GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:16 pm
Initial thoughts on the topics:
Could care less on the trade deadline.
Not a fan of not allowing teams to take on salary if they are in the red. This is one way for a team to get prospects for the future, maybe have a limit of how much they can take on in debt....but that may be hard on you to police up.
I like the Revenue Sharing as it is. I don't believe it's broke so why fix it....sucks for Bowie though right now
Not a fan of the 5 years, I could get behind 8 as the max but still not sure I'd like that. If I got a guy with High Loyalty and Low Greed, why not try to get him to sign on for long term. And this has backfired on me multiple times with getting stuck with a bad contract. It's the price you pay when taking that chance.
'bout time we get to this. Not sure how the AI minors re-org will pan out though, could great players possibly get dropped because of this? Maybe give a fine at the beginning of the year, which I believe is what we did before, and then give 3 or 4 sims after the draft to get it in order and then a fine again if not.
Nice thx for the feedback, it really does help.
Any spec not on the 40man doesn't register a salary so that shouldn't be an issue.
I actually like Rev Sharing where it's at too tbh. It was just something on my mind. Seems to be doing the job cause Smitty is getting rekt the last few years lol.
I guess my idea was signing a guy to cover his whole prime is fine. But this game undervalues guys and we all know it. Look at Villy and almost every other Vice player who's good. It just feels wrong to me but not a huge deal cause there is downside risk for sure.
AI re-org (from what I've seen) always puts your shit players on DFA. You don't lose them per se, but you have to deal with them somehow - as in move them back or cut them - but it's not a straight cut. Fines aren't a bad idea but it's either gotta be ongoing or a one time thing and a) like you said policing is annoying and b) if it's a one time fine, when do you check the rosters? tough one.
Not a fan of not letting a team in the red take on salary. I understand we can't let them go 100 million dollars in debt or something to that effect, but I feel like sometimes, there are situations or reasons a team in the red deserves to make a trade to get a player that can help turn then around a little.
Not sure I can explain it right, my thoughts on it, but I feel like there are times there is justification for it to happen.
I don't mind Rev. Sharing at all, I was really just seeing how far I could push it. I got my answer quicker than I expected, when you hit a certain level it just crushes you. All my debt has come the last 2 seasons with Rev. taking $120 mil in that time.
Now I spend my days picking up the scraps, win some lose some there but the situation I put myself in. I would like to see is the cash on hand ceiling doubled and I know the downsides of that but just my preference.
Any spec not on the 40man doesn't register a salary so that shouldn't be an issue.
I was getting at taking on a guy on a bad contract for 2 years and get a damn good prospect in return or a bunch of possibly good prospects in return. Helps the guy build for the future while taking on salary for a a year or three
Any spec not on the 40man doesn't register a salary so that shouldn't be an issue.
I was getting at taking on a guy on a bad contract for 2 years and get a damn good prospect in return or a bunch of possibly good prospects in return. Helps the guy build for the future while taking on salary for a a year or three
True but this should be a luxury for teams who manage their money. The last thing I should be doing if I’m say -25M is taking on more salary.
Any spec not on the 40man doesn't register a salary so that shouldn't be an issue.
I was getting at taking on a guy on a bad contract for 2 years and get a damn good prospect in return or a bunch of possibly good prospects in return. Helps the guy build for the future while taking on salary for a a year or three
Like JD said, it should be at the discretion of you on how much salary a team can take on. I'd say no more than $50M in the hole at the absolute highest
True but this should be a luxury for teams who manage their money. The last thing I should be doing if I’m say -25M is taking on more salary.
I guess it depends on the situation. If that team is clearly trying to make themselves better then it is harder for me to want to say no.
But I get we can't let teams go nuts going into the negative.
ajalves wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:26 am
if budgets are not uniform across all teams and the amount owners take from you cash isn't also uniform, how can you say how teams should operate?
some market sizes are large, some aren't.....some owners give a ton of money (budget) and some keep taking and taking
too many variables IMO to mandate some of these things
unless some behind the scenes things have changed that i am not aware of
This is actually a good point. I guess owner personalities would play into it as well. Food for thought for sure...
qazhby wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:39 am
I didn't think owners gave money anymore- market size is pretty much earned tbh- if your team is good for a long time the market size will go up
yes but if they keep lowering your budget or your budget is arbitrarily 50 mill lower than another team, how exactly are you going to shift that and build a winner thus upping your market size?
fan interest i can see fluctuating, but your market size is your market size if i remember
qazhby wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:39 am
I didn't think owners gave money anymore- market size is pretty much earned tbh- if your team is good for a long time the market size will go up
yes but if they keep lowering your budget or your budget is arbitrarily 50 mill lower than another team, how exactly are you going to shift that and build a winner thus upping your market size?
fan interest i can see fluctuating, but your market size is your market size if i remember
Your owner doesn't set your budget- its all based on your revenue/ expenses unless something has changed. If your project revenue goes up- then your budget will and vice versa.
Also I'm like 99% sure when I was Steel City my market size went up- I went from below average to above average. It took like 15 seasons though
qazhby wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:39 am
I didn't think owners gave money anymore- market size is pretty much earned tbh- if your team is good for a long time the market size will go up
Bowie has been pretty darn good for a while with 3 championships and his market size is only above average. When you have SF only making the playoffs a couple of times and theirs is big.
qazhby wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:39 am
I didn't think owners gave money anymore- market size is pretty much earned tbh- if your team is good for a long time the market size will go up
Bowie has been pretty darn good for a while with 3 championships and his market size is only above average. When you have SF only making the playoffs a couple of times and theirs is big.
well that goes into who you decide to draft, trade for and sign as a FA. that's different
all i am saying is that there are quite a few variables that are out of our control when it comes to many things with the budgets
also, 80 plus seasons ago if i chose to put PO in las vegas or new york, my market size would be bigger and win or lose I'd make more money
ajalves wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:25 am
also, 80 plus seasons ago if i chose to put PO in las vegas or new york, my market size would be bigger and win or lose I'd make more money
That's something I'd love to see this game to take into account. Miami/NYC/Bos...etc should have a much larger market size (unless there are multiple teams in the area that would split the fan base). But I don't think the game differentiates the size of the city, only reason I think that is you have Winterfell (a fake city) with a big market size. So I am not sure how market size is done in the game, maybe Billy or JD knows better on this
ajalves wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:25 am
also, 80 plus seasons ago if i chose to put PO in las vegas or new york, my market size would be bigger and win or lose I'd make more money
That's something I'd love to see this game to take into account. Miami/NYC/Bos...etc should have a much larger market size (unless there are multiple teams in the area that would split the fan base). But I don't think the game differentiates the size of the city, only reason I think that is you have Winterfell (a fake city) with a big market size. So I am not sure how market size is done in the game, maybe Billy or JD knows better on this
but he wasn't always winterfell.....he used to be somewhere that has a big market size i believe
ajalves wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:25 am
also, 80 plus seasons ago if i chose to put PO in las vegas or new york, my market size would be bigger and win or lose I'd make more money
That's something I'd love to see this game to take into account. Miami/NYC/Bos...etc should have a much larger market size (unless there are multiple teams in the area that would split the fan base). But I don't think the game differentiates the size of the city, only reason I think that is you have Winterfell (a fake city) with a big market size. So I am not sure how market size is done in the game, maybe Billy or JD knows better on this
but he wasn't always winterfell.....he used to be somewhere that has a big market size i believe
once you move though it gets changed to average, i believe
But the PO team now isn't the original PO- Its Steel City- which was moved and set to average and now it is below average. So something is changing,but I agree that there is stuff under the hood that we can't affect, but idk how we would deal with market size unless we reset everyone to average or something.
On San Fran i'm pretty sure hes is still that high because he used to be Cincinnati Titans who had an Astronomical market size, which is the biggest in the game iirc. So he's gone down like 2 levels, which isn't much but he's still went down. Do we know if we changed market size when he moved? Cause idk
