Subject: Creating a think tank

A good idea.

So according to you, I should have been benching my best players to lose out on my win bonus during the regular season, and potentially home ice advantage in the playoffs (which is HUGE if there were any game 3s since my arena is maxed). Failing that, you're saying I should have instead played VL in the playoffs and suffered the hits to attendance (that are actually pretty steep). I played N against The Space Pirates to his VH and still eon. Your proposals are basically saying my options are to lose money now, lose money now, or make a little more money and then lose money. Have you ever promoted and demoted? I have, multiple times. Each time I demoted I made less than the season I ended up promoting. Not the season in the higher division, the season before that.

No. I have never promoted and demoted. Because I don't promote if I can't compete.

And no... I'm not saying that you need to throw away your win bonus. If you played a bunch of 900 OR guys, you would still walk through 75% of division III teams on even VL energy. So maybe you lose 4-8 games against the other good teams in your league. And you finish in 4th or 5th instead of 1st in the regular season.

You miss out on maybe $10-20 million altogether on sponsorship bonuses and prize money bonuses. Is that not less than you're missing out on 1 season later after getting crushed in division II and relegated back to division III?

As far as home ice advantage in the playoffs go, I have absolutely no idea why that is relevant. If your goal is to NOT PROMOTE, then why do you need home ice advantage in the playoffs?

If anything, that makes it easier to not promote.

And like I said before... if you were to play the ENTIRE regular season on VH energy, you would probably finish the regular season in the top 2-3, even with the "lessor lineup." But by the time you get to the playoffs, you won't even have to play on VL to win games. You could probably lose easily on normal and not worry about the attendance factor. Anyways... if you're using a lessor team, all season, and you're playing an opponent that is "2x better," there probably won't be an attendance penalty for playing them on low anyways.

*shrug*

So yeah, I guess I'm saying that maybe you miss out on some short term benefit/cash by doing this, but you maintain a quality OTR, and still likely finish in the top 4 of the regular season AND playoffs. And you don't demote a season later and lose half your sponsorship money.

All I'm saying is, nobody forced you to promote. if you didn't want to, you had options.


Consider: My hockey team has lost 9 times in my last 94 games. I've finished 1st in the regular season and second in the playoffs in each of the last two seasons, AND I HAVE NOT PROMOTED. Of the 9 games that I lost, 4 were in the playoff finals, and 4 were in the promotion matches.

This season, my general sponsorship contract is worth $180million. I have absolutely no idea how that compares to division II or other teams in division III, but 11+ million per week is good enough for me. How much bonus/prize money do you think I'm really missing out on by doing this strategy? Probably not that much.

There's a funny scenario in my head where every division II team realizes they don't have a chance at competing at the next level, so they compete with each other to field the absolute worst team they possibly can.

Yay competitiveness!

It reminds me of an episode of South Park.

In any case, I think the the Detroit Red Wings will not have any problem sticking around in II.3. They might even sneak into the 8th playoff spot with some luck.

Well, my proposed solution (the 2nd to last post on page 4 of this thread) would fix the whole system.

The reason that newer teams can't be competitive is because the existing teams have such an entrenched advantage.

Make the entrenched teams have to pay more money (than they do now) to stay that way, and you'll see most of them melt away and become shadows of their former selves. I honestly think very few teams will be able to maintain all facilities at level 15 AND keep their best players under the system I suggest.

I mean consider that in order to have even 4 facilities at level 15 under my proposal, you'll essentially have to pay roughly $600,000,000 every 119 days. That's a tough thing to do.

What's more likely is that teams will have their primary 4 facilities (TF, REGEN, HR, SA) in the lvl 13-14 range and others at lvl 10. If someone wanted to have a level 15 TF or SA, they would probably have to compromise by having much lower training and HR facilities (and vice versa).

I like how in addition to acting as a balancing mechanic in the long run, it also allows managers to somewhat customize their team (Because really... what's the difference between 1 maxed out team and the next? nothing).

You haven't looked at team strength in the league, have you? These 4 games are the best I'll do all season.

Lanky, if you want to hang around League III, no problem. But there is no way you should make more money who works hard to promote to League II and makes less money than you. It's crazy. It's like paying for failing. This game should enable you to play in league III for as long as you desire and that will be satisfactory for you, great. However, 99% of the managers here want to compete and move up the ladder as they manage their team. Now if you get more money for just coasting and some poor bastard puts the time, effort, and creative thinking into his team and he promotes.....he should be rewarded with more money. If this person continues to put in the time, effort, creativity, he will move up the ladder. That is the whole point of the game......are my tactics, etc as a manger better than you. That is what competing is all about. Do you build through youth, do you build your facilities, do buy seasoned vets......mixture of all. The different managers compete with each other to basically advance if they are a better manager. They should be rewarded and move up the ladder. But under the system now, it pays to log in once a day, do nothing and a team makes more money than someone who really puts his time in. How is that fair? If you want to lounge around in the lower leagues, you are right, you are not hurting anyone.......but you should not be profiting from it. In your world, the guys who puts in the greatest effort gets punished because he competed. That is baloney. If I beat you, shouldn't I be given some preference? I am a better team......why should I be punished? If we changed the financial structure, it would not harm you, you could still lounge about as you wish. However, if a dynamic manager makes some smart deals, out thinks a team in strategies, uses his player energy wisely and promotes to a division of stronger teams.......why on earth would he get paid less than you? What is the point of the game? The best part of a game like this is to overcome adversity, like a late bloomer as you, and compete with teams that have been here longer. To do that, I would pay you more money for your efforts and you can continue to compete with teams at the next higher level, not be held down against teams already there. You will need all the help you can get when you promote to stay in that league. Meanwhile, you should be still happy in League III not harming anyone. Works for everybody. You earn your right to promote to the highest levels, it is not handed to you for little effort. All I'm saying is, the teams should be paid for what they accomplish in a year and that means moving up. This would not hurt you but would help those who prefer to compete. When or if you decide to compete, you would have the same road to success.

First of all, with what you're suggesting over the course of the season, it makes WAY more sense to sell the best players than to have them ride the pine while the inferior guys play. Otherwise you're just wasting money paying salaries of guys you basically never intend to put on the ice. Alternatively, I could have used more energy during the regular season unnecessarily as you briefly alluded to. If anything, THAT'S where I screwed up if the intention was not to promote.

However, home ice advantage, and a deep playoff run, contribute pretty well to my income. Not for sponsorship considerations or even OTR, but immediately. As I mentioned previously, my arena is maxed. That apparently didn't quite convey my point, so here are some figures. A sell-out crowd nets me $8 million in ticket sales and about $1.5 million in souvenir sales. Add on the win bonus I had last season, and a sell-out home win would bring in about $11 million. So if I won game 1 at home, lost game 2 on the road, and won game 3 at home, that's $22 million in income instead of $15 million ($11 million for home win + $1.5 million win bonus for game 2 + avg $1.5 million income for friendly game). Over 3 rounds, that's about $21 million in extra revenue just for playing 3 games instead of 2 each round.

Now, all this aside... does anyone else notice here how we're focusing on the economic factors as a reason NOT to promote? This is the main argument I've been making the whole time. You have specifically chosen not to promote because it financially doesn't support your strategy of building your infrastructure first (also my strategy). Again, why does the game not push you to do your best and stay in a higher league? Instead, it rewards teams who purposefully stay lower and beat up on easier teams by placing too much emphasis on OTR.

So. Much. Text. Me. No. Read.

tldr:

Incentivize promoting further: yes or no?

I already submitted a proposal how to change PPM economics. Once my coursework for this semester is done (Wednesday) I will write a program to illustrate, once again, how this can and would work.

Last time I did this they changed OTR to have a league-level basis built in. Prior to that low-level leagues got a similar OTR bump to high-level leagues if OTSs were similar.

Dear god. I'm sorry, but next time can you please use paragraphs? I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but that's a HUGE block of text.

Let's address each point separately though.

1)

You suggest that i'm "failing" because I'm not advancing, and the other guy is "succeeding" because he does. You and I clearly have very different ideas of what success and failure are.

I have patiently optimized my income, and minimized my expenses, and I have essentially an entire team of guys who will be around 1000 OR by the time they are 24 or so. I got these players for pennies, because I bought them young. By that point (3-4 seasons from now), my arena will be close to maxed out, and my important facilities will be around 13 or 14.

Compare that to a team that buys a bunch of expensive (in terms of either market cost or by daily upkeep) older players on the market, limiting the amount he can spend on facilities and arena... This player rockets up to division II, still gets creamed, and gives up (leaving his team for dead).

Who is the success and who is the failure?

2)

I actually take offense to the fact that you suggest that I'm just coasting.

Every decision I make is carefully thought out and considered. The decision not to advance is not one based off of laziness or "coasting." It is a strategic decision not unlike a manager who sells all of his best, old players and starts to rebuild.

As I've indicated before, it actually takes effort to not only win games and maximize your income, but also NOT PROMOTE. Far more effort in fact than promoting would take.

Were I truly "coasting," I would promote, relegate, promote, relegate, over and over again.

Any chimpanzee with a keyboard and a mouse can go to the market, spend all of his money on expensive players, and promote into division II for a season or two. That's not strategy or management.

Who's putting in more effort? Someone who spends 7 seasons meticulously building their team's infrastructure up from nothing? Or someone who goes to the market, buys some players and wins a few games, then quits?

3)

There's absolutely no way (no mathematical no logistical no theoretical way) that you can increase what the people at the bottom of division II make without increasing what the people at the top make.

So what's the solution? Give everyone more money? Sure you're rewarding managers for getting into higher divisions, but you're rewarding the already extremely rich teams that have been around forever as well. In the end, nothing changes. It's a null net effect.

4)

I think that my sponsors appreciate that I've grown my arena and infrastructure, established a great young core of players that will continue to grow with time, and preformed amazingingly at my league level.

If i were a sponsor, I'd be much happier to see that than see a team blow all my money on old players that won't get him anywhere in 2 seasons.

--------

You and I have fundamentally different views on what success in this game is. But you know what? Your view comes from an ivory tower atop division I.1 as someone who has been playing since season 1. You could've been on autopilot this whole time, and by virtue of starting before most of the people here, you'd still be one of the best teams in division I.1 and/or II.

So to be quite frank, I resent that you're judging me for my thought out strategy, discipline, and patience. You haven't been in the situation of starting 11 seasons after everyone else. So I'm not sure you really have any room to talk.

You and I actually have pretty much the exact same strategy. I don't know if you've ever looked at my team, and how long some of my players have been around, but outside of you successfully avoiding promotion, we're on the same page in looking at long term plans in hockey. I was screwed out of that in soccer when PPM forced me to II.1, but I digress.

1.) You're adding a theoretical portion to a very real situation. Not everyone who follows the roster first, infrastructure second method gives up on their team in Division II like you suggest. Also, if you do want to assume that happens frequently, what about all the players in III and IV who log in a few times (or only once) and give up on their team because they realize it will take them real-life years to catch the people at the top?

You say you're fine coasting, and I am too for a while. But why are you coasting? Because it supports your long term plan of being able to compete in I.1. You try to brush it off, but there's no way you're setting your team up like this to play in III for as long as you play the game, even as your infrastructure maxes out.

2.) You and I are/were coasting. Because the game financially rewards us for doing so. Supporting the status quo is like saying an AHL team should make more money than a NHL team. Should the Texas Stars make more money than the Edmonton Oilers or the New York Islanders or the Buffalo Sabres? You choose to stay in III and that's fine, but you shouldn't be able to make more than someone who manages to stay in II. Heck, why does someone who tried to compete in II and fails have to make less than you? You are actively trying to avoid a challenge. Again, I understand why you're doing this 100%. Does that mean it's how things should be? Absolutely not; it completely ruins the spirit of the game.

3.) You absolutely do NOT have to give money to the top teams. If anything, they would make less or see no change. Hopefully OTR is affected more too. I have no clue how you came to this conclusion.

4.) Yes, success should be rewarded. But at some point your sponsors should schedule a meeting and ask why you have all the components to succeed and continually fall short. You're the San Jose Sharks. The fans should be wise to your shenanigans by now.