CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby zac » Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:25 pm

You say that "It can't really be compared to PF21 because the whole model is different". I think that's the problem to be fair though. I understand the model is different and yes it can be compared to '21. I can literally load a file in '22 and '21 and compared directly player to player as I have done. And contract demands are up 50% as a direct comparison of how the system has changed. The only tools we have is to drop the position maximums even more (most are around $18 million) but if you drop any more then the elite players are paid too low.

So to transfer the above discussion in NFL terms, here are the largest cap hits for WR for example. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/ca ... -receiver/

The top WR (or position max) has a $22 mil cap hit. Right now players in our league rated in the mid/upper 70s are getting 45% demands of the max. 45% of $22 million is $10 million. This $10 million number would make an NFL WR the 12th highest-paid WR. The upper 70s rated WR in our league is the 100th best WR. So we have the 100th best WR asking for 45% of the max essentially making it to where he is asking to be paid like the 12th highest WR.

Quite simply, the new system is up 50% from the prior system causing MAJOR game-breaking issues. career backup type players should not be asking for 45% of the MAX. Joey Bosa is paid $20 million a year. The 10th highest paid DE is paid $10 million. You can see high sharply NFL contracts decrease from the max. To me, contracts aren't a straight line depreciation from the max. There's a handful of stars getting paid MAX-type money and then a quick drop-off. The system in '21 I thought seemed to do a better job of looking at how comparable players is paid and having players demand that. Now the system doesn't seem to care one bit how comparable players are paid completely ignoring a leagues financial ecosystem.
zac
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:33 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby zac » Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:29 pm

2nd thought. Not a fix for '22 but an idea for DDSPF '23. OOTP does a great job in their financial settings of giving the user to determine how each tier of player is paid. There is litterally a setting (see in bottom right in image below) for every tier of player. So you can set the "typical salary" for every tier of player. THere's a setting for "Great Player typical salary", setting for "Good Player Typical Salary", setting for "Above avg player typical salary", etc.

Image
zac
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:33 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby Cleasby » Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:21 am

To link up the posts here is what was discussed regarding salaries in 21

viewtopic.php?f=325&t=33301&p=226610&hilit=Contract#p226610

viewtopic.php?f=325&t=32542&p=223213&hilit=Contract#p223213

I am assuming you decided to go with the 2nd post with 22 which is a shame but to highlight the feedback received regarding contracts in the previous version is consistent with the posts and suggestions here. This is not new issues.

Whether intended or not the extensions model in 22 appears to lean to a linear straight line for salary increase based on overall rating against position max and mins.

If this was intended it does squeeze starters and average player salaries closer to elite players and will ultimately mean that the average and starer level players don't ever get retained as you might as well try and pay +10% the salary extension of an average player to get an elite player in FA. I think there is a balance between some players thinking they are better tha they are or not wanting to stay on a team and wanting silly extensions versus you stable guys who build a tea culture. In the NFL you have a mix of both and that dynamic is being lost with the new '22 approach.

I think if you are proposing to take an 'NFL style' contracts system at its core this needs a relook as the NFL contract system is not a straight linear path and there is a big drop in salary between highly skilled players and mid tier and then everyone else fighting for a roster spot.

https://datastudio.google.com/reporting ... page/I7XzB

To refer to the first post I linked here from '21 discussions I would recommend this is revisited. The idea that players should use max and min salary by position as a base and then base their demands on equivalent players with and overlay of personality is the ideal situation. That way there is no large scale shift in the games core salary mechanism and it will fit for any league.

I think the issue at the moment is that we are gone from something where this kind of happened to a model where we now have a model that is not 'NFL style' or logical to the end user

I would be interested to understand how the logic has changed in 21 to 22 as my understanding of 21 which seemed to be a good starting baseline for extensions is:

contract demands are actually the result of a pretty long calc which takes a lot of things into account (+ personalities, depth at roster, coaches etc etc) - overall plays a role - but they also look at what similar players are being paid - not just similar in terms of overall, but in terms of rating.

To me this wit some refining and percentile tweaking for the player to know he is X best player for that position with Futher personality tweaks could be awesome.
Cleasby
Senior Member
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:28 am
Location: U.K

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby brooks_piggott » Fri Dec 03, 2021 10:18 am

We don't check "x best player" we only check personality, ratings and comparison players. So if you have 50 QB's all around 80 OVR they'll all ask for the same money depending on the full calculations. That part of the code is identical to PF21. The only difference is the range. So in PF21 you would have one single range which we then had to force adjustments based on positions. (QB's could get max, but kickers could only top out at like 40% of max kind of thing since kickers make less than QB) But now that you control the ranges for positions we don't suppress them... if you want WR to make less you just set the max of WR lower. So that's all working the way we intended.

I can certainly make some adjustments in the code, or try and add options, for breakpoints for various kinds of players, so if you want 60, 70 and 80 style players to be much much lower than 90 and up players you certainly can. It may help leagues that don't have similar spreads of ratings and players like a cpu league or default roster based. Or if leagues just prefer different models.
User avatar
brooks_piggott
Moderator
 
Posts: 3676
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby drumr » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:23 am

That would be a fantastic place to start and give leagues (and single players) way more control over the financials of their leagues. Thanks gor being open to the feedback! I was coming on to comment but that's pretty much what I think everyone would love to see.
drumr
Junior Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby zac » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:31 pm

Yeah, I agree that it seems that part of the issue is that the distribution of ratings in different leagues has some users having different impacts the the current demand system. A possible solution would be to give the user some control to set the '% of max' demands by player tier. So the game may default so that 'Good' players (for simplicity say 84-86 overall types) demand 60% of the position max setting but maybe for my league I want it lowered to 50%. Below is something quick I had in mind that could work great as a setting in the game to work off of the already in place setting for position maxes.

Image
zac
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:33 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby KW77 » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:13 pm

zac wrote:Yeah, I agree that it seems that part of the issue is that the distribution of ratings in different leagues has some users having different impacts the the current demand system. A possible solution would be to give the user some control to set the '% of max' demands by player tier. So the game may default so that 'Good' players (for simplicity say 84-86 overall types) demand 60% of the position max setting but maybe for my league I want it lowered to 50%. Below is something quick I had in mind that could work great as a setting in the game to work off of the already in place setting for position maxes.

Image

This should be based on their rank at their position though, not OVR. just my .02
KW77
Junior Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:11 pm
Location: CO

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby TripLykely » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:17 pm

KW77 wrote:
zac wrote:Yeah, I agree that it seems that part of the issue is that the distribution of ratings in different leagues has some users having different impacts the the current demand system. A possible solution would be to give the user some control to set the '% of max' demands by player tier. So the game may default so that 'Good' players (for simplicity say 84-86 overall types) demand 60% of the position max setting but maybe for my league I want it lowered to 50%. Below is something quick I had in mind that could work great as a setting in the game to work off of the already in place setting for position maxes.

Image

This should be based on their rank at their position though, not OVR. just my .02


Agree with this; from my understanding NFL contract negotiations begin with “we rank you just behind so-and-so who gets paid X
DDSCB21 Let's Play - Chasing the career milestones of the legendary UCLA coach John Wooden - Chasing Wooden Playlist --> https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIVfxNP1tD6mNwqSbZK-ZtxC5ntyd1uiq
TripLykely
Junior Member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2021 7:49 pm

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby zac » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:26 pm

Agree 100%, should be all rank based (which would fix different leagues experience different issues)

The above settings chart was just in reply to understanding it is more ratings-based but if it could be more rank based that'd be amazing. In the chart, instead of ratings being listed you could instead list % of rank. So instead of saying 95+ OVR QBs, could be top 3% ranked active QBs. Different positions have different number of players so ranks would need to be % based I assume
zac
Junior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:33 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

Postby Cleasby » Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:42 pm

KW77 wrote:
zac wrote:Yeah, I agree that it seems that part of the issue is that the distribution of ratings in different leagues has some users having different impacts the the current demand system. A possible solution would be to give the user some control to set the '% of max' demands by player tier. So the game may default so that 'Good' players (for simplicity say 84-86 overall types) demand 60% of the position max setting but maybe for my league I want it lowered to 50%. Below is something quick I had in mind that could work great as a setting in the game to work off of the already in place setting for position maxes.

Image

This should be based on their rank at their position though, not OVR. just my .02


Love this idea and based on percentile or position rank. Then add the personality demands on top and you have a dynamic contract set up that works for everyone and have the right 'flavour' so it's not just a mathematical exercise.
Cleasby
Senior Member
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:28 am
Location: U.K

PreviousNext

Return to DDS: Pro Football 2022 General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests