Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Raidergoo
What are the coefficients and the data points on the curve?
|
This is from memory as the league files are gone, so it may not be completely exact, but one of my longer-running test leagues had something like the following:
single league at AA level, no minors
financial coefficient: 1.000
minimum player salary: $4,000
superstar: $15,000
star: $12,000
good quality: $10,000
above average: $8,000
average: $7,000
below average: $6,000
fair quality: $5,000
poor quality: $4,000
Result: A few superstar players (but by far not every top player in the league) would sign FA contracts for $11,000 while basically everybody else would sign for $4,400 and in some rare cases for $4,800. So there seem to be two issues at work:
1) The financial coefficient is clearly geared towards an MLB-type salary structure as it seems to be linked to the minimum salary "steps" that the game will consider when making contracts, and a structure in the low five-figures is just too small to accomodate more than two steps at the default coefficient.
2) the designations (superstar, etc.) seem to be linked to the full ratings scale, rather than the actual stats output by the players. So, given that my league was at AA level (and very few players' batting/pitching ratings exceeded 14 out of 20 or so, even if they might bat .400 or have an ERA of 2.00), nobody was getting contracts above the "good quality" level. That's probably a design choice and not easily fixable in the code, and it can probably be worked around by just not using the high-end values for a custom salary structure, so I'm not too worried about that part. The first issue would be nice to see addressed though, as the financial coefficient isn't a very good workaround for the reasons previously mentioned.