Warrior General Games

This looks pretty nice - let me get this straight:

Essentially money switches - it has NO impact on equipment, but FULL impact on player performance via. salary.

Does this not just support the "rich get richer" world, where nobody will ever want to sign to a broke team? I think in this kind of world, we would need some sort of financial oversight that makes sure even the bottom feeders are making some money and enough to pull themselves out of holes. Teams would need more opportunities to invest in their own fortune rather than ticket sales, to allow owners to make smart moves to boost financials without relying COMPLETELY on game performance.

For example, investing opportunities (spend less now, have more later), such as advertising (raises fan support), exhibition games (lowers team energy for the next 3 reg season games b/c extra work, but brings in the revenue of 1/2 price ticket sales, max 3 per season), etc.

Then on the other end, players need a way to SPEND money. This should be ways outside of equipment that help them. For example, say players BUY the ability to shop at "higher end stores" so not only do you reach level 50 to get that AEQ store upgrade, you also have to put down a deposit to see the extra slot, better rolls, etc. Other ideas could be energy/morale related items, buying extra training pairs, buying more equipment slots (bring everybody down to 2 to start?), more expensive and intensive training options, such as personal training, etc.


To summarize:
1) Teams need more ways to earn money than wins
2) Players need more to spend their money on

Originally posted by Octowned

To summarize:
1) Teams need more ways to earn money than wins
2) Players need more to spend their money on

This is what I have been saying for a while now. I still want to see more ways for both the players, and teams to make more money, and more ways for players and teams to spend their money. Adding new concessions (Even a custom regional slot that can be whatever a team wants) and more souvenirs like Terrible towels, Hats, whatever, and I still love the idea of Authentic Team Jerseys that's funds can go to both the player and the team. Then add ways to spend the money like Stadium improvements, new "exercise equipment" that can unlock new training combos.

I am starting to think that maybe the shift should be more to the player's side too. Tying in "offseason" activities to make ways to make cash for their players would not only help the finances for equipment, but give more casual players something more to do during down time. But that is the problem I'm having, which is coming up with stuff like this. Maybe make endorsements not only worth the next level of equipment but extend them into the offseason with some extra benefits to make up for no extra equipment.

Maybe it's time for a GLB forum topic that asks the communities those two questions:

What could teams spend money on / make money on
What could players spend money on

And see what people come up with. There aren't enough people in this forum to get enough good ideas together to make it happen IMO

I like the idea....not sure about the implementation.

Rich get Richer - This is a HUGE problem especially with the way fan support and playoff tickets work. The financial difference between a team that hosts 3-4 playoff games and one with a losing season is HUGE! Absolutely HUGE! If money affects play to a large degree, this gap is just gonna widen.

Possible Solutions:
** Make the play per pay bonus based on the average salary in that conference. This way it's something that can change every season and salaries can be part of the meta-game. In other words, OL shouldn't get shafted because OL get paid low. OL should only get shafted if they are paid less than other OL.
-> Needs some good reporting for leagues to help agents (and owners) know what the average/min/max salaries are in a league.


** Salary Cap - Ya, I know....but with a salary cap you force teams to pick and choose. The rich can only spend so much money, just like everyone else.

** Luxury Tax - As a soft salary cap. You can spend over the limit, but maybe it costs you 2x that salary if you go over the limit. This tax gets funneled down to the rest of the conference that didn't go over the cap.

** Fan Support and Home Playoff Games - These are VERY broken right now. Fan support and home games can make or break finances for a team and if you leave this as is, only teams that can manage very high fan support and home playoff games will have a prayer. I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but it needs to be fixed if money is going to have a bigger impact in things.

Originally posted by PackMan97
Possible Solutions:

** Salary Cap - Ya, I know....but with a salary cap you force teams to pick and choose. The rich can only spend so much money, just like everyone else.

** Luxury Tax - As a soft salary cap. You can spend over the limit, but maybe it costs you 2x that salary if you go over the limit. This tax gets funneled down to the rest of the conference that didn't go over the cap.

** Fan Support and Home Playoff Games - These are VERY broken right now. Fan support and home games can make or break finances for a team and if you leave this as is, only teams that can manage very high fan support and home playoff games will have a prayer. I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but it needs to be fixed if money is going to have a bigger impact in things.

Honestly I think youre on the right track here Pack. Really if a simple NBA style salary cap was implemented with the 2-for-1 luxury tax for going over the cap were implemented, then this in itself would take care of the money disparity. In fact, I imagine you could leave the fan support/home playoff game money alone at that point because then a winning team would have something to do with all the extra money that they made as it would allow them to spend over the cap the next season by trying to compete for the best recruits..

Doing this though, I think you would need to set the caps at whatever the average level for the league would be for a team of 55 if everyone is paid minimum salary/bonus + something like 20%. This would prevent teams from trying to game the system by paying all of their guys the minimum and just giving them huge gear funds in order to stay under the cap.

Definitely a step in the right direction.

Originally posted by PackMan97
I like the idea....not sure about the implementation.

Rich get Richer - This is a HUGE problem especially with the way fan support and playoff tickets work. The financial difference between a team that hosts 3-4 playoff games and one with a losing season is HUGE! Absolutely HUGE! If money affects play to a large degree, this gap is just gonna widen.

Possible Solutions:
** Make the play per pay bonus based on the average salary in that conference. This way it's something that can change every season and salaries can be part of the meta-game. In other words, OL shouldn't get shafted because OL get paid low. OL should only get shafted if they are paid less than other OL.
-> Needs some good reporting for leagues to help agents (and owners) know what the average/min/max salaries are in a league.


** Salary Cap - Ya, I know....but with a salary cap you force teams to pick and choose. The rich can only spend so much money, just like everyone else.

** Luxury Tax - As a soft salary cap. You can spend over the limit, but maybe it costs you 2x that salary if you go over the limit. This tax gets funneled down to the rest of the conference that didn't go over the cap.

** Fan Support and Home Playoff Games - These are VERY broken right now. Fan support and home games can make or break finances for a team and if you leave this as is, only teams that can manage very high fan support and home playoff games will have a prayer. I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but it needs to be fixed if money is going to have a bigger impact in things.

This does seem to be on the right track.

One problem by not resetting all teams to at least some reasonable cash/stadium in a specific level, is the current "rich" teams will have a major advantage over the basic "reset" team all during the growth...can buy/build more stuff, pay players more, have more income, etc.

Not only do you have a "luxury" tax on player salary, but also have a tax on income/stadium valuation above league average. The tax gets put back into the league as part of a "wealth redistribution". This will allow "reset" teams to at least start catching up to the "completed" teams that have been reset prior to this season.

Basically, if you're in a cap 18 league with a completed stadium and $100M in cash, you generate (for example only) $30M in income per season in ticket sales, and the "cost of players+equip" (salary and level specific equipment for each player) is $20M (again, for example only)....the league averages are 100-level stadium complete, $3M in cash, $15M in income, and $15M in cost of player-equip, then a wealth tax of 10% above averages has a $10M+$3M for cash/income, a "depreciation tax" on the 200/300 levels of the stadium (10% of build cost for example -) $2M plus the luxury tax on salary above league average of 10% of $5M for a total tax of $15.5M that gets shared with teams below league average on a % basis.

1) Salary cannot be re-negotiated during the season...gets "captured" on day 0 for computing the above averages for league.
2) In season player signing that pushes team salary above league average would cause a signing tax to be captured.
3) Teams with less than max roster have the average salary of all players added to the team salary for computation of costs
4) Equipment funds can be set, but if players use that, the team is taxed as if that money was part of salary.

Computation needs:
day 0 player count and salary for a total league salary average and total.
day 0 average ticket price of tickets sold providing an "expected" ticket sales income for season - average for all teams in league
day 0 stadium size
day 0 team cash average (less ticket sales for season), including equipment fund and any equipment $ spent during pre-season (or have no equipment purchases during pre-season)

Redistribution calculations:
Team player average salary is extrapolated for full roster at league average salary or team average salary, which ever is higher - luxury salary cap tax applied
League average cash position - tax calculated on above league average
League average income - tax calculated on above league average
Teams with above average cash/income have tax applied according to the above two items, starting at 10-20% above league average
- an income rich team doesn't get taxed if they have below average total, for example.
Teams with below league average cash/income get a % of the captured taxes based on how much below the average they are.

I know there are holes, but a redistribution system is the only way to equalize the playing field for the current teams with huge cash and fully completed stadiums in lower level leagues. At the upper levels, it will only be a minor impact to the "rich" teams, but they will continue to be the rich as long as they continue performing well.

Also, with a wealth redistribution system, there is less need to reset all teams being demoted. The playing field gets leveled over time, so a full stadium and lots of cash just makes the league better as the wealth gradually gets shared instead of just disappearing....good for both sides.

Can incorporate the equipment changes as well to prevent money movement between teams.

Oh, if the equipment stays with the team, this needs to be implemented BEFORE end of day 40 so players leaving teams leave their equipment behind....

maybe I missed it, but how is this working for existing players who aren't fully equipped?

For example, the Hounds don't have full 64 across the board even though all our players are over lvl 64. We need another season of ticket sales to finish equipping...except, we can't use next season's money on equip. So what happens?

Are the players who are now lvl 67 but have been patient waiting for their 64 until next season now out of luck because of the changes?

Or will there be "catch up" upgrades to allow them to get up to their current level first? I don't see why some players should be permanently disadvantaged by the change so hoping there is a plan to allow them to catch up.

Originally posted by cowtesticles2001
why not ceiling the EQ at 56....most can afford 56...maybe it'll take 2 seasons....

this. or at least, remove the 72 equipment. its like a select club that you can get screwed out of joining by your team not having enough cash, your position not being important enough, or accidentally being benched for one game 5 seasons ago.

At the very least, please take away home playoff game money... Winning is its own incentive and all the extra cash for the top teams does is hurts parity....

Really the whole the Salary/EQ system needs a math guy to sit down and figure it out.
The EQ fund bandaid needs to go...


Max salary should be just enough to pay for all EQ costs for a full booster.
After lv 32 you level at max 5.5 times a season,
In 6 seasons you'll gain max of 33 levels (most will lose a few XP here and there making it 32lvs), thats 4 upgrades.
So about one upgrade per 1.5 seasons.
Max salary needs to be on par to cover this, so 2/3rds of the cost of a full upgrade for all EQ at the current level, per season. (PLUS the cost of training needs to be figured in)

Then you can get rid of EQ funds, players that are full boosters can ask for MAX salaries, and deserve them, and players that are only partial or non-boosters can get paid less and still be fine. This should make a good market for players that want max salaries for all their EQ and contracts will matter again.
Bonuses should still be available for players that need to make up lost chances to upgrade EQ in the past...

Owners don't currently worry about the contracts they send out right now, that money is dirt compared to the EQ fund costs.
This would make owners have to figure out salary costs and what they can send out and make the system more realistic, and more fun for the types that want to run the season to season operations of a team.


TWO things additional things to consider:
1) As for training costs, it might just be easier to seperate them from the player salaries. Have the costs still be there, but have the team automatically pay for any player training...In real life a player doesn't pay for their own training during a season, they use the team facilities, and the team pays for everything.
This would stop slow builders not a on a team from training, and also allow players that are screwed out of cash early in their career to still train always as long as they are on a team.
Its win/win for almost all situations, and still makes money important for teams, if they run out of cash, no player is going to be happy.

2) When you sign a multi-season contract, their should be automatic mulitpliers for the 2nd and 3rd years, you should not be locked into a small salary, almost every contract in real sports has its salary grow every season. This needs to be done, or get rid of multi-season contracts all together.

I like where you are going there Otto. I really do like the idea of making salaries important and its just logical that a max salary should be able to cover full gear upgrades for each player during that season. The tricky part as you said is really how to handle bonuses so that teams with lots of cash cant just flood players with bonuses, but the team still needs to be able to this when they need a player to re-gear themselves. A good example would be when I pick up a FA and I need them to sell off their AE and re-gear with more useful AE that fits my teams scheme better.

Essentially I think getting one of GLB's number crunchers to come up with the figures to pay for a full 55 man roster at each league cap where the max salary would cover any gear upgrades that those players would need would be the first step here.

Then adjust the expected income from ticket sales, concessions, league adjustments to come within 10-20% of paying for this full roster of max salaries. The variables involved here would be in the stadium is the expected size for the league and that fan support is at 100/100/100 so that the team can draw in maximum sales for each game. What this does is that teams that are not winning and have to sell their tickets at a lower price and get less in concession sales simply cannot afford max salaries so they are forced to make the decision not to carry 55 players or to pay less than max cash.

I would also make it to where home playoff game income is split 60/40 or 65/35 with the home and away teams. It makes it to where it is still important to get the home playoff game, but it makes it nearly as important for a team to simply make the playoffs. The extra money gained here can be used for bonuses the following season as the team picks up FAs and needs to re-gear their players.


One idea to help the "have-nots" that are perrineal bottom dwellers in a league is to give them a simple league adjustment that the winning teams in the league do not get. Call it the "Small Market Bonus/Stipend". It could be a 20% boost to yearly income for each of the bottom 8 teams in a 32 team league. For Pro level teams, this could total 10-20 million extra income for the season which the team can use to rebuild and really go after FAs in the off season in an attempt to become competitive again. With this idea, it doesnt take anything away from the winning clubs, but it gives a substantial boost to the bottom feeders in an attempt to get the up and running again. Plus with the new cash/demotion rules that Catch22 has put into place, this system cant really be abused by teams going CPU and trying to farm cash at the highest levels since it will just be taken away from them the follow season if they refuse to put a competitive product on the field.

I realize that it opens up a loop hole for a team to tank the latter half of the season in order to qualify for the SMS (Small Market Stipend) but honestly there is no way to police teams that give up on a season midway through. Plus, like I said if they refuse to put a good product on the field the following season they should fall under the demotion rules and will be reset to base levels of cash/stadium anyways: http://goallineblitz.com/game/announcement.pl?id=314

Thoughts?

Originally posted by JTD
One idea to help the "have-nots" that are perrineal bottom dwellers in a league is to give them a simple league adjustment that the winning teams in the league do not get. Call it the "Small Market Bonus/Stipend". It could be a 20% boost to yearly income for each of the bottom 8 teams in a 32 team league. For Pro level teams, this could total 10-20 million extra income for the season which the team can use to rebuild and really go after FAs in the off season in an attempt to become competitive again. With this idea, it doesnt take anything away from the winning clubs, but it gives a substantial boost to the bottom feeders in an attempt to get the up and running again. Plus with the new cash/demotion rules that Catch22 has put into place, this system cant really be abused by teams going CPU and trying to farm cash at the highest levels since it will just be taken away from them the follow season if they refuse to put a competitive product on the field.

I don't like this. 16 teams don't make the playoffs, but the bottom 8 get money. You can't give less money to the teams who just miss than the teams who miss by a lot - they're all have-nots in the end.
Bottom line, if you give out money as a reward for winning games, but you don't want teams who win a lot of games to be uncatchable by the teams who don't win so many games, the end result will ALWAYS be that money is worthless. If money is valuable, you by nature are creating haves and have nots. The closer the game between them, the less value the money has.

Something does have to change about playoff awards, not sure about the answer here.
I always thought they should do away with ticket sales in playoff games completely.
Just award every team in the league a bonus depending on their seeding...1st place makes the most, 16th place the least, but then you can control it and make the steps not so gigiantic.

Off the top of my head, a #1 seed that goes all the way gets 3 home games, if thats 4mil a peice, you got 12mil. I think thats way off.

Instead you can have (Numbers are example only, can be change based on leagues and dollar amounts that work better)
1st seed - $10mil
2nd seed - $9.5mil
ETC...
16th seed - $2.5mil

You get an advantge for being better, but not something unfairly huge.
Also Division and League champions should get a small bonus also, say $2.5mil for each. So an extra $5mil for someone who wins it all.


You take away the playoff ticket sales and such, but in the end you have a more fair system in place. That rewards regular season effort, but not over rewards, and destroys non-playoff teams chances to compete. Even concessions should be turned off imo.

If moving equipment to be player non-cash transaction costs, figure it by required equipment points (EP) by level, and increase equip points by a percentage to allow for new -team based equipment needs. Perhaps allow teams to "give" players EP to re-fit for new equipment (new equipment fund for EP points).

1) Equipment costs 2 EP to upgrade.
- 4 pcs to upgrade at levels 8/16/24/etc
- need 8 EP every 8 levels, 1 EP earned each level up
- initial purchase of equipment provides 2 EP for upgrading equipment on any 1 skill
2) Teams can pay to re-fit 5 (10% of) players in a single season, based on cap level, or team average player level
- level 40 equipment costs 10 points to "re-fit" with 5 upgrades
- cap 46 team gets 50 EP for distribution to players every season
- team with 40 players, average level 64, would get 40*10%*8*2 or 64 EP for re-fit
- team with 55 players average level 63, would get 55*10%*7.85*2 or ~86 EP for re-fit

I may have the math off, but the idea is that each player can upgrade 4 pcs of equipment every 8 levels by earning EP every time he levels up. This can easily be coded to retroactively strip all equipment (perhaps leave advanced equip?), and provide each player with 2 EP per level. This will remove all cases of players having multiple pieces of equipment that they can swap in depending on opponent or game plan, that could only be afforded by rich teams supplying extra money.

Re-fit requires turning in old equipment to be able to get new equipment.