|
Post by San Diego Padres on Sept 9, 2007 8:03:16 GMT -5
I've been playing out the 1970 season with the new file and unless I'm doing something wrong, alot of teams are about to be in dire straits. Even winning the division with a tiny 54 million dollar payroll the Padres still lose money. The Phillies lose 55.8 million, and they don't have that kind of money to lose. I think this has to do with attendence being way down. Anyone else running into this?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 9, 2007 9:09:52 GMT -5
I am not going to be able to run a test until tonight, but two theories without even looking at the file:
1. Are the playoff team ticket prices back to normal? I know mine were set really really high, so that could explain this maybe. Although I would assume you would have moved your prices back.
2. A bunch of new cash entered the league causing some to go over the 80M cap which puts us into recession. That will be fixed before we start.
Again, I haven't looked at the file, but thought I would throw those things out there.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 9, 2007 20:53:05 GMT -5
Alright, I think revenue is just out of whack or something. I think Rand changed revenue around a bit in the test file, so I am sure that was just overlooked in this file as there were way too many things to keep track of.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 9, 2007 21:06:04 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I did make sure the settings were exactly the same as those in the latest test file (#9).
After speaking with a couple of owners who have made tests in which the finances were just awful whatever changes they made to their levels in league editor (breathe), I have come to the quick conclusion that:
- those of you who are running on patch v 10.29 need to download the latest patch v 10.31
I am using that patch, and the financial results I get are somewhat a little less dramatic than those I have been told about by owners running on patch v 10.29.
For instance:
- I've been told that despite putting revenues at +100% in several sims, all teams except Montreal were losing money. Those results were obtained on patch v 10.29
- I have just run a sim with revenues set at +50%, and I'm down to only 8 teams losing money - including 2 that lost less than 1M. Revenues and profits are under what they were in 1969 in 2k4, but not by a dramatic notch. This means that we still have some room left to adjust the levels to a more adequate level.
I'll be running further tests trying to adjust the finances to the best level possible.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 9, 2007 22:29:29 GMT -5
I am running 10.31 and still am seeing terrible results. 3 teams in each league run a profit with the rest running devasting losses.
My own team which ran the highest profit of any team in TMBL in 2k4 is now at a 17M loss. I didn't have any resignings to push the payroll up either.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 9, 2007 23:52:11 GMT -5
I am running 10.31 and still am seeing terrible results. 3 teams in each league run a profit with the rest running devasting losses. My own team which ran the highest profit of any team in TMBL in 2k4 is now at a 17M loss. I didn't have any resignings to push the payroll up either. This is odd, especially if you tell me you did the sim with the League Revenues set at more than 0% in League Editor. In my sim, those were set at +50%. Okay, the Braves did lose money in that sim, but their ticket prices were still at playoff price of 39$, resulting in an average attendance of 11,587. I will change that in future tests. After running a test with all playoffs teams ticket prices lowered at a reasonnable price, and the Revenues set at maximum +100%, here is what I get: Only 1 team loses money. In the NL, profits rank from 9.9M to 43.5M. In the AL, they go from 400k to 30.7M. Using the 2k4 engine and advancing it all the way to April 1st, 3 teams are projected to lose money, although 2 of them are projected to lose less than 1M. Ticket prices for playoffs team were also adjusted. Let's try something: Team Proj. Rev. 2k4 - Rev. 2k8 (+100%) Proj. Profit 2k4 Profit2k8 BAL(4) 91.6M 94.7M 8.3M 11.5M BOS(2) 74.2M 85.0M 15.6M 26.8M CAL(3) 95.0M 88.7M 27.1M 22.9M CHW(3) 94.5M 94.9M 13.5M 14.0M CLE(2) 98.1M 100.5M 3.2M 7.4M DET(1) 88.1M 88.4M -636k 400k KC(1) 87.8M 82.3M 30.9M 26.2M MIN (2) 80.2M 83.2M 108k 5.8M NYY(3) 82.9M 83.4M 29.2M 30.7M OAK(4) 80.4M 72.0M 30.9M 23.4M SEA(4) 83.7M 73.3M 18.3M 9.3M WAS(1) 103.6M 104.6M -555k 1.2M ATL(1) 101.6M 107.8M 9.7M 16.4M CHC(3) 71.3M 87.6M 26.7M 43.5M CIN(2) 91.0M 91.8M 8.5M 9.9M HOU(2) 73.7M 89.3M 15.2M 31.2M LAD(1) 89.4M 92.9M 13.7M 17.6M MON(4) 83.5M 72.3M 36.8M 25.8M NYM(1) 98.8M 104.6M 10.4M 17.5M PHI(2) 102.0M 92.4M -7.4M -16.3M PIT(4) 89.5M 92.4M 9.8M 13.9M SD(3) 85.0M 75.4M 23.7M 14.8M SF(4) 80.9M 76.7M 19.9M 16.5M STL(3) 75.3M 84.6M 24.9M 35.3M Okay, that graphic doesn't appear as I would have wanted it, but the only thing that counts are the numbers. (Between parenthesis is the rank of the team at the end of that sim in 2k8) Column 1 is Projected Revenues in 2k4, April 1, 1970. Column 2 is Revenues, End of Season, Sim 2k8 Colum 3 is Projected Profits in 2k4, April 1, 1970 Column 4 is Profits, End of Season, Sim 2k8 That sim was done with revenues set at +100%. We can't go higher. But look at the results: they're quite close, and sometimes, they look almost identical. The teams that show the strongest variations, that can be explained by team performance (very good or very bad) in that particular sim. No team showed a final result anormaly different from their 2k4 projections. At least, not like 25M more or less in revenues or profits. I'd say that looks closer to me, at least, closer than some of what I've heard from some of you guys. Someone had told me that, even putting revenues at +100%, all teams were still losing money. I can't really guess why it is so, other than perhaps me running with a different patch than his. As to Scott's results using the same patch, I really wonder; how high were set League Revenues in League Editor in that sim or yours, Scott?
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Sept 10, 2007 5:30:45 GMT -5
Changing league revenue makes a huge differance and I am on V10.31.
Another stupid question. The AI still messes with my lineup ie. moving Chuck Hinton to 1st (he's a RF), moving Goosen to 3rd (he's a 1st baseman), etc.
I remember a discussion about this before but I don't remember the resolution.
Also has anyone else seen next to your player in lineup mode that he is "tired". I missed this one during the test runs.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 10, 2007 7:33:01 GMT -5
Alright, setting league revenue to +50% gets me back to a profit, although it is a small one.
I still am trying to figure out the difference between the test file and this one. In the test file, I could run up 20-30M in profits just like I was doing in 2k4 last season. So something is still not the same.
Maybe Rand will be able to tell us when he logs on.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Sept 10, 2007 7:39:13 GMT -5
When you open your team and look at predicted stats they are different then when you go to each player individually. I don't know if this matters to anyone or not?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 10, 2007 8:03:01 GMT -5
Following up on the revenue:
For a 100+ win Braves team:
Revenue in 2k4: 115M Revenue in 2k8 Test File: 119M
Revenue in 2k8 Official File: 95M
This is with League Revenue set at +50%
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 10, 2007 12:59:17 GMT -5
I moved revenue up to +80%.
Result: Revenue in 2k8 Test File using $29 tickets was 119M
Revenue in Real 2k8 File using $29 tickets was 114.7M
That is right around 115M in 2k4 last season. My loyalty has increased a bit, so techinally I should have more revenue, but I could probably do that by raising prices more on tickets.
One thing that is going to certainly change is the ticket prices. All teams will have to raise their prices.
I have not tested what happens after 1 season of using +80% revenue. That still needs to be done.
Also, at least from my players who are in their walk year: They are asking a lot more than they would have been asking for in 2k4. So people will need to take that into account when planning for their teams.
Let me know what you all think about the +80% Revenue, and what the affects are after 1 season.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Sept 11, 2007 7:40:22 GMT -5
I like the settings that Philly suggested in the other thread, that he uses as commissioner of another league. The +10% revenue helps some, maybe not quite enough, but the -30% salary demand setting will help more in the long run. I have untested and not-real-good rookies asking for $10M a year with the current setting.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 11, 2007 12:08:04 GMT -5
The problem with that is +10% gets us no where this season. I agree, that -30% salary demands is probably about right, but that will take time to really kick in.
+10% revenue may be the longterm answer, but I think we should start higher at around +90% revenue with -30% salary demands and work our way down each season on the revenue number to soften the blow.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 13, 2007 18:13:42 GMT -5
Alright guys,
We need more input on this subject so that Terry and Rand do not have to do it themselves when they get done with the file.
We are not on vacation here.
Set League Revenue to +90% and Salary Demands to -30%.
See if that gives you the same level of revenue and profit you would expect if we had continued in 2k4. That means you need to take into account your releases, resignings, and increased expenses if you have increased them.
Also, give any other thoughts or ideas. Right now, I would say +90% revenue and -30% salary demands which may enable us to decrease the revenue number every season, or maybe not. Hard to say.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Sept 14, 2007 11:39:51 GMT -5
I tried the revenue at +90 and salary demands at -30 and it seemed really close to what we had. I'll tell you one thing though, no matter what we do Philly is in deep DOO- DO - If they don't make the playoffs! Bottom line I think the +90 / -30 is the way to go ;D
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Sept 14, 2007 16:42:48 GMT -5
I agree it does seem close to what we had before, but.........what if we cut a bit deeper on salary demands and did away with the "home town discount"? That would seem to make sense, at least to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Sept 17, 2007 6:40:41 GMT -5
The +90/-30 seems a little bit too generous to me, but we can always adjust it in the future if necessary. I'd be happy to go forward with that.
|
|
|
Post by Philthydelphia on Sept 17, 2007 11:47:29 GMT -5
I thought we were cutting out the home town discounts anyway; we should, since we can now adjust salaries accross the board with one click.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 17, 2007 13:55:59 GMT -5
We just might. I will be looking into that later today. Things have been slower this week-end, but back to normal as of now.
Keep making comparisons between the 2k4 finances and the 2k8 finances so that together, our tests can cover a lot of "ground" and various possibilities. Even if we do have the possibility to adjust the levels in the future (although that's a good option, anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 17, 2007 19:44:58 GMT -5
I think getting rid of the hometown discount is a good idea given that we can control the salary demands now as Dave pointed out.
However, in order to do that, I would say go lower than -30% as that just got us back to our 2k4 levels before discount I think.
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Sept 19, 2007 15:02:37 GMT -5
have we come to a conclusion yet? seems like we have a lot of people agreeing that those settings work.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 19, 2007 16:23:40 GMT -5
We are nearingb that conclusion. Historical pitches are done for all pitchers, including free agents, and I can now concentrate on the finances.
Expect a pre-FA file to be released within the next 24 hours.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 19, 2007 23:15:57 GMT -5
Running tests early on, it looks like it's going to be either +80% or +90%. I'll continue to analyze the results I got with both.
If we only compare the projected revenues in the 2k8 with the projected revenues in the 2k4 (same date, same expenses, same ticket prices from one version to the other), the numbers do seem somewhat worrying. But if you run a sim with the 2k8 all the way to the end of regular season, the teams always make more money and profits than what they were projected to do in April.
Which leads me to this interrogation:
Do we want to match the 2k4 projected numbers by checking out the 2k8 April projections, or by simming and checking out the numbers after the regular season?
With what I've seen so far, we can't match the projected finances when looking at April in the 2k8. With league revenues set at +80%, two teams have better projections in the 2k8 than in the 2k4. Overall, teams are projected to do 8.6M less in the 2k8 set at +80% than in the 2k4.
But when simming until the playoffs, the numbers suddenly look a lot closer to what the 2k4 projections are. 8 teams finish with a little more profit than what they were projected (an average of 4M more per team). Out of those 8 teams, 3 finished 1st of its division, 2 finished 2nd, 2 finished 3rd and 1 finished 4th. Overall, teams make 3M less with revenues set at +80% in the 2k8 than they were projected to in the 2k4.
As for profits, 11 teams finish the 2k8 sim with more profits than projected in the 2k4. That supplemental profit ranged from a mere +300k to an extra 8.8M. On the other hand, teams who did less profit than originally projected in the 2k4 engine had a range of -800k to -14.2M, although I do have to point out that the -14.2M variation was recorded by the team that is already the most unstable financially. Overall, the profits averaged a variation of 2M in profits compared to 2k4 projections.
Of course, those numbers are affected by at least two factors: 1) team performances in the sim run in the 2k8 and 2) ticket prices. Those were identical from one game version to the other (adjusted for playoffs teams), but some teams will be able to sell their tickets a lot higher than they did in 2k4, so there's a lot of room for adjustment there. In general, the teams showing the most negative difference in revenues and profits are the ones giving away their tickets and filling their stadium all season long (50,000).
Running sims with revenues set at +90% show slightly different numbers. Teams show a negative projection of 5.8M (it was 8.6M at +80%) in revenues. Profit-wise, 12 teams now make more profit after a 2k8 sim than they were projected in the 2k4, but one team showed a anemic -100k difference which could easily become a profit by raising their tickets. The average difference between 2k4 projected revenues and 2k8 simmed revenues were of a mere -600k. That's actually pretty close. The average variation of profit, at revenues set at +90%, is of only +250k when compared with the 2k4 projections.
Of the 12 teams making less profits than projected:
- 4 are the expansion teams, which are all giving away their tickets - 5 more teams show variations ranging from -100k to -3M - 1 team was a 2k4 division winner that finished 4th in the 2k8 sim - 1 team isn't selling its tickets at the right price and is having a sellout every game - 1 team is already standing on thin ice financially.
So, it appears that by playing around with ticket prices, those 12 teams can turn in the same kind of profit they were projected in the 2k4.
I would need to run tests with revenues set at +100%, but I doubt they will show closer results than what I have got with the revenues set at +90%.
What I need is to hear from you guys is any input that would help concerning this issue.
I'm now off to check out where to set salary demands. More on that particular aspect later on.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 19, 2007 23:36:01 GMT -5
I would say we are definately looking at the end of season runs. Projected profits are almost always way off. They were even off in 2k4.
And I agree with the +90%, obviously. I think it puts us right where we need to be financially right now. The 12 teams that are struggling a bit will be able to fix things IMO as well by just messing with ticket prices, except for the one that is standing on thin ice financially.
Salary demands will be a little trickier I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Sept 19, 2007 23:43:12 GMT -5
Salary demands will be a little trickier I believe. As I am currently working on that, I would say that the expression "a little" is somewhat of an understatement! Boy, this is going to be a lot more complicated than I expected it to be. So far, I have compared 3 types of re-signing players: pre-peak minor leaguer, in-peak position player and in-peak pitcher. In one case, the demands are 500k higher with salary demands set at -50%. In another case, the 2k8 demands are closer to the 2k4 demands for the same player when they are set at -20%. In my 3rd case so far, it's getting dramatic. The player asks for 8.6M annually in the 2k4, and with the demands set at EVEN (+0%) in the 2k8, I get a very different 7.5M. Anybody likes puzzles?!
|
|