Assunto: Creating a think tank

How do the Texas Stars compare to the Tampa Bay Lightning? How does Burnley compare to Stoke City?

I can understand if a bottom 4 team makes less money than a top team from a division under them. But there there is no reason for a middle of the pack D1 team to make less money than a top tier DII team. Hell, Canucks even posted recently that he made less money after MAKING THE PLAYOFFS in I.1 than he did finishing at the top of whatever DII league he was in. That does not even come close to making sense whatsoever.

So just to be clear, you're saying that the average teams in the top divisions should make more money? Or that the great teams that are lagging behind should make less?

I don't understand how either scenario results in more balance or fairness for players who start later in the game. Perhaps you can explain how this would do anything other than make the already very good teams even richer?

I mean honestly... if you want to make money in this game, you have to excel at whatever level you are in. If you want competition, then you have to be in the highest league possible.

You can't always have everything. I don't know why that's a problem.

It's a problem because there is no incentive for me to promote. Why should I? You say for the increased competition, but who will I compete with? The bottom half teams? There's no way for me to compete with the top teams, they'll make way too much money, but maybe I can fight for 9th and the opportunity to lose millions of dollars! Oh boy!

Again, I'm not saying that top DII teams should be punished, but teams that finish 6-14 in DI should be rewarded for their success at the highest level of competition.

I guess I still don't see the problem.

In my opinion, you should only try to promote if you can actually compete at the higher level and finish in playoff position. If not, stay in division II... or III (where ever you are where you can actually do well).

I don't understand why this is such an issue for you. It seems like common sense to me. What team (in any sport, at any level) switches into a league where they don't have a chance in hell at competing? That just never happens.

If a team does advance to a higher conference, and bombs out... that's kind of their own fault right? I mean this is a manager game. Not knowing the strength (or weakness) of your own team just sounds like poor management to me.

Besides all that. Using handball as an example... assume I promote from division II.1 to division I.1 this season and then finish dead last in the regular season and playoffs in division I.1 next season (and immediately relegate).

I'd get at least $10,955,122 for finishing at least 2nd overall in this season's II.1 playoffs. I'd get $37,393,482 for advancing into division I.1. Theoretically, I'd get a higher sponsorship contract because I advanced to a higher division. This is hard to quantify, but it's also a factor.

Then next season, I only get $7,536,130 x 2 in prize money for finishing in last place in the regular season and the playoffs. That's about what I'd get for finishing in 5th place in II.1 regular season and playoffs, and about $6-$8M less than if I finished 1st in division II.1 regular season and playoffs.

So cumulatively, I'm still probably +$30M or so. If my sponsorship was $10-15M more because I promoted, i could be +40-45M at this point.

So unless my sponsorship bonus sees a $40-45M reduction when I relegate, I'm still probably coming out ahead.

IF HOWEVER, I don't relegate, and I stay in division I.1, it'll probably take me at least 2-3 seasons of below average performance (and therefore lower OTR gains) to lose all of the advantage that I'm getting (and have gotten) from the relatively higher prize moneys and promotion bonus.

There are times where you simply can't avoid promotion. My team was too strong for III.7 and is barely on the radar in II.3. I had no choice but to promote. Making roster improvements isn't in the plan this season, though I would have to in order to avoid relegating.

There are very few teams capable of sticking around in I.1 in the long term, mostly the oldest teams that have done well (the good newer teams have much weaker facilities and arenas - they may or may not make enough money to continue to replace their players on the market).

The goal should be to promote. Getting 5 wins in I.1 is more impressive than getting 30 wins in II.x or getting 38 wins in III.y.

With that said, I lost at least $6 million per week in combined sponsors after demoting last season. I think I should be able to continue selling out my arena after a few weeks, but that is another concern.

sorry. no dice.

had you wanted to avoid promoting, you absolutely could have.

all you had to do was play the "lower half" of your lineup (that is, if you sort by OR, play the guys at the bottom instead of the top) through the regular season.

Then when you play them in playoffs, you don't get penalized for playing a lower rated lineup.

To further decrease your team strength (if you still found yourself winning too many games), you could play a wing/center/defender as your goalie. Or you could play the entire season on VH intensity (leaving your guys exhausted by the time the playoffs get there).

Even outside of that, you can play VL in the playoffs with no penalty whatsoever if you choose.

In my opinion, you easily could have lost to the space pirates, and probably Typhoon in the promotion match.

-----

Now we can have a whole discussion about whether these alternative strategies (exploits) should be part of the game. But that's neither here nor there.

If you really wanted to stay in division III, you could have.

I have not advanced to a higher division in any sport without it absolutely being my intent.

At that's exactly my point. That $6million is pennies compared to the extra money you likely got from being (even an average team) in division I.1 and promoting a few seasons before.

So I don't see the problem.

As far as "the goal being to promote..."

Why? Why should that be the goal?

If someone wants to just develop their facilities and arena (think Civilization, or hell... think Farmville), why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

Sure, to some people... the games/matchups/competition is why they are here... And the facilities/arena upgrades are a means to an end (an end where their team can be more competitive).

I on the other hand, primarily enjoy the strategy, building, planning, management aspect of the game. To me, the competition is a means to an end (an end where I can build more stuff if I win more games).

Just because some people might think the central purpose is to promote, doesn't mean that all people think that.

What's wrong with having it set up so that both types of people can gain enjoyment out of the game?

honestly... the problems in these managers are WELL outside the realm of "i don't get enough money for doing poorly in a higher division."

Until PPM addresses how to make the system competitive for newer managers, nothing else really matters much at all. Because unless you started on day 1 of the first season, you'll never be able to compete against those who did.

That's the real problem.

Giving teams marginally more money for doing well in a higher league won't fix any part of that issue.

Pennies? I lost at least 6*16=96. I have enough money to upgrade two facilities, assuming I spend nothing on players, but I almost had more money than I could spend last season (relative to the level of my important facilities that needed to be upgraded at the time).

The endgame is to promote. It just happens that my team is currently a division II/division I tweener caliber team.

I do enyjoy building my arena and facilities. I've focused on it for maybe 10 seasons in hockey and soccer while sometimes being lucky enough to make it into I.1. My soccer team is even somewhat competitive in I.1 this season. I just don't care what league my team plays in while I continue to build facilities.

In fact, once I maximize my facilities in a few seasons and save a lot of money, I will probably sell a lot of my players and start to play younger players with more potential and access to better facilities. My team will be much weaker for a while, but like the Bombsville Atomics, it will be stronger in the long run.

Aha... I missed the "per week" part.

How much money were you making in season 16 (when you were in II.1) in hockey?

Comparing what you make now with what you made in division I.1 last year doesn't make much sense. You have to compare what you make now with what you made when you were last in division II.

But anyways... this is a think tank right?

So on the topic of how to "fix hockey" and make it worth something. it's pretty easy actually.

Like stupid easy.

Add depreciation/deterioration.

It would work as follows:
- For facility levels 1-10, there is no deterioration.
- For facility levels level 11 and above, facilities deteriorate at the same rate as construction for their current level. If construction isn't started in time, it "deteriorates" (IE. your facility goes -1).

EXAMPLE:
Say you complete a level 12 TF. It took 77 days to build it right? So if you don't begin construction on a level 13 TF within 77 days, your level 12 TF becomes a level 11. This continues to happen if further action isn't taken (you'd have 65 days from the day that your TF became level 11 to rebuild it to level 12).

This gives managers that have been around since day 1 (and have maxed all their facilities), something that they need to watch, take care of. It also forces teams to spend money on facilities even after they've "finished building everything up" rather than just dumping large sums of cash on free agents (their own, or those on the market).

It makes it nearly impossible for any team to have any competitive advantage in the longer term (regardless of when they started playing).

Easy, simple solution. Should've been part of the game since day 1.

I'm not really sure, but I think it was about the same, maybe slightly less. I remember that my media sponsor was really bad. With that said, I was in I.1 3 seasons ago, and I had a much weaker arena 4 seasons ago in II.2 (I just need to promote and demote into II.4 now). I think my general sponsor is probably about the same as in II.2.

A better team to compare with would be the HC Sterling Cheetahs, Updog Brewers, or the Slatington Serpents.

I definitely gained some extra money by promoting to I.1. I suppose that I can't say how that compares to the money lost from getting ~15 fewer wins in I.1.

I definitely got more money after promoting to division II. The teams that were a challenge to beat in III.1 have lagged far behind the ones from III.1 that promoted sooner.