dickay
01-19-2007, 04:20 PM
Is there any truth to this post below? I've been around the block a few times, and don't believe it accurate at all. I could be wrong however. What I have seen is expense caps set at 30 mil, and if you spend 30 mil you are then rated #1, and soon your rating will be an A+. I've seen this on quite a few occassions and believe it to be simple and correct. Comments please.
Wrong.
Setting an expense limit does not benefit small market teams.
All it does is enable the large markets to max out their spending at the pre-set limit. Suppose the expense limit is set at $30m. Large market teams will have no problem maxing their expenses to $30m. Now, the small market team thinks...'Well maybe I can max my limit to $30m too and be as good as them' Wrong... wrong and wrong!
You see, what this strategy overlooks is the fact that the large market teams already were placed higher in farm, scouting & medical. They had a higher alphabetical rating. This is the key here... your alphabetical rating, not how much you spend!
If a large market is rated A+ in scouting and a small market is rated B - in scouting, and both teams max out their limits, then the small market team will never improve. You can only improve your alphabetical rating if a team placed higher than you, reduce their expenses. Also, this reduction must be continuous. Making a reduction for a few sims won't be enough to see your small market team improve even one place. Clay, the games designer has stated it can take up to THREE GAME YEARS to see an improvement.
So, there you are, your small market team, having maxed out your limit, and you never imporve, why? Because nine larger market teams have also maxed out their limits and they all had a higher alphabetical rating than you, before a expense cap was introduced.
Capping expenses is a truly horrible idea. It does not benefit small markets, it never has done and it never will. And it bugs me something crazy that around 90% of GM's still can't quite grasp this rule.
Wrong.
Setting an expense limit does not benefit small market teams.
All it does is enable the large markets to max out their spending at the pre-set limit. Suppose the expense limit is set at $30m. Large market teams will have no problem maxing their expenses to $30m. Now, the small market team thinks...'Well maybe I can max my limit to $30m too and be as good as them' Wrong... wrong and wrong!
You see, what this strategy overlooks is the fact that the large market teams already were placed higher in farm, scouting & medical. They had a higher alphabetical rating. This is the key here... your alphabetical rating, not how much you spend!
If a large market is rated A+ in scouting and a small market is rated B - in scouting, and both teams max out their limits, then the small market team will never improve. You can only improve your alphabetical rating if a team placed higher than you, reduce their expenses. Also, this reduction must be continuous. Making a reduction for a few sims won't be enough to see your small market team improve even one place. Clay, the games designer has stated it can take up to THREE GAME YEARS to see an improvement.
So, there you are, your small market team, having maxed out your limit, and you never imporve, why? Because nine larger market teams have also maxed out their limits and they all had a higher alphabetical rating than you, before a expense cap was introduced.
Capping expenses is a truly horrible idea. It does not benefit small markets, it never has done and it never will. And it bugs me something crazy that around 90% of GM's still can't quite grasp this rule.