Y4

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

How does having inflation on or off affect this? Because I want to turn inflation on in my 2000 Brewers game until I get the payroll/salary demand levels until they are where they are present day and then turn it off, but not at the cost of competitive balance.

[HoustonGM]

You're not going to get the payroll/salary demands to match up to real-life levels. It's not possible because the entire structure is set up differently. An average major league pitcher in real life usually gets a $10 mil-per-year salary or so, while in Mogul, this is usually half that. Good bench players in real life get around $2.5 mil say, which isa bout the same as in Mogul, so when you change the salary demands and it matchs up in one area, it'll mess up another area.

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

You're not going to get the payroll/salary demands to match up to real-life levels. It's not possible because the entire structure is set up differently. An average major league pitcher in real life usually gets a $10 mil-per-year salary or so, while in Mogul, this is usually half that. Good bench players in real life get around $2.5 mil say, which isa bout the same as in Mogul, so when you change the salary demands and it matchs up in one area, it'll mess up another area.

I'm not worried about that unless it would cause a huge problem. I just want to get overall salary demands and payroll levels to where they are now because I'm having a hard time gauging what I should be spending on who and whats a reasonable contract and whats outrageous and what have you.

[m4rk6]

Eh...

I was just reading posts at random and ran across this one. This seems to be a serious problem, what exactly is the Y4 problem? Tried searching but y4 is too small for the search.

[CatKnight]

In late era games (say 2006+) I turn inflation off. I'm not sure if it helps or doesn't help, but I know it doesn't hurt.

Turning player happiness effects down helps a lot. I know for a fact turning player happiness effects UP really, really blows the league up. I imagine it's because too many of the high talent guys want to play for a winner, and won't do well unless they are.

I now leave draft talent alone. I turn draft PREDICTABILITY down to -50 or so, as that helps mitigate the effect of teams with great scouts dominating the draft. Similarly, I encourage the AI to use stats instead of scouting (+50) and mitigate the difference between medical staffs (-50)

I experimented with lowering revenue and salary, but I think I'm happier at +20/0.

In 2008 games especially, but it doesn't hurt in any season, 'recalculating' salaries seems to help.

Note in one game I played, I lowered my revenue to -30/salaries to -40, recalced, then about half way through the season switched back to 20/0. Those few years of not really having to worry about making payroll (since the players were still 40% below normal salary) seem to have helped the small market teams.

m4: Welcome! For a crash course, do a search for 'competitive balance.' You're looking for a thread I started called (I think) Competitive Balance: The Y4 Issue. You can also search for threads STARTED by me (CatKnight) and it should come up.

[CatKnight]

Just did a test I thought you might be very interested in.

Key: (Teams 114+W/100+W/100+L/114+L)


Y1: 0/0/1/0
Y2: 0/0/1/0
Y3: 0/1/1/1
Y4: 0/1/1/0
Y5: 0/1/1/0
Y6: 0/1/1/0
Y7: 0/2/1/0

First, my base settings: Salary Demands -40, Medical Staff Ef -50, Draft Predictability -50, Player Happiness of Negotiating -50/Performance -100, Promotions +30/50/70/90, Contract Renewals +50, Stats vs Scouting +50

Equalized Cities

The main concern when salary demands are so far off from revenue is too much cash entering the game. Therefore, after every playoff season I checked to make sure no team had more than $50 million (adjusted for inflation). If that had happened (it didn't), I'd have slapped them back to $25 million.

Having demands off from revenue also mitigates the damage to large payroll teams by having equalized leagues. It gives the AI time to get them under control.

As you can see, things went great until Y3, when a team inexplicably fell to 38-124. We know the AI can't rebuild teams, so I gave these guys the top 3 FAs in Y3, and the top FA in Y4, giving them all no-trade-clause contracts. This brought that team back into respectability by Y5.

Teams winning or losing 100 games are a warning, not a danger sign. I made minor adjustments to their fan loyalty (A to C, C to A etc.) if it seemed warranted. When a team lost 100 games two years in a row I gave them an FA also.

You can't really do much to bring winning teams back into line except adjust their fan loyalty and other expense ratings downward, and take away cash. If any team HAD breached 114 games, I'd have knocked their cash total down to $1. I know for a fact that convinces the AI it's time to cut payroll (and talents.)

So, adjusting settings does work. I think the ones I mentioned above are what I'll use going forward. Still, if you're willing to be a little interventionist to slap down the huge winners or help out the little guy, I think you can keep things stable with minimal effort. Basically, the key (unless something's REALLY gone wrong, like our 38 game winner in Y3) is to start small and don't overreact, but as the trend continues respond more and more forcefully until it reverses. And it does. The 100 game loser in Y6 and 7 won the Series in Y3.