NDL Forum

1 game from the series and my owner took money away but he wanted me to add players. I think he might have dementia.

The_Niddler wrote:Again, in real life, I am sure owners give if a team does good.

We are the owners of these teams in literally every single way, except we have some random guy who is owner by title only.

That's the difference.

shel311 wrote:

Boston_Rob wrote:

shel311 wrote:Of course you can say it's working exactly how it should, some owners are more generous in real life, and that's fine. But in this game, we are basically the owners of the team in every way, so it just seems kinda silly to have such huge discrepancies.

We whiffed on this one, and by we, i mean the others who voted this way.

So instead of complaining why not propose a fix?

Propose a fix?

It was voted on, what do you want me to do?

Nothing I guess..keep complaining?

The_Niddler wrote:Take Indy, this year, winning it all, you don't think he deserves a bonus?

Since you talked about owners and realism, he never would have had this payroll(and possible) title if he wasn't basically the owner of the team.

So if we want true realism with owners, we should have a rule that states you can't ever go over budget, correct? I mean, the owner wouldn't let you go that far over budget, so that's not realistic.

Boston_Rob wrote:

shel311 wrote:

Boston_Rob wrote:

shel311 wrote:Of course you can say it's working exactly how it should, some owners are more generous in real life, and that's fine. But in this game, we are basically the owners of the team in every way, so it just seems kinda silly to have such huge discrepancies.

We whiffed on this one, and by we, i mean the others who voted this way.

So instead of complaining why not propose a fix?

Propose a fix?

It was voted on, what do you want me to do?

Nothing I guess..keep complaining?

I proposed a fix in this very thread, Nick.

shel311 wrote:

Boston_Rob wrote:

shel311 wrote:

Boston_Rob wrote:

shel311 wrote:Of course you can say it's working exactly how it should, some owners are more generous in real life, and that's fine. But in this game, we are basically the owners of the team in every way, so it just seems kinda silly to have such huge discrepancies.

We whiffed on this one, and by we, i mean the others who voted this way.

So instead of complaining why not propose a fix?

Propose a fix?

It was voted on, what do you want me to do?

Nothing I guess..keep complaining?

I proposed a fix in this very thread, Nick.

This isn't fun anymore

Going from 85 wins to 90 is worth more than 80 wins to 85,” he says. As a result, while it might cost more per win for a team that wins 90 games than 85, it makes financial sense because the revenue reward will be higher as well. This leads to a self-perpetuating cycle. Additionally, fans of teams that win frequently expect them to continue winning, and management pays more to do so.
- J.C. Bradbury

The_Niddler wrote:Going from 85 wins to 90 is worth more than 80 wins to 85,” he says. As a result, while it might cost more per win for a team that wins 90 games than 85, it makes financial sense because the revenue reward will be higher as well. This leads to a self-perpetuating cycle. Additionally, fans of teams that win frequently expect them to continue winning, and management pays more to do so.
- J.C. Bradbury

this isn't real life man. this is a baseball sim that while awesome, has already been tweaked a dozen ways. I am more interested in equality. If you fuck up your finances I am cool with that. hell I have done it. you should have to rebuild to get out of it like many of the other teams.

some teams get money every single season (a lot of it) simply because their owner is classified as charitable. Show me where to sign up to get a charitable owner....who essentially isn't really the owner, since as shel mentioned, we are the owners

Boston_Rob wrote:This isn't fun anymore

it never was.

ajalves wrote:some teams get money every single season (a lot of it) simply because their owner is classified as charitable. Show me where to sign up to get a charitable owner....who essentially isn't really the owner, since as shel mentioned, we are the owners

Preach!!!

Montreal won 47 games this year and is going to get 50 million

ajalves wrote:Montreal won 47 games this year and is going to get 50 million

The whole idea of doing this because of realism makes no sense, because these teams wouldn't be allowed to lose so much if they actually had realistic owners, which we don't. So I just don't get it, going back to page 1 on this one.

A bad team's owner wouldn't allow them to lose that much money when you think budget, he's going to stay within a budget. A good team's owner may allow his team to go over budget to chase a title, but not $88mil over budget like Indy.

It just doesn't seem logical. If we want owners giving money, we should also enforce never going over budget, under any circumstances, right?

My point is, in real life, as the GM, you don't get to pick your owner.
If you happen to work for a team that has a charitable one, so be it, you are lucky, if not, well.

I do understand your point though of how it is not fair since we do not get to pick in the game.

For the record, Corey may be able to change this and make all the owners the same.
According to ootp forums, it's under the team options screen (where you change team info and ballpark.)
I sent Corey an AIM to see if it is there.

shel311 wrote:

ajalves wrote:Montreal won 47 games this year and is going to get 50 million

The whole idea of doing this because of realism makes no sense, because these teams wouldn't be allowed to lose so much if they actually had realistic owners, which we don't. So I just don't get it, going back to page 1 on this one.

A bad team's owner wouldn't allow them to lose that much money when you think budget, he's going to stay within a budget. A good team's owner may allow his team to go over budget to chase a title, but not $88mil over budget like Indy.

It just doesn't seem logical. If we want owners giving money, we should also enforce never going over budget, under any circumstances, right?

Honestly I think the contract demands from some of these players are crazy. Maybe we should look outside of the league to see what some others have done? Just trying to throw some ideas out there.

ajalves wrote:Montreal won 47 games this year and is going to get 50 million

1.0638 million dollars a win baby!

I have had a charitable owner for a long time and can't remember the last time I received money from him.

Where do you see how much the owner gave?

shel311 wrote:

ajalves wrote:some teams get money every single season (a lot of it) simply because their owner is classified as charitable. Show me where to sign up to get a charitable owner....who essentially isn't really the owner, since as shel mentioned, we are the owners

Preach!!!

I am 100% on board with what AJ (and Shel) is saying here. Maybe instead of a hard cap we cap base it on the owners charitable ways.

The_Niddler wrote:My point is, in real life, as the GM, you don't get to pick your owner.
If you happen to work for a team that has a charitable one, so be it, you are lucky, if not, well.

A GM also don't get to decide when you can go over your owner's budget and by how much.

Honest question, would you be for a rule that states we can't go over budget because GMs don't get to make that call in real life?

So, let's have Corey make all owners so they don't give money, but let's take away the $50 Mil cap that Corey resets our cash to every season for teams that are over that amount, sound good?
If a team earns $100 Mil in a season, they should have the right to that money, shouldn't they?