Management Rewards Discussion

[Commissioner Erick]

Slack is so ephemeral that I want to get an interesting discussion the league had put someplace more permanent for discussion.

There was a real good discussion about various perks that could be made outside the engine of the game to sort of reward team management and activity.

The first was fairly cut and dry. Something like "If a team has a profit four out of five years, and also makes the Division Series three out of five years, then a team can gain an extra 5000 seats, capped at 60,000.

This allows well managed teams a chance to grow their potential market capacity. Right now, stadium size is a thing that is deflated naturally because of aesthetics. Fans like cozy stadiums for the most part and empty seats look bad, contributing to a negative atmosphere, something that isn't modeled in OOTP. It would be cool if teams could build up their stadiums so that if the franchise does do well they have a chance to bring in some money.

Also, with a sim every three weeks, this isn't something teams will take advantage of too much, as it will take awhile for conditions to be met.

There was also a suggestion that teams, instead of adding seats, could tweak their park dimensions, which is a cool idea.

There were some critiques of the idea.

1) Messing with stadium dimensions and modifiers affects actual game play, which is a sensitive thing.
2) The rewards tend to help the good teams stay good
3) When you take a team you take on all the circumstances, including their stadium size.

I want to see what you guys say if you really want or don't want either of these things.

Also, Steve brought up a good idea of some kind of option where you CAN increase seating or dimensions but with a drawback of some sort. Maybe money from your budget. I don't remember, it's way back in Slack. Something also to consider though.

[kcroyals]

I like this idea. For the problem of good teams staying good. I don't think that would nessicarily be true. Plus good teams Irl will do this. They change the dimensions of the park add seats. I do think budget money being taken would be appropriate. I do think the GM should be able to decide how dimensions are changed though.

[TJbrewers]

I am less optimistic about this rewards idea, if its just going to help the good teams.

[Ben_Dodgers]

is this necessary? If a team is popular and consistently doing well, won't the attendance increase in game, generating more revenue? Making the winning stadiums bigger might just serve to widen the gap between winners and losers.

What about the flip side? Teams that consistently struggle and have low fan support are often the ones that are looking for new stadium deals or to relocate to new cities. And a new stadium does often boost attendance, at least for the first season, as fans want to come check it out.

[Commissioner Erick]

My thing is that the good teams are capped at how their attendance will increase. A simulated New York market can easily produce 55,000 worth of fans for the Mets, but they'll never get there because their stadium size is capped.

For poor-performing teams, it doesn't matter what the cap is, they will seldom hit it if they don't have fan support and a good record.

[tigersgm_Steve]

Ball Park Factors:

GM's are allowed to change:

ONE of the FOUR park factors each year. Each change cannot increase or decrease a park factor by more than 0.030

2. No park factor can go below 0.85 or above 1.15
3. All adjustments to stadium seating and park factors must be provided to the Commissioner BEFORE the end of the PBA Final series in preparation for the new season






Only these 4 factors can be adjusted
(some leagues allow for Batting Average to be adjusted but that doesn't make sense to me and if a GM loads up on LHB and gives LHB a 1.15 lift (while simultaneously loading his team with LHP) the advantage is huge....AND, we did a bit of research and doubles, triples, and HR's do vary with each ballpark but not batting average.  So, recommend using these 4.  

Doubles

Triples

HR LHB

HR RHB



Sample:
change LHB from 1.00 to 1:03 = Good
change LHB from 1.00 to 1:04 = Not Good (exceeds the .03 variance)

Not a big fan of rewarding teams that perform well with 'free' seats.  They are already the best team(s) and giving them free seats will only make them even better than the competition.  There should be, like in real life, a $ bite to getting those new seats.

Any questions let me know.  

[tigersgm_Steve]

Adding Seats:

There are plans (somewhat detailed) for an organized approach to adding stadium seating that can be fun to implement.

However, with a new league I would suggest the league get filled, launched, and keep the discussion open for what stadium seat addition would look like in the NEXT off-season.  That will help formulate a coherent and well thought out plan.  For now, work on the basics.  I'd be happy to draft something during the season that GM's could critique so that we create a good plan allowing everyone input.