OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

Swimmer · 07-03-2006, 05:07 PM

I've been doing an 1871-whenever league with fictional players, and setting the financials between each year based on the GDP Shares spreadsheet. Financial Coefficient won't work in this case because I don't want existing contracts changed; i.e. if someone has a 4y 10,000 contract this year, I don't want it change to a 10,010 contract next year just because the coefficient changed.

Anyway, while my numbers are really low in the 1870's and 80's, then all my players just get the minimum salary (which is around $250).

I agree with the guess that using really low numbers overwhelms the minimum increments built into the negotiating AI. Seems like the program should scale those increments based on the range between minimum and Superstar, though.

It would also be nice of the coefficient didn't scale existing contracts, too.

07-03-2006, 05:07 PM	#11
Swimmer Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Castle Rock, Colorado Posts: 165	I've been doing an 1871-whenever league with fictional players, and setting the financials between each year based on the GDP Shares spreadsheet. Financial Coefficient won't work in this case because I don't want existing contracts changed; i.e. if someone has a 4y 10,000 contract this year, I don't want it change to a 10,010 contract next year just because the coefficient changed. Anyway, while my numbers are really low in the 1870's and 80's, then all my players just get the minimum salary (which is around $250). I agree with the guess that using really low numbers overwhelms the minimum increments built into the negotiating AI. Seems like the program should scale those increments based on the range between minimum and Superstar, though. It would also be nice of the coefficient didn't scale existing contracts, too. __________________ People ask me what I do in the winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. --Rogers Hornsby