OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

BuenoWaino · 02-13-2016, 12:21 PM

Based on my readings on the forum, Arbitration estimates (like those on the Salaries page) are based on ratings rather than stats as they are in real life. And I sort of understand the reasoning behind it, but on the other hand, I kind of don't.

According to Markus in this very old thread: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-awards-2.html it was done so that people couldn't go in and edit a player demanding $1mil in Arb into a superstar and keep him on the super cheap.

Which I get...except for the fact that doesn't really stop anyone exploiting the game. If someone wants to edit their players into a superstar, they aren't going to let astronomical arbitration prices stop them. They can just go in and edit the guy's greed and team loyalty up or down as needed, or heck just edit in the extension of their own choosing. I get Markus wanting to close up exploits, but having Arbitration based on ratings doesn't actually close up this exploit at all, so long as you're playing in Commissioner mode in the first place.

And it's easy for me to see a lot of downside in this setup. For example, doesn't this create an exploit in itself? Can't you go and look at the arb estimates on the salary page and see just how good your young player really is (as opposed to just getting really lucky or having a career year) and know exactly which ones you want to lock up and which you don't? More importantly, what's the point of locking up players early during their years of control for the league minimum? Teams do it in real life, exchanging cost certainty and discount on future earnings for guaranteed money for the player. Which makes a lot of sense. But why would you do this in OOTP? The cost is already certain (barring a significant ratings change) and you can't receive any discount (since they player knows exactly how good he will be over the course of the contract), so all you're doing is agreeing to pay the guy even if he gets injured.

Is arbitration not based at all on stats? Or is it the same as the AI evaluation settings, where if you have a 40/30/20/10 setting, then it'll be based 40% on ratings and the rest on stats? It just seems really, really odd to me that irl arbitration prices are based first and foremost on playing time more than anything, yet in OOTP my pitcher can go down with TJ and miss an entire season and demand a $3-$4M raise for the following season. And it's doubly frustrating when the reasoning behind this setup is to close an exploit that 1) is only available to those using the editor and 2) isn't closed for those who use the editor anyway as they can just edit in any contract they want.

02-13-2016, 12:21 PM	#1
BuenoWaino Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 66	Arbitration Demands Based on Ratings Based on my readings on the forum, Arbitration estimates (like those on the Salaries page) are based on ratings rather than stats as they are in real life. And I sort of understand the reasoning behind it, but on the other hand, I kind of don't. According to Markus in this very old thread: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-awards-2.html it was done so that people couldn't go in and edit a player demanding $1mil in Arb into a superstar and keep him on the super cheap. Which I get...except for the fact that doesn't really stop anyone exploiting the game. If someone wants to edit their players into a superstar, they aren't going to let astronomical arbitration prices stop them. They can just go in and edit the guy's greed and team loyalty up or down as needed, or heck just edit in the extension of their own choosing. I get Markus wanting to close up exploits, but having Arbitration based on ratings doesn't actually close up this exploit at all, so long as you're playing in Commissioner mode in the first place. And it's easy for me to see a lot of downside in this setup. For example, doesn't this create an exploit in itself? Can't you go and look at the arb estimates on the salary page and see just how good your young player really is (as opposed to just getting really lucky or having a career year) and know exactly which ones you want to lock up and which you don't? More importantly, what's the point of locking up players early during their years of control for the league minimum? Teams do it in real life, exchanging cost certainty and discount on future earnings for guaranteed money for the player. Which makes a lot of sense. But why would you do this in OOTP? The cost is already certain (barring a significant ratings change) and you can't receive any discount (since they player knows exactly how good he will be over the course of the contract), so all you're doing is agreeing to pay the guy even if he gets injured. Is arbitration not based at all on stats? Or is it the same as the AI evaluation settings, where if you have a 40/30/20/10 setting, then it'll be based 40% on ratings and the rest on stats? It just seems really, really odd to me that irl arbitration prices are based first and foremost on playing time more than anything, yet in OOTP my pitcher can go down with TJ and miss an entire season and demand a $3-$4M raise for the following season. And it's doubly frustrating when the reasoning behind this setup is to close an exploit that 1) is only available to those using the editor and 2) isn't closed for those who use the editor anyway as they can just edit in any contract they want.