CONTRACT EXTENSION DEMAND ISSUE!

[zac]

I like the new financial system, looks pretty solid, great players asking for great contracts. As it should be, that's why there is a financial cap in the NFL and here. Please don't change that.

Just to note, I don't think anyone in this forum post has requested great players to not get great contracts or has indicated the top guys should be paid less.

[TripLykely]

Rank applies across teams as well... still not doing it. If every QB in the league was rated 100 OVR I'm not giving the first one 50 million and the last one 1 million just because they're ranked last.

Why wouldn’t they all be ranked the same as they have the same 100 OVR thus all demand 50 mil give or take based on personality/morale/etc? It sounds like your mind is made up, which is fine, I just don’t think it creates the hurdles you do; only makes the financials more logical

[brooks_piggott]

Rank applies across teams as well... still not doing it. If every QB in the league was rated 100 OVR I'm not giving the first one 50 million and the last one 1 million just because they're ranked last.

Why wouldn’t they all be ranked the same as they have the same 100 OVR thus all demand 50 mil give or take based on personality/morale/etc? It sounds like your mind is made up, which is fine, I just don’t think it creates the hurdles you do; only makes the financials more logical

That's exactly how it works in the game today... if they are all 100 OVR and your max is set to 50 million then they will all ask for varying amounts around 50 million.

Ranking implies that the #1 QB gets paid 50 million and the #10 QB may get 25 million and the #50 QB may get 1 million even if the #50 QB and the #1 QB have identical ratings. I'm not interested in basing salary on positional ranks... its based on absolute ratings only not relative ones.

[jedyeti]

I do agree I think the finances in 22 are way better than 21... You really can't mold a whole model to one specific leagues needs. In my solo leagues it works a ton better, I've run a bunch of tests and found that really all that needed to change was adjusting salary cap.

It was way way way too easy to get players for cheap in old versions.

So I would think for sure shock value gonna be a thing, but it doesn't mean broken.

With a cap of $150 in 21 I found stuff stabilized at about $170ish in 22... Seems to translate well to online also, but my league hasn't switched yet as we wanted bugs to iron out and I wanted plenty of time to adjust the finances to 22.

[NotMikeZimmer]

Ranking implies that the #1 QB gets paid 50 million and the #10 QB may get 25 million and the #50 QB may get 1 million even if the #50 QB and the #1 QB have identical ratings. I'm not interested in basing salary on positional ranks... its based on absolute ratings only not relative ones.

Obviously you can construct the system however you choose, but why on earth wouldn't you want the system to be contextual?

what if a league has 0 90+ players? does that mean the highest rated available players aren't worth more in that market? why is it better for contract asks to be some kind of arbitrary linear absolute instead of contextual like actual markets and pricing?

Also can someone explain to me why they would be opposed to improving this system or adding customization options?

[zac]

I do agree I think the finances in 22 are way better than 21... You really can't mold a whole model to one specific leagues needs. In my solo leagues it works a ton better, I've run a bunch of tests and found that really all that needed to change was adjusting salary cap.

I also do not want the developers to mold a whole model to one specific league. Actually, the request is quite the opposite. I want a model that can handle different distributions of rating talent so that if a league has a higher base average ratings, the financial model still works as well as in a league with lower base average ratings. One way to do this is settings which I think we are likely getting at some point added to this game which I'm thankful for the developers doing. Another way to do this though is have the game more based on how good a player is in relation to league talent (rank) instead of ratings.

In my solo leagues it works a ton better, I've run a bunch of tests and found that really all that needed to change was adjusting salary cap.

This is a perfect example of the problem I see how different users experience this finance model way differently depending on their leagues average ratings. I also just did a sandbox CPU Generated Roster test league and contract demands in this sandbox league are WAY better. And I think I know why because players' ratings are lower than our league. I perfectly understand why YOU are happy with the financial model because you are basing your experience in a different league. And the financial model is built well for newly created leagues using their specific distribution of rating talent. It does not though transfer well to different existing leagues which is where our league is at and why so many different users are having such a wide variety of experiences.

So this WR below in a sandbox league is asking for a contract extension of $8.5 million. So how many WRs are better than him (for simplicity using OVR) in this sandbox league? There are 9 WRs better than him. So a top ten WR asking for $8.5 million makes perfect sense. If this sandbox league was my only experience with the game, I'd say the financial model is fine. Now let's go back to this older league that has rosters carried over from like DDSPF 18 or 19 and has higher ratings on average. A similar 85 OVR WR in our league is the 36th best WR. He also is asking over $9 million for an extension in our league. So we have two leagues, both with 85 OVR WR. Both asking similar demands. But one is a top ten WR asking for top ten money and the other is the 36th best WR asking for top ten WR money. The model itself should mold itself to different league distribution of talent. Or at the very least we should be able to do this ourselves with settings. But I wanted to post this example because I think it paints a good picture why two users in different leagues can have such different experiences. One has a model that works with their ratings and another has a model that doesn't work with their rating distribution of talent.

[Cleasby]

TLDR; I'm going to add variables so people can tweak the salary breakpoint curves. end TLDR;

Thanks Brooks. I think this is the right direction and allows for some awesome customisation for both MPers and SPers. Excited to see this added!

[brooks_piggott]

I'm going to lock the thread at this point... I can't keep responding the same thing over and over and I'm not sure people are reading the whole thread for context.

Summary: People reported a problem, we confirmed it's not a bug or anything broken but it is an issue that can affect long-term leagues, I offered a solution for those that are affected, I'll implement solution at some time in the future. Everyone wins.

[brooks_piggott]

Latest version 6.0.6 has the config for salary ranges.