Subject: I.1

I have several ideas, but some of them make people angry. So I'll just stick with player salaries for now

I did some work with canucks357 to figure out player salaries (him) and their progression (me). It looks bad. Maybe we are off by a bit, but it would have to be off by a drastic amount to change my feelings. I tried to make the salary as high as possible by tweaking the effect of popularity & experience and it still gave me stupid results. Basically, player salaries won't pass staff salaries until they have over 3,000 OR. Even if we're completely wrong and it's only 2,000 OR, that's still miles away.

Let me know if you want to see the math.

I've been saying that staff salaries are way too high since the game began. Glad that your calculation proves that I'm right.

Somewhere Leonard Nimoy just said "Fascinating" without even knowing why.

I'd say post the math just so the devs can see it, but honestly who thinks they don't already know? It'd make for an interesting read at the very least.

I actually like that staff salaries are too high. I want player salaries to go higher sooner. It would be boring if everyone could afford everything.

Onto the guesstimations This is pretty preliminary stuff. vlady couldn't help us, so canucks357 tried his darnedest to figure out how player salaries are calculated. He came up with a formula to get close (HA^2 * 0.1 for I.1 leagues), but there were too many variables to get anything better. And we got bored. You then have to add some % for exp/popularity and 25% for foreigners. Anyway. This was my lost post on the subject:

Okay. It looks like 250 might be the max AI according to some people in the Intl Q&A. So. Assume max pull in max facilities. I'm going to start with 500 OR. And I'm only dropping 10% for each CL, which we know isn't true for 3/6. The OR listed next to the age is the OR at the beginning of that season. That means when the 15yo turns 16, he will already have 750 OR. So this is max OR from max SA, max OR gained per season in maxed facilities with maxed coaches/physios/SDs, maxed CL, max exp and max pop, all training camps and no injuries. Yep. This would be the best player ever.

I'm adding 33% for high exp/pop. And 25% for foreigners. The older players will probably make more based on higher experience, while the younger players a bit less. But it's close enough for me

Age OR & CL (Highest Attribute ### - 0.1*h_atty^2 salary - domestic+exp/pop(+33%) - foreign(+25%)+exp/pop(+33%))
15yo 500OR & 6/6 (HA 200- 4,000 - 4,000(no exp/pop) - 5,000(no exp/pop))
+ 250 x 4 = 1000
19yo 1500 OR & 5/6 (HA 600 - 36,000 - 48,000 - 60,000)
+ 225 x 4 = 900
23yo 2400 OR & 4/6 (HA 960 - 92,160 - 122,573 - 153,216)
+ 200 x 4 = 800
27yo 3200 OR & 3/6 (HA 1280 - 163,840 - 217,907 (+10% 240k) - 272,384 (+10% 324k))

Player salaries won't pass staff salaries until the players are ridiculously good, have great exp/pop, and are 27 years old. If you take a 15yo from this season and give him everything he needs to be the best that he can be, he will cost more than his coach in 12 seasons. Or four years

Worst case: 325K x 20 skaters = 6.5M per day, 728M per season. Plus 850 in other expenses = 1.575B in expenses.
Realistically, the top of the top starters might average 250k. That's 5M per day, 560M per season. Plus other expenses gets us up to 1.41B.
-----

That was the end of our experiments. I think canucks got frustrated with it. He does think that overall OR also has some effect. So maybe, hopefully, dear god please, make higher OR players cost more money. But it can't be much of an effect based on the salaries of players we know.

It certainly isn't perfect, but it's not too far off either. I have a player with very little experience who just renewed. His real salary is only 5% higher than what canucks' formula would guess.

When we were working on this a few months ago, I sent an email to Leggmann with some guesses on a handful of his players' salaries. It was off by +-5% on a few, but 10% too low on the really experienced guys. Which was actually expected.

Even if we are off, it's not going to be too much. Korey Buckley is one of the top *** players at the most expensive position (goalies only train 3 attributes) and my guess is he's getting 65-70k in his next contract (depending on how much exp/pop affect salary). His coach is making 200K.

I'm not sure increasing player salaries will necessarily fix the money problem Leggmann mentioned on the previous page. It seems it might create a bigger divide between the haves and have nots, as the top teams who have all their facilities built still have nothing to spend money on but players and staff, while newer teams have to buy everything. It seems like that could also make it take longer to compete if you weren't around from the start since you can't afford the same quality players you once could.

It seems the real problem is finding a money sink for the top rung teams. If you really do think player salaries should be raised then the best way to do it is to raise it exponentially. Just make it so the bottom and mid-range salaries increase slightly to make more sense with coaching salaries and the top-tier guys should then eat up significantly more of that extra cash than they are. The top talent in the world should be paid like it; it makes no sense that their coaches out-earn them by such a large margin when there are tons of equally skilled coaches out there.

Allow facilities to go to 20 or more

Instead of bumping up all salaries, Charge a premuium for players who are in the top 5 percent in the world in their posiyion or charge more for guys on national tyeams
That would affect me more than the lower tier teams

If they increase facilities to level 20, than it would take another 10 years to catch you guys.

Isn't allowing facilities to go to 20+ really just delaying the issue?

obviously.

This definitely wouldn't fix the money problem. I was only discussing player salaries, their relation to staff salaries, and PPM's assertion that they would meet at some point. Leggmann's ideas of higher salaries only for the top 5% (raise it to 10%!) would be a good start.

I do have other ideas that I think could help the economy, but I don't have time to get into that right now. I'll give you a teaser though. Obryantj said it would 'ruin the game!'

He's just nervous because my goal is to make it harder to stay on top, and he's a top dog in soccer.

As long as in-game success is rewarded with in-game advantages, a positive feedback loop will exist which pushes those who do well early to the top, and then keeps them there.

The only way to fix that fundamental issue is the way the few fair real-life professional sports do it - every team operates with the same resources, and success is rewarded outside the game (typically with money and fame). Now figure out how to do that in PPM...

Easier said than done. In every sport game i played online, always teams who started from day one,were not possible to chase down.

How about this for a start?

At the end of each season...
1st places loses 50% OTR.
2nd place loses 40%.
3rd & 4th place lose 35%.
5th & 6th lose 30%.
7th & 8th lose 27%.
9th & 10th lose 23%.
11th & 12th lose 20%

My objective was to make it hard to stay on top. It's not really fair, and it will piss off some people, but I think it would be a lot more fun for a lot more people.

13-16th lose 30% if they relegate, and 15% if they survive. That'll make people want to stay up, yes? Promoting teams only lose 15%. If you finish in 2nd and don't promote, yep, you lose 40%. I'm trying to make people want to survive/promote.