-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
WBL Rule Change Thread
- Thread starter OU11
- Start date
Wel already have a 20% gate share, it's what MLB does. We have revenue sharing instead of luxury tax. MLB has both kind of. They share local revenue but the rules are always changing. The 40% gate is with 20% revenue sharing for the above numbers and the 25% revenue sharing is with 20% gate.
I think we can only equalize national media revenue and that has been done. I'd rather drop top budgets than bump up lower ones anyway.
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Drop top budgets, increase gate share.
Don't like gate, but really like the 25% taking down the ceiling. if 30% can get it around 100-160 then that would be perfect I think
Wooly
Well-Known Member
I blame Greenspan.
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
I don't. I'm willing to pay more penalties though. Difference between artificially lowering budget and having rich teams who spend their budgets pay more in penalties IMO.
Funny... when OU won 5 straight ships, personally I didn't cry about it's unfair, I built a better team.
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Yeah I'm OK with increasing that too...
Just my thought: if you want to 'punish' big teams revenue sharing doesn't do as much as creating more 'dead' money. This year I stayed extra under budget because last year I ended up with just $4m cash due to losing $15m in revenue sharing. IF you create more dead money (IFA penalties higher/lux tax on salary) then you cripple bigger teams way more. I can adjust to revenue sharing increases without hurting my WBL product that much.
I also think we have such a discrepancy because the game is not engineered to have people actively trying to lose. It assumes everyone is trying to win.
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
This thing, do this thing still, like I said to do yesterday
Yankee151
Hot Girl Summer
The riddler becomes the riddlee
We can't change IFA penalties and even if we can, you could just not participate in IFA and avoid that dead money. Revenue sharing isn't an optional penalty. Even Luxury tax is an optional penalty. The way OOTP handles luxury tax is that if you are over a % of average payroll you get taxed and that money gets distributed to teams that don't spend on payroll. So essentially a high budget team could benefit from lux tax money.
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Not participating in IFA because of tax = punishment. Plus that's what almost all of the crying has been about: IFA.
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
No I get it. I just think the game and world we set up has a budget based on revenues and not at all really on owner or market size. The bumps in media revenue is basically nothing compared to what it used to be. It's extremely fair.
The reason we have such a huge gap is not the AI/game fault... it's that lots of teams have actively tried to not win. So why should the good teams be punished for being fiscally responsible and winning? They already are giving up a big slice of revenues to fund smaller teams. A bit more is fine with me but I prefer optional punishments for spending more vs. getting punished for making more money.
With IFA, I think a two-year ban would help things out too if people think spending is out of control/unfair.
Owner plays no roll. Market size definitely does. Media revenue is mostly balanced based on our equalized national media revenue.
We have the gap we do because of the parameters we have set. I think that's obviously based on the AI sims. The way the teams are distributed is where you see our different styles come into play and the different between AI sims and our own.
As far as a two year ban for IFA, you keep suggesting things we can't change. All we can change is the cap number and if it's a hard cap or soft.
I also don't think of any of this as punishments. It's adjusting the league based on what we have learned.
We have the gap we do because of the parameters we have set. I think that's obviously based on the AI sims. The way the teams are distributed is where you see our different styles come into play and the different between AI sims and our own.
As far as a two year ban for IFA, you keep suggesting things we can't change. All we can change is the cap number and if it's a hard cap or soft.
I also don't think of any of this as punishments. It's adjusting the league based on what we have learned.
@doh, also I think you are right that the way teams play affects our economics, but I think about it differently. Our FA market is normally pretty cold and that's because of the number of teams trying to actively win/lose. If teams wanted to spend to win a few more games and keep their budgets higher the cost of FA would go up and our financial picture would look different. That isn't the case though, so I think it makes sense to adjust the finances to how our league operates not try to force everyone to play like doh does.
It's irrelevant though.
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
I just don't see this as an AI/game 'problem'. I see it as a user problem that we shouldn't correct because it's been caused by people tanking actively or signing dumb contracts to handcuff themselves.