be nice if we could make offers to different young players, and see what they do. That would take some research. I am willing to do it.

If the AI can't handle pre-Arb contracts, then we are better off just going back to no contracts before Arb, then whatever you want after Arb. Do we really know how pre-Arb contracts are working now, or just guessing?
Click to expand...
I did this with maybe 50 players :laughing: I guess I should have screen shot them, but I couldn't game them like we used to.

Edit: buts it's all subjective. I don't have a problem with the Buck deal. We used to be able to sign these guys for less than $5m a year.
 
Last edited:
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
NML said:
I'm curious how removing the cash limit would change things. Theoretically it would help teams who stay under their budget, regardless of the budget itself.

Teams could theoretically spend only minimum contracts on the WBL and go crazy with IFA every other year (and buy picks, players, etc). Of course, playoff teams tend to always finish in the black.
Click to expand...

We've talked about that and the reason why we didn't do it was because there was no way to model what human GMs would do. I mean I could easily hit $100m+

We've talked about raising it, but like you said most of the good teams profit anyway. Increasing revenue sharing is the obvious choice, because the main problem is having $190m is just too much money in our universe.

One other idea nobody has talked about is increasing the dev/scouting budgets but that's not as clean of a choice.
 
TonyGin&Juice

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Wooly said:
I think it would be good to have more than anecdotal evidence in deciding the contract rules. It would be nice if we could make offers to different young players, and see what they do. That would take some research. I am willing to do it.

If the AI can't handle pre-Arb contracts, then we are better off just going back to no contracts before Arb, then whatever you want after Arb. Do we really know how pre-Arb contracts are working now, or just guessing?
Click to expand...

Get the fuck out of here with this shit.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
I think no limit cash (or up to $20m) would actually really help smaller budget teams. Big budget teams could have tons of money to burn to just give away for picks, prospects, etc. You'd have more money to subsidize from "rich" teams to "poor" teams.

You also give teams more of a reward for balancing a budget.
 
TonyGin&Juice

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
doh said:
I think no limit cash (or up to $20m) would actually really help smaller budget teams. Big budget teams could have tons of money to burn to just give away for picks, prospects, etc. You'd have more money to subsidize from "rich" teams to "poor" teams.

You also give teams more of a reward for balancing a budget.
Click to expand...

Why not compromise and just have an IFA bonus pool that fluctuates based on revenue? The other option (that I don't think OOTP would allow) is competitive balance picks based on finish. When I first started I recommended "sandwich" picks for compensation for FA loses but no one seemed interested in that.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
TonyGin&Juice said:
Why not compromise and just have an IFA bonus pool that fluctuates based on revenue? The other option (that I don't think OOTP would allow) is competitive balance picks based on finish. When I first started I recommended "sandwich" picks for compensation for FA loses but no one seemed interested in that.
Click to expand...
Competitive balance picks for losing? No.

I'd be fine with comp picks for losing FAs but no one wants to do that.
 
doh

doh

THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Yeah there's that too. And MLB has comp picks for losing FAs because there's a huge advantage to big market teams vs. small in FA. We don't have big vs. small markets.

I'm fine with a lux tax on salary but not sure if that's in the game or if others want that.
 
TonyGin&Juice

TonyGin&Juice

Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
doh said:
Yeah there's that too. And MLB has comp picks for losing FAs because there's a huge advantage to big market teams vs. small in FA. We don't have big vs. small markets.

I'm fine with a lux tax on salary but not sure if that's in the game or if others want that.
Click to expand...

Yes, one winning season is the difference maker in my $110M budget in 2067 and ur $190M.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
doh said:
Yeah there's that too. And MLB has comp picks for losing FAs because there's a huge advantage to big market teams vs. small in FA. We don't have big vs. small markets.

I'm fine with a lux tax on salary but not sure if that's in the game or if others want that.
Click to expand...
We have revenue sharing. You can only have that or luxury tax. I'll post my findings on upping revenue sharing soon.
 
Wooly

Wooly

Well-Known Member
Orlando said:
I did this with maybe 50 players :laughing: I guess I should have screen shot them, but I couldn't game them like we used to.

Edit: buts it's all subjective. I don't have a problem with the Buck deal. We used to be able to sign these guys for less than $5m a year.
Click to expand...
On 18'? I didn't realize that. So the contracts seemed reasonable? Than I guess there is no problem with the pre-Arb AI.
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
oic. i have to relearn the rules. turk is an interesting one with his fragility
 
OU11

OU11

Pleighboi
Utopia Moderator
rules of baseball. i thought it meant one year of arb, so after 1 year of service time I can sign them to 10 year deals?
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
OU11 said:
rules of baseball. i thought it meant one year of arb, so after 1 year of service time I can sign them to 10 year deals?
Click to expand...
No it has been our rule for a while to wait a year before a pre arb deal. That pre arb deal was limited to 5 years. We removed the 5 year limit. People got mad.
 
Orlando

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
After 10 seasons of revenue sharing set at 25% our estimated range has moved from 100-184 to 101-172. Actual range 89-198; 91-176. The shift happened pretty quickly and fluctuates obviously like it does now. I'll try 30% another time.

Other options, increase gate share (we would have to change it a lot to make any impact -- 40% for 107-172) and equalize fan loyalty (this made a marginal difference, but its harder to model with AI).

Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NML
NML

NML

Well-Known Member
Yeah I'll be interested to see what 30% does, but I like the increase to 25% for sure

I think gate share is just doubling down on what revenue sharing already does, so no need imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top