Тема: Creating a think tank

Lanky's idea would make it harder for teams that profit off of training players to continue to profit, since a lot of that profit would be redirected to facility upkeep. On the other hand, a team with level 10 facilities would still have trouble earning money from players, but would lose significantly less money from maintaining facilities.

This would also decrease the amount of elite players on the market, though the demand for elite players is very inelastic anyway.

Many of the lower tiers of players would then become less prevalent, since the current level 13 teams would end up producing level x<13 players, and the level 14 teams would end up producing level 13 players. This would increase the value of the lower tier n players so that they would sell like the non-elite tier n+1 players do now, leaving the net effect of diminished money on the market from the better teams from heavily taxing better facilities, depending on how everything is balanced.

Of course, this might heavily discourage investment in facilities, especially the HR facility. It's one thing to get the best players that you can't get without good facilities, it's another to invest in facilities that cost more than their benefit. The level of the average facility might heavily tend towards level n (teams either can easily build to level n or struggle to build beyond it) while fewer elite teams might be able to exceed it. Too much parity might be a problem.

In another game, player prices are regulated by caps to prevent the price of players from skyrocketing and floors to prevent the non-elite players from becoming worthless. Of course, there have been severe problems with the market due to this system, making non-elite players extremely difficult to sell for more than the floor, but it is at least an approach to the problem of inflating player costs.

Sorry for the delay. I had something typed up, but I was out all day today.

Here you go:

--------------------------------------------------
Proposal to create lasting balance and competition
--------------------------------------------------

Suggestion: Add facility deterioration

Summary of proposed changes:
- Facility levels 1-10 would continue to function as they currently do.
- Facility levels 11-15 will be somewhat reclassified as "bonus facilities," and will operate under slightly different rules, which we'll call "deterioration rules."

How it would work:
- For facility levels 1-10, there is no deterioration. Once you spend money to build them, you have them forever (unless you demolish them manually yourself)
- For facility levels level 11 and above, facilities "deteriorate" at a rate equal to the time it took to construct the current level. If construction of the next level isn't started during this time period, the facility "deteriorates" (loses 1 level), and the cycle begins again.

EXAMPLE
Assume you've just completed construction on a level 12 Training Facility. It took 77 days of construction to build it. So the day it finishes, a 77 day timer starts. If you don't begin construction on a level 13 TF within 77 days of the completion of your level 12 TF, your level 12 TF reverts to a level 11 facility. This continues to happen if further action isn't taken (you'd have 65 days from the day that your TF reverts to level 11 to start construction on level 12, or it would again drop from level 11 to level 10).

Level 10 will be the "worst" scenario for anyone who has built their facilities beyond that point. Since facilities only deteriorate (lose levels) if they are level 11 or above, once facilities deteriorate to level 10, they will stop deteriorating.

Theory behind proposal:
- This change gives managers that have been around since day 1 of season 1, who maxed out all of their facilities long ago, an additional thing that they need to "manage" and plan for.
- This allows newer managers to much more effectively "catch up" because the established managers will have to spend TONS of money to keep their facilities significantly above level 10 in order to keep their competitive advantage.
- It creates even more difficult end-game decisions
- It allows for more team customization/uniqueness (quite possibly the "coolest" feature in my opinion).
If you look at one team that has maxed facilities, it is no different from any other. They scout at the same rate, have similar training levels, similar rookie prospects, etc.

The proposed system would instead encourage teams to focus on what they need/want.
Teams that are pushing for success might establish very good training and medical facilities. But by doing so... perhaps their Sports Academy reverts back to level 10, diminishing the quality of young players that they get.

A rebuilding team however, might allow their Regeneration and HR facilities to decline, instead preferring to keep their TF and SA high.
Any way you slice it, there will be more managerial decisions for EVERY team (new and old) to make.

Compromises:
If the deterioration as it is proposed above is deemed "too punitive" there are ways to alter the system while keeping the larger intent in tact.
- The number of days required before a facility drops can be increased/decreased.
- Money can be given when facilities drop (similar to how half of the construction cost is given when managers manually dismantle their own facilities).
- The cost schedule of the higher level facilities could be altered from it's current levels. If managers are going to be building/rebuilding endlessly, the very high level facilities might not need to cost as much as they currently do.

There's numerous other avenues/compromises/changes that work within the proposed framework.

Conclusion:
The most frustrating thing for any manager who starts playing these games is that unless you start very early on (season 1-3), you will likely never be able to compete against the teams who did (at the very least it would probably take YEARS in order for you to be truly competitive in any lasting way).

The above proposal completely breathes new life into the aging manager games... effectively making every game on PPM accessible to new managers, and again challenging the older/established managers.

I think HR would still be pretty important. HR Dept (in addition to the arena) is your money making headquarters. I'd imagine that the difference in sponsorship deals between a team with a level 10 HR department and a level 13 HR department is substantial.

Not to mention that HR Dept. is what determines how accurate your draft scouting is. So for teams that are trying to rebuild/expand their quality of youth, I'd think HR would be pretty important as well.

I think that leaving ANY facility (even maintenance or medical center) at level 10 for a substantial period of time could have very real, measurable consequences for elite teams.

While I completely understand that having an additional money sink for the established powers might be unpopular, I think that it'll all balance itself out.

Because the thing is, teams won't be making any more money than they do right now. If anything they might make less (if their HR facility plummets back to level 10). But their expenses will shift.

To me, that means that teams won't be able to spend a billion $ to grab free agents because doing so would likely absolutely cripple their facilities. I agree with whoever else said that free agent prices will likely actually come down.

Sure, it would probably take a few seasons to really start seeing the effects. Teams that have built up vast wealth will gradually spend through their savings trying to keep their facilities up. After that, I think it would make for a really dynamic endgame.

I would suggest diminishing the effect of the depreciation on the HR department, maybe the maintenance, medical, and education facilities as well. At the very least, the maintenance costs for a high level HR department shouldn't exceed the benefit or diminish the benefit so much that it takes forever to realize the benefit.

I'm sure this has been mentioned at some point in this game's lifetime, but what do you think about a rolling salary cap? Say that league I has a salary cap of $400,000 per day, league II is $300,000, league III is $200,000, and league IV is $100,000. Then based on the nation's average rating it could increase the next season or stay the same. It would give a new aspect to management and help to keep teams from being overly "stacked" with talent. Also, for teams (especially brand new managers like myself) who do not hit the salary cap, there could be a daily "league grant" that gives say 50% of the unfulfilled salary cap to the qualifying team. This would help new teams upgrade arenas and facilities. What I am seeing is that everyone who has posted has an interest in being competitive at the top level, but there is a strategy of when that can happen. It starts with getting finances in line, and then you can either spend a lot of money on the market to be able to compete, or max out facilities and raise players on your own, which will take many more season. A grant like this could help to expedite that process.

If you don't like that idea, here's another. What if division I teams could use division II, III, and IV as minor league teams. It is not a requirement for any team, but would come with benefactors to each end. The league I team would be able to call up/send down players to their farm team(s) at a moment's notice. The farm teams would be able to sign a monetary contract based on arena ticket sales. Say they receive 10% (perhaps this figure is negotiable between players) of the ticket sales from the division I team. Division II and III managers could then feel as if they are part of something bigger while still progressing their team until the point where they might break off from being a farm team and attempt a push to be an major league team. For the division I teams, they can play division II or III players or can train their players at the division II or III facilities.

If there's anything you like in this, let's talk it out and see if we can propose a universally sound idea to the developers.

A salary cap of some sort would add an interesting dimension.

10% of my ticket sales would be almost $1,000,000 per home league game. Related to the second idea, the ability to loan players for a season to another team (sepcifically the elite prospects that aren't good enough to start and therefore do not gain any experience) would be great. This would help older teams get more experience to their players while helping newer teams to be more competitive.

I knew I liked you*! I've been thinking a salary cap could be useful for a while. I've wanted to come up with a suggestion on loaning players, as it can benefit both sides, but haven't been able to come up with a fair proposal. When I get some time, I'll see if I can look at it more.

*Not to say I specifically dislike anyone.

The biggest concern with a salary cap is just how big of a change it could be. It would likely be something that would need to be applied to all sports current and up and coming. Also, it would have to be done tactfully. It would probably take a full season to implement just by sending out reminders to all managers that a salary cap will be implemented in the next season, and letting us know which figure we cannot supersede. That way managers can be planning in advance which players they will let go once the salary cap is in place.

Like I said, I am a new manager, but from what I can see managers don't really get a say in the negotiations with player contracts. If a salary cap was implemented it would be good for managers to be able to negotiate with players so that we an attempt to keep contracts down. Seasonal bonuses can help motivate players as they do now. I am a big NFL fan, in which they have something called a franchise tag. Basically, each team has the option to give one franchise tag per off season. The franchise tag automatically sets their salary to an average of the top 5 salaries at that player's position. If we did something like this, maybe the salary could be based on the division that player is in, so in division I.1 a franchised wing would receive the average salary of the top 5 paid wings in the league. Also, this can either motivate players or cause some negativity if the player thinks it deserves to be paid like the top or second best at his position.

Just some more stuff to chew on.

Apparently I don't do well with silence, so here are some thoughts on loaning players. I really wish I could keep it short, but I can't, so I'll try to use bullet points.

LOANING PLAYERS
---------------
- BASIC REQUIREMENTS
-- Loaning team must be 2 league levels above borrowing team
-- Borrowing team must have manager experience of 51
-- Loaning team initiates proposal
-- Proposal lasts entire season, unless either team goes inactive
-- Selected players are loaned for the duration of the agreement and can not be recalled during the season

- PLAYERS
-- For hockey, the number of loaned players should be between 5-7 max
-- Training will be based on the loaning team's facilities and the loaning manager's training settings
-- Loaned players participate in borrowing team's training camps, but get the benefits of the loaning team's facilities

- FINANCES
-- Loaning team will pay 60% of the daily salaries of the loaned players
-- Borrowing team will pay 40% of the daily salaries of the borrowed players
-- Loaning team will pay 40% of the loaned players' daily salaries as a tax to the hockey association for the arrangement

- ENDING THE AGREEMENT
-- Players are returned to the loaning team immediately if the borrowing team goes inactive; the loaning team can then enter into a new agreement with another team for the remainder of the season
-- A proposal for a new agreement for the upcoming season can be sent the first day of sponsorship offers. Players are returned to the loaning team on the last day of the season. Players involved in a new agreement are assigned on the first day of the new season.
-- If the loaning team goes inactive, the borrowing team's manager receives a notification and can choose to terminate the agreement, allowing them to potentially enter in to a new agreement with another team if one is available, or they can continue to borrow the players for the remainder of the season even though they will not continue to train.


Feel free to comment. There are pros and cons, and I'm sure it can be modified to be more effective. Immediately, it promotes more community involvement and mentorship. Look at any mentorship study and you'll see it promotes retention, which is good for PPM and for the managers in the form of better sponsorship offers. Heck, it gives less-developed team a small boost so they can focus less on their roster and more on infrastructure.

What's the incentive to loan players?

From what I can tell, the loaning team is still paying 100% (60%+40%) of the player's salary, but they dont have use of the player.

Also, can the loaning team sell the player on the market during the arrangement?

I dunno... I guess I dont understand why any team would actually initiate the loan offer.

The incentive is to loan young players that the team is developing but aren't getting any playing time. Experience is a big factor, so trying to insert these players into a lineup is incredibly difficult if they get to 22 and haven't played a game. This way, the players get experience.

Aha. gotcha. So basically, the best teams would use the lower division teams to develop their players so they were more valuable.

How does this help the lower teams though?

I can definitely understand how it could benefit the national teams, but I tend to think this would actually have a detrimental effect on the lower division/newer teams.

I kind of feel like a dick. "How does this help the good teams?" ... "ok, so how does it help the bad teams?" Maybe I just don't understand the full theory behind your proposal. LOL.

Hey, at least someone's talking about it. Besides, it's one idea I had been kicking around for a bit that I never took the time to write down, so it needs to be challenged to find the flaws.

Some of the benefits to the lower teams are in intangibles. As I mentioned, this kind of forces a mentor-type relationship with the managers of the loaning and borrowing teams. This helps keep newer managers interested, which is good for everyone. With this, it can potentially give the borrowing team's manager someone to bounce things off of and to learn from outside of just the forums. In case you hadn't noticed, people are notoriously stingy in providing insight outside of the very basics. As the two managers are more invested in each other, there is an incentive to help.

The obvious benefit to the borrowing team is the immediate boost to the lineup. Maybe they're suddenly a playoff contender when they would have been fighting to avoid relegation. This gives them better prize money for ranking. Maybe the players actually challenge for prize money for statistics. This boosts the borrowing team financially. Heck, think of the team you cobbled together the first couple seasons you started. How much of a boost would it have been to have a top line you could count on to compete with any team in the league every night? Would that have changed your strategy with your team? Would it give you a little relief to focus your finances elsewhere?

If that's not enough of a benefit, and maybe it's not, I'm certainly open to improving the idea. Already with my current proposal, I can see blowback from active managers who would qualify to borrow players but saw nobody interested. I'm sure there are ways to improve the idea.

hahaha. I must be playing the game wrong. I give strategy tips all the time in the forums. Just yesterday, I was helping the 1st place team in my handball division out by telling him not to play a d2d goalie in the playoffs.

I guess I just don't think there's much point in beating anyone if they have "imperfect knowledge." If you beat someone in competition because they were ignorant about the rules/etc., it's kind of a meaningless win to me.

A win against someone who is as knowledgeable as you just means so much more. Even losses in that instance are easier, because it doesn't feel like a mistake or random chance. It feels more like they beat you because they out-managed you.

...

Anyways. As far as the lending players goes. I absolutely would not have accepted loaned players as a newbie... for much the same reason that I didn't buy expensive, high OR, old players on the market when I was a newbie. The benefit is/was not worth the cost.

So think about it this way, even though you have mitigated much of the cost of the borrowing teams (they don't have to buy the players, and their expenses are lower), you've also eliminated much of the benefit as well.

1)
The nice thing about buying players on the market is that once you buy them, you OWN them. You can re-sell them at any time (50 days later).

What happens if you borrow a player and you don't want him anymore? Could the contract with the lending team be terminated at will and at no/minimal cost?

What happens if the lending team doesn't want to "re-lend" you the player the following season? If you've come to rely on that player, the unanticipated loss of him in your lineup could REALLY HURT. Especially for a newly established team.

I guess it comes down to how you would arrange the contractual obligations of the lending and borrowing teams.

2)
This would actually HURT new teams in the long run I think. Because if loaning players really caught on, it would tweak the market in some expected and unexpected ways.

Consider that most of my hockey team is comprised from really decent (70+ AvQ) guys that I got when they were very young.

In many cases, I got these guys on the market for cheap, because their selling teams had no use for them (they were too low OR to play, and they weren't superstars in AvQ... so not really worth training and keeping for the long, long run).

If you develop a system where the teams with established facilities can loan these types of players out, maybe they sell less of them. Because if they're getting experience (without the loaning team having to play them), they might be worth more in the intermediate term.

At the very least, IF/WHEN these teams did decide to sell these players (at 17-18 years old), they would likely cost SUBSTANTIALLY more on the market than they would of if they hadn't gotten free exp (in addition to the high quality training).

This would hamper the new teams that are then trying to actually buy players to fill out their rosters (once they have gotten past the point where they just want to borrow players from better teams).

I know this was a long ass post, but what do you think?