Suggestion: Simple Revenue Sharing [Archive]

GM24

08-23-2006, 10:25 AM

With the unpredictability of young players, losing teams like Florida and Tampa Bay not being able to turn it around due to low revenue, and teams like the Yankees and Mets averaging 103 wins a season, I think that an option for simple revenue sharing would be a welcome addition.

It would be simple: 40% of every team's revenue is put into a pool and distributed evenly among all X teams.

I think this feaure is long overdue, and it would make playing as a small market team feasible.

Sanji Watsuki

08-23-2006, 02:06 PM

But IRL some small market teams need to stop complaining. Some of then have a payroll that is less than the money that they get from revenue sharing.

GM24

08-23-2006, 02:13 PM

It's not even that small markets are the issue. Mid-market teams that have losing season after losing season are earning 40 million in revenue a season. Now if there were revenue sharing in place, these teams would probably make 30 million more in revenue, and have at least a chance to compete.

SirKodiak

08-23-2006, 02:39 PM

Here's is a post I made before:

This is basically how MLB does revenue sharing, based on the current CBA:

It is a 2-part plan:

1. A Base Plan that basically takes 34% of all revenue by all teams, pools it, then distributes it evenly back to all teams.
2. A Central Fund Plan that takes from those who lost money in the Base Plan (the Payors) and gives to those that made money in the Base Plan (the Payees) on a weighted scale system, the higher your revenue the higher rate you pay and the lower your revenue the more you get.

Details:

Base Plan = 34% of total revenue of all teams pooled then split evenly

Central Fund Plan
Central Fund Component (CFC) = 41% of amount paid by the payor clubs to the payee clubs in Base Plan (referred to as Net Transfer Value (NTV))
Contributors pay = Revenue * (CFC / sum of Payor clubs' Revenue)
Recipients receive = CFC * (x / y)

where
x = Difference between average revenue of all clubs and Recipient club's Revenue
y = Sum of differences between average revenue of all clubs and each Recipient club's revenue

or with mathematic symbols:
x = | Average Revenue of All clubs - Recipient club's revenue |
y = Σ (Average Revenue of all clubs - each Recipient club's revenue)

It is a bit confusing, but I did make a spreadsheet that does it, so its not too bad. I think it should be included in the game. That, with full 40-man roster rules (rule 5, waivers, etc) along with the rules baseball has about sending veterans to the minors, would make finances more realistic and go a long ways toward getting rid of this problem (Super Clubs vs. Bum Clubs). Improved AI, of course, too.

Baseball also has the luxury tax, but that just takes money from high paying teams and giving to MLB, not other teams.

GM24

08-23-2006, 04:21 PM

Thanks for the info, SirKodiak. I dont really think much AI would have to be adjusted to put in the base plan... the "base plan" is just another expense and then source of revenue, thats pretty easily projectable... I mean the expense is a fixed percentage and the source is a fixed amount.

Clay if you are reading this, would it be possible to have an unoffical patch with the "base plan" implemented as described above?

natedawg219

08-23-2006, 04:48 PM

If I'm not mistaken didn't earlier versions of BM have a simple form of revenue sharing. I vaguely recall reading something about Clay's agreement with the Player's Association prohibiting from having it in the game anymore. I could be totally off base though.

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 05:29 PM

You can do this yourself as needed you know. There's only ever one or two teams that get into real financial trouble to begin with, so you can easily just go into the league editor once every 10 years or so and straighten them out.

My only real trouble with this as a proposal for a general system to be added is that the AI doesn't follow all of the financial rules that players do anyway. In the end, it's not really going to solve anything, and it's just one more thing to complicate the situation.
Fix the AI so that it abides by all of the financial rules and acts intelligently, and I wouldn't have any trouble with it at all. Which isn't to say that some sort of revenue sharing couldn't be added at the same time, it's just that I think priorities ought to be on the basics first.

MrMackie

08-23-2006, 06:38 PM

GM24

08-23-2006, 08:24 PM

The simplest thing to do is to raise the per capita income for a city that's drowning in debt and/or lacking in market competition. You can also increase the city's size, which is a little more of a stretch. Changing stadium aspects, such as convenience, comfort (not to mention fan base %) is another way. Sure, these are all "cheating", or simply evening the odds (think Robin Hood).

I've gone down that road before. See cities.txt. It was a disaster.

I dont think that editing the city files is going to help when the problem has to do this problem... it's the fact that teams that lose consistency erode their fanbase to the point that they have no hope of fielding a winning team. Maybe some sort of floor on fan loyalty could help things... like a minimum of 65 rather than 60.

Ohms, what is the situation with the AI and finances? It doesn't bother me that there are 39 uninjured players in AAA with a salary at $2,000,000+ in my test sim... only a handful of them are still major-league caliber, none of them rated above an 84 and nearly all of them in their mid-30s... so nobody wants these guys. And while it behooves a team to release players like these, more often than not they dont have the money.

The situation here are teams mired in losing seasons without hope. I know that if they have a source of steady revenue coming in that they can at least stay semi-competitive. Do you want to see a team go 44 straight years without a winning season? I certainly dont.

HoustonGM

08-23-2006, 08:28 PM

Ohms, what is the situation with the AI and finances? It doesn't bother me that there are 39 uninjured players in AAA with a salary at $2,000,000+ in my test sim... only a handful of them are still major-league caliber, none of them rated above an 84 and nearly all of them in their mid-30s... so nobody wants these guys. And while it behooves a team to release players like these, more often than not they dont have the money.
No team should ever sign anybody to a multimillion dollar contract if that player is going to be in the minors.

GM24

08-23-2006, 08:39 PM

HoustonGM

08-23-2006, 08:55 PM

Well I'm looking through these guys now and it looks like they were good when they were signed, its just that they got injured or just stopped producing. Really, I dont think that the AI signing guys to play in AAA is a problem anymore... the worst I've seen is a newly signed free agent will stay in AAA for a day or two and then move up to the big league club.

Maybe the reason I dont see this problem is that I've lowered the talent pool. But if anything if the top teams had less money to spend due to revenue sharing, there would be less in the way of stockpiling talent.
There's definitly a problem. I often see teams sign players and ptutting them and keeping them in the minors. I made a thread about this...let's see if I can find it. Ok, found it. It's similar - http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=116001

The best solution would be a real "minor league contract" added, although I think 40-man rosters need to come first. Basically, you sign a guy to a minor league contract and assign him a "major league salary" and if he plays in the majors, he gets that salary. If not, he gets a minor league salary.

GM24

08-23-2006, 09:25 PM

Thats a somewhat unrelated issue. Whats happening is a team (more often than not the Yankees) will accidentally fill their need multiple times. I just had the Yankees sign RF Audrey Huff and RF Gary Sheffield on the same day, and then RF Jermaine Dye four days later... what a mess. Of course if the Yankees pooled 34% of their revenue over the course of the regular season, they would wind up with about $40 million less to throw around at free agents.

Edit: And on the same token, a small market team will be more competitive in signing free agents.

We're all offering up alot of long term solutions. I think that just having this base level revenue sharing will clear up alot of issues.

HoustonGM

08-23-2006, 09:33 PM

The lthread I linked to deals exactly with that issue.

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 10:15 PM

The largest problem for many teams is that even when thay are in debt already they can continue to sign (or re-sign) players. It's as if the AI GM doesn't realise his financial situation at all.

We can ask for artificial limits and probably get them, but until the root-cause of the problems are addressed is that what we really want?

GM24

08-23-2006, 11:08 PM

Ah, but not allowing teams in debt to sign any players is an artifical limit.

The largest problem for a team in debt is that they are a team in debt. Teams usually wind up in debt becuase they can not afford the payroll they are assessed at the beginning of the game. For instance the Yankees spend 2007 and 2008 in debt, but dont suck to drastically and are able to turn it around by 2012.

Over the course of 50 years teams will break even. Occasionally a team will overspend and end up a couple million in debt, but nothing too drastic. In leagues that start in 2006 the AI is good about its finances

A team in debt sucks, right? They lose basically all of their players... they might resign a backup catcher and they will go to arbitration for most eligible players, but they have no scouts and doctors, so they will fall apart. In turn, the fans will abandon them. After several years, the team will work its way out of debt, but becuase they havent been winning they will be working with diminished revenue. The team will never have a winning season again... A team can not sustain itself on a revenue of $40 million. Pooling out 34% of the revenue can help this problem, and the problem with competitive balance, super teams, etc. I know there are other problems, but why not give this a chance, then fix the assorted problems. I mean heck, this revenue sharing done in the MLB in the first place.

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 11:19 PM

everything that you mentioned is true for player teams, but not for AI teams. AI teams are able to sign and re-sign players at will.

I don't have a problem with an optional revenue sharing process, as long as it's optional and it doesn't start prior to... what, 1990? It's not going to solve the problems that you're bringing up here though. You may as well go through every year and simply give the AI teams $10 mil, or so. Same difference.

HoustonGM

08-23-2006, 11:21 PM

AI teams in debt aren't allowed to sign/re-sign players.

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 11:29 PM

oh really?

give me one minute...

GM24

08-23-2006, 11:34 PM

AI teams in debt aren't allowed to sign/re-sign players.

The AI can and does re-sign players and take a player to arbitration. So far as I have seen they do not sign free agents. And when they do re-sign players they try to stay away from expensive players. I didnt mean to imply otherwise... and I dont have a particular problem with this so long as they can get out of debt. I would rather not see a team have to cut all their players and go 43-119.

And this would have an effect. I propose that the revenue sharing is factored into the books as an expense and then as a revenue, directly influencing the budget that the team sets.

Cash on hand has a lesser effect on the budget an AI team... they'll burn through it in a couple years and "rebuild"... save up money for the next run.

Really there's no way of knowing the effects unless its implemented. I know there are problems but I believe it will help things. And I feel I've backed up my position adequately.

HoustonGM

08-23-2006, 11:35 PM

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 11:46 PM

teams in debt

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 11:47 PM

sign

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 11:48 PM

and sign some more

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 11:49 PM

I set a team to negative cash the first day of the offseason, and they signed players the following day, and never again the rest of the offseason.

There was one time when a team I set to negative cash made one signing in December after I had set them to debt.

However, most teams when I set them to negative cash never sign players...

AI teams only really sign players once or twice a season no matter what. their financial position has very little to do (if anythign at all) with their decision making.

all of the above is without manipulation of any kind.

SirKodiak

08-23-2006, 11:52 PM

http://pbskids.org/backyardjungle/files.php/162845_discovery_f.jpg
Sorry, just had to do it... :p

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 11:53 PM

The AI can and does re-sign players and take a player to arbitration. So far as I have seen they do not sign free agents.
I guess i'll have to keep going with the example...

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 11:58 PM

Milwaukee still in debt

ohms_law

08-23-2006, 11:59 PM

signs free agents

ohms_law

08-24-2006, 12:00 AM

Sorry, just had to do it... :p

heh

yea, but I didn't start it...
;)

GM24

08-24-2006, 12:09 AM

Well,

Tampa Bay (Below) signed zero free agents in the 2049-2050 offseason, while they certainly could use this third basemen, who is pretty darn good and avialable on the cheap.

With revenue sharing and an expanded budget, tampa could sign this guy and pick up 5 extra wins.

Let's try to keep my thread on topic.

ohms_law

08-24-2006, 12:13 AM

and how is revenue sharing going to help tampa bay sign a player that they should probably sign but won't? Cash (or the lack of it) isn't what's keeping them from signing him.

GM24

08-24-2006, 12:15 AM

Revenue Sharing= Bigger budget= More willing to spend

ohms_law

08-24-2006, 12:20 AM

you would think so, but I have yet to see evidence that the AI considers it's overall financial situation at all when making signing decisions.

GM24

08-24-2006, 12:28 AM

SirKodiak

08-24-2006, 12:28 AM

you would think so, but I have yet to see evidence that the AI considers it's overall financial situation at all when making signing decisions.

methinks "E=I*R" is a great Custom User Title, but perhaps you should change it to "I'm telling you, it is the AI, not the <blank>!!"

ohms_law

08-24-2006, 12:33 AM

You just saw some!!

The Devil Rays didnt sign that third basemen becuase of their financial situation!!

If the Devil Rays had a revenue of $60 million, they would have a payroll of around $50 million. Revenue correlates directly to payroll.
no they wouldn't. As far as I can tell, the AI will re-sign players at a greater rate with more money, or they will spend slightly more to sign free agents with more money. However, the basic decision making doesn't appear to be affected by the team's financial situation. If the team doesn't sign a player as in your example, it's not because they lack money.

methinks "E=I*R" is a great Custom User Title, but perhaps you should change it to "I'm telling you, it is the AI, not the <blank>!!"
:)
maybe, maybe...

GM24

08-25-2006, 12:29 AM

I guess the whole concept of a budget is pretty much lost on you.

FRENCHREDSOX

08-25-2006, 10:51 AM

If a team has the money to spend AI a) will or b) will not spend it BUT if a team doesnt have the money then it definitely take option b)

Thus anything that would lead to the fist alternative will lead logically to an improvement ipso facto as a choice is always better than none (even if the AI will occasionally choose the poorer option.)

There is also the factor which has already been discussed on other threads that redistribution of Y will tend to equalise the differences between large & small markets

ohms_law

08-25-2006, 12:28 PM

so, let me get this straight. Despite evidense showing that teams still sign and re-sign players while in debt, you guys still think that simply giving the AI more money will have an impact?
:confused:

GM24

08-25-2006, 01:28 PM

Your argument makes no sense. Even with the evidence you do show, the players that teams sign out of free agency are signed for less than $1 million. And nobody cares if a team signs players while they are in debt. As long as they can still get out of debt.

Of course giving the AI more revenue will have a positive impact. A team that makes more money is more competitive.

When the pooled revenue is directly factored into the budget, a small-market team's budget will increase, and therefore will be willing to spend more money to sign and retain the players they need to at least stay out of last place, or maybe get lucky and make the playoffs. A large market team's budget will decrease, as will their payroll. If you need evidence, open up a game, sim a couple years, and notice the correlation between Revenue and Payroll.

Just handing a team cash every ten years doesnt fix anything. If a team has a surplus of funds, they will increase their budget slightly and take a loss for a few years until they run out of money.

Understand yet?

ohms_law

08-25-2006, 08:27 PM

That all sounds great and is what I beleaved for a while myself. However, the fact is that the AI "cheats", more or less. It's able to sign and re-sign players while in debt, and is also about to release players without being charged for it. The only financial rule that they do actually follow is that they zero out all of their expenses when they are in debt, which admittedly does have an impact.

My only argument throughtout this whole thread has been that arguments that revenue sharing will have any noticeable impact on the AI are unfounded. Revenue sharing would could be a fine addition for some players, in that it'll make player run smaller market teams a bit more manageable. However, it's not going to solve any of the AI problems.

GM24

08-26-2006, 12:47 AM

So let me get this straight. You're saying that becuase a team in debt signs and re-signs players when in debt, revenue sharing wont help them win.

I think you fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. :p

So the Brewers were in debt when they signed CF Peter Bergeron to a one year deal. Who gives a ****. You're obviously missing the big picture.

But you know what, forget it. From now on I'm just going to play with equalize cities on. I just simmed from 2006-2024, and every team but the Brewers has made the playoffs. Although the White Sox were caught in the winning spiral, winning 7 World Series in a row, they are a last place team now. I just dont want the Yankees to win their divison 38 out of 40 times and have the Cincinatti Reds have 44 consecutive losing seasons.

HoustonGM

08-26-2006, 12:53 AM

ohms_law

08-26-2006, 01:02 AM

I think you fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

real nice.
that ends the debate at least...

SirKodiak

08-26-2006, 01:24 AM

Its just one of the things that computer GMs/agents say to you when they don't like your offer. At least that is all I think he meant by it (given his avatar and sig)

GM24

08-26-2006, 01:35 AM

Sorry you took offense, that's just one of the things that a GM says when you make a bad trade offer.

Look guys, you dont just say "give me better financial AI". It doesnt work like that. When the Yankees have a surplus amount of money to work with, they have a limited amount of options.

They can

1. Not allocate $20 million to getting a new right fielder or 5 pitchers they dont need, and instead save up cash until they have $500 million dollars, then ruin the whole equilibrium and send attendance plumetting. They may even make so much money that they cause an overflow and end up with negative a billion dollars. This kind of stuff used to happen.

2. Set their miscellaneous expenses e.g farm system to 100 million, wasting a good deal of money.

3. Meet their budget and sign players, and then when they dont get enough playing time and their rating plummets, send them to AAA, where hopefully they will retire, or maybe they will trade them, or release them just to sign them again. Sounds familiar.

4. put a percentage of my revenue into a central fund where it will be evenly distributed, and that way I wont have excess funds.

A last place team that has lost their fan base has few options as well.

They can

1. Scrap together some cash then maybe sign a couple guys, then burn through the money and go back to losing.

2. Continue to lose year in and year out.

3. put what little they make into a central fund that will be equally distributed, and that way they wont be piss poor.

4. pray they dont go into debt. But when they do, force them not to resign any players to the point where they only have 11 pitchers in the whole organization, who will suck horribly. This always happened to the phillies in BM2K5.

Sorry to rip apart your arguments like that guys, but see, you cant go about fixing financial stuff like fixing a bug so much. Anyway, I'm leaving for school tommorow, so I wont be on these forums anymore for awhile. Hopefully you will have learned something from this post.

HoustonGM

08-26-2006, 02:13 AM

ohms_law

08-26-2006, 02:29 AM

I still don't think you're quite getting it. You seem to think that revenue sharing is the magical cure that will fix all the problems with Baseball Mogul. Adding revenue sharing won't likely close the gap between the rich and the poor. It will make them closer, but it's only ONE THING in a slew of things that will help the situation.

Which is the only point that i've been trying to get across the whole time. There's nothing wrong in my eyes with adding revenue sharing as an option for modern era play (or even for historical play, if people want that for whatever reason). If added, it may help some AI teams in some specific situations, slightly. It's not going to suddenly turn 62-100 teams into 81-81 teams by any means.
What it will do for sure is make it much easier for human players who are playing small market teams.

Sorry you took offense, that's just one of the things that a GM says when you make a bad trade offer.

Whatever you may have meant, what came across was not just insulting, but a personal attack. I know that that saying is a quote from the game, which in and of itself can be funny. when you place it in between a couple of statements of your own where you're making personal attacks on someone elses judgement, it's far from funny.

HoustonGM

08-26-2006, 03:17 AM

FRENCHREDSOX

08-26-2006, 03:23 AM

Ohms is right though. Revenue sharing isn't the only thing thats going to even it out. It'll help maybe a little....

I'm really convinced that the problem with teams signing players they dont need is the main cause of this. If the Yankees didnt hog multimillion dollar players, the lesser teams could get them, and thus itd be more even. Ive played about 4 seasons while controlling the offseason and preventing such things, and I've yet to see a team really own the rest of the league (or be a complete disaster).

There are many things that can be done to help this - improved AI (both GM and player/agent), revenue sharing, better financial AI, etc.
Um,isnt the aim that the AI should do this & you just control your team ?

Im no great partisan of "revenue sharing" but if,& its a big if,this can in BM08 lead to smaller market teams being more competitive & stop misnomas like "you control all off season transactions" then it would be "better".

Even if Ohm is right that the AI cheats the simple fact that increasing budget of small markets would allow them to play "the same way".....

FRENCHREDSOX

08-26-2006, 03:41 AM

One the basis of an Baseball economy (or sim) is if you have profit you can :
1) Invest it (in the sim sign FA's ,improve structures - Farm,Stadium etc)
2) Take it (for personal use or give to shareholders in dividends etc)
3) Increase payroll (uping what go give to your staff in new contracts & signing FA,as you dont have to allocate for Managers,coaches et al°)

When in debt you cannot do this.Logically you must do the opposite to get out of debt.

Revenue sharing will definitely not turn a 62 win season club into a 81 club,as Ohm said BUT the debt ridden club would:

1) have the chance to retain its top talent over the long run (because its debt would be subsidized) &
2) have a chance to get out of debt quicker (if you know that every year you get 20mill the AI could/should use this amount to reduce the debt until the balance sheet is re equated.Similar to what liquidators do with debt maangement for private companies)

These 2 things would not solve the "whole" problem but reduce it .A 95% problem is still better & always be than 100% , no?

HoustonGM

08-26-2006, 03:46 AM

Um,isnt the aim that the AI should do this & you just control your team ?
YES. Which is why the AI needs to be fixed.

I'm saying that if the AI was tweaked to not do what I said, the problem would be greatly reduce.d

FRENCHREDSOX

08-26-2006, 04:04 AM

YES. Which is why the AI needs to be fixed.

I'm saying that if the AI was tweaked to not do what I said, the problem would be greatly reduce.d

Yes I see ;

Revenue sharing wouldnt change that much in your case but looking at simple numbers could help (Im using simple number for the example°,in a 3 team League average per annum)

Yankees Y/profit 140m$/35m$
A's 60m$/0m$
Pirates 40m$/-20m$

So here is the classic Yankees make a profit & would/could play the FA market & KEEP all its own players.The As could play but only compeansating for losses of FA leaving (automatically to the Yankees or retirees) & the Pirates would LOSE ALL its FA's(to the 2 above);

As it stands the Yankees would over the long run increase its revenue/(& potentially its profit) (because of its positive winning record,signing of Free agents etc),the A's would stand still with an occassional winning record thanks to its draft & FA signings.However over time the Pirates would be in a losing spiral & their Y would still decrease over time worsening the profit differential.This would happen beacause the fan base would erode & the loss of Free Agents would speed up the process.

However if 20% of total league Y is redistrbuted Yankees Y/profits would fall,Pirates the opposite & the A Y/profit would increase;

The above scenario would still be predominant (which is natural) but the differences WOULD be lessened.The Yankees would have less Y/profit compared to the 2 others who naturally would have more.

This would not solve ALL the problems but it would be a first step towards equilibrium............

ohms_law

08-26-2006, 04:05 AM

Why don't we just all agree on the following statement - Revenue sharing will help small-market teams, both computer and human controlled, but it will not reduce the problem at hand enough by itself. Revenue sharing must be combined with other fixes to the game and the AI in order to fix the problem at hand.

Or something.

Basically, yes I agree with that. The main thing is, is if the AI must abide by all rules in the exact same manner as human player's do. If that were true, then revenue sharing could certainly have a large impact on the AI team's performance.
Revenue sharing by itself is almost just a cosmetic fix, however.

I have no problems with Revenue sharing as some sort of option that a player can turn on. I also have no argument with revenue sharing for accuracy purposes ("it started in 2002(?), so it should be in the game"). The only problem that I do have with advocating revenue sharing is in saying that it'll help the AI in any significant way.

ohms_law

08-26-2006, 04:13 AM

@FrenchRedSox, i'm having trouble following you're thoughts... however, it appears that you're saying that increasing the amount of money that an AI team has would have an effect on their performance. What i'm saying throughout this thread is that it really doesn't. AI team's can sign and re-sign players at will, and are able to increase their payroll through trades despite being in debt. The only thing that currently limits them is that they seem to have an artificial limit imposed on their decision making, in that they generally don't go over their payroll budget. My stance on this is that increasing an AI team's cash on hand has very little impact on their decision making, since cash on hand has absolutely no effect on payroll budget.

SirKodiak

08-26-2006, 04:15 AM

Basically, yes I agree with that. The main thing is, is if the AI must abide by all rules in the exact same manner as human player's do. If that were true, then revenue sharing could certainly have a large impact on the AI team's performance.
Revenue sharing by itself is almost just a cosmetic fix, however.

I have no problems with Revenue sharing as some sort of option that a player can turn on. I also have no argument with revenue sharing for accuracy purposes ("it started in 2002(?), so it should be in the game"). The only problem that I do have with advocating revenue sharing is in saying that it'll help the AI in any significant way.

I don't have any idea how Clay and Ian work the AI, so I am not sure how adding one thing changes how it reacts or how much change is required to improve it or how seperate it is from other rules. But for 2k8 (and since we are basically at the final version of 2k7 as far as major changes go), it seems to me that changes like revenue sharing, 25/40 man rosters, etc make more sense to work on before the AI is tweaked/madeover.

FRENCHREDSOX

08-26-2006, 04:16 AM

Basically, yes I agree with that. The main thing is, is if the AI must abide by all rules in the exact same manner as human player's do.

I have no problems with Revenue sharing as some sort of option that a player can turn on. I also have no argument with revenue sharing for accuracy purposes ("it started in 2002(?), so it should be in the game"). The only problem that I do have with advocating revenue sharing is in saying that it'll help the AI in any significant way.

Exactly

All these suggestions are if taken on their own are just small fixes but some when combined will also lead to even larger results/"improvements"

To run a marathon you have to take the first step..........:)

ohms_law

08-26-2006, 04:28 AM

I don't have any idea how Clay and Ian work the AI, so I am not sure how adding one thing changes how it reacts or how much change is required to improve it or how seperate it is from other rules. But for 2k8 (and since we are basically at the final version of 2k7 as far as major changes go), it seems to me that changes like revenue sharing, 25/40 man rosters, etc make more sense to work on before the AI is tweaked/madeover.

Right, however the more stuff that is packed into Mogul, the more difficult it is to program an intelligent AI to utilise everything.
Just something to keep in mind.

Exactly

All these suggestions are if taken on their own are just small fixes but some when combined will also lead to even larger results/"improvements"

To run a marathon you have to take the first step..........:)

I understand this. I just don't like it when people start saying "this'll fix the AI!" when clearly, it won't.

SirKodiak

08-26-2006, 04:36 AM

Right, however the more stuff that is packed into Mogul, the more difficult it is to program an intelligent AI to utilise everything.
Just something to keep in mind.

True. Some of the things could actually make the job of improving the AI easier though, such as signing free agents/making trades with 25/40man roster rules in effect. They can give the AI a more concrete basis to start from when looking at any moves.

ohms_law

08-26-2006, 04:40 AM

That could be true, depending on the implementation details... we'll just need to wait and see I guess.

FRENCHREDSOX

08-26-2006, 04:52 AM

True. Some of the things could actually make the job of improving the AI easier though, such as signing free agents/making trades with 25/40man roster rules in effect. They can give the AI a more concrete basis to start from when looking at any moves.

Im no stats genius/programmer but I have done Organistion work & basic economic/accountancy theories.All these things have One point in common is that if the basic hypothesis has flaws then the achieved result will be flawed.If you build a house on quick sand it will stand for sometime but eventually it will sink;

I agree with what Sirko has said & a good case in point is the 4O man roster.You cannot have a rule 5 draft without a 40 man roster (its the basis of that draft) & you cannot have a 15/60 day DL either (again thats based on the 40 man roster removal/addition which links in with the waivers)

So 1 action in itself may/may not cause a fundamental change to how BM works (& eventually played) but it can also allow/lead to other changes which when all combined could lead to a vastly improved AI/game

just thoughts