|
||||
|
|
OOTP 19 - General Discussions Everything about the 2018 version of Out of the Park Baseball - officially licensed by MLB.com and the MLBPA. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 62
|
Inflation Feature
How does the inflation feature impact components of the game like Max Cash?
My understanding is that it can drive things like salaries and other costs. But if I keep my Max Cash at the default ($10,000,000), and inflation is 1.5-2% each year, doesn't that devalue the Max Cash over time in real dollars? I am interested in using the inflation feature in my fictional league, as I do generally adjust ticket prices each year. So it'd be cool if inflation in costs were keeping up with the increased revenue. However, should I also be adjusting my Max Cash by the inflation rate just so that it keeps up with real dollars over time? Thanks in advance for any input. I love the idea of the new feature, but I just want to make sure I understand everything it'll impact before messing with it. Fortunately, I'm still using some historical financials in my fictional league (current year: 2015). But once I surpass 2016, I think the historical financials will no longer apply, and the inflation I have set will take over from there. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,228
|
revenues will look different for sure. the percentage can be applied to any historica or fictional settings.. tehy simply morph over time. (i would hope it's robust enough to work with historical play) i should still take any new value and simply multiply (1+%)^t (t=years). just because it's a historical value and not a stock value doesn't mean they can't apply the interest to it relative to your start year... i hope, because you don't need to know how to code to do it
![]() you don't have to worry about settings auto-changing on you... once you have imported or set what you want, make teh 'historical year' post-2018 and nothign can import. thats in STats and AI... and, not the actual year of league, no worries. you may need to apply the coefficient check box. that will reduce the values below 2^32 (signed). no problems with large numbers that way, and visually it all looks the same to you. if you think you can predict future inflation of MLB with any accuracy beyond a wild stab in the dark, you should go get an honorary economics degree. good luck with that. don't get hung up on trying to make it like 2019 or 2020... no one has any idea and if they say they do it's a ballpark figure or a lie. max cash on hand? that's a good question that could answer itself within 1 sim year. i don't believe that value changes. it stays in proportion if you use the coefficient due to large numbers, but the value stays the same from what you see. if not, it'll also bump up a bit each year, but that has potential ramifications they may want to avoid. too much max cash on hand is a bad thing over time, fyi... well, depending on your preferences of course. since it would stay in proportion, that wouldn't be a problem from infaltion, i guess. but, definitely keep a cap even if it doesn't keep up.. change it manually if you want to give a little extra. cash on hand is completely unnceccessary... if you want 10M more profit, add 10M to revenue, etc. it doesn't really provide any benefit and it definitely has a drawback in some contexts: FA - FA wil be inevitably cheaper than the extensions they demanded earlier in offseason. cash on hand can be used for extensions, but not FA contracts... hence WAY more money for extensions than normal after just 10-20 years. the teams that are successful early on will build up a huge pot of money. billions of dollars over time. so you never sign and extension and always wait for demand to drop to earth... but the AI isn't that smart, is it... they will be spending way too much on extensions operating under the typical trend that FA is more expensive than extensions, more times than not. the overflow problem is fixed by the coefficient. no big deal for a large value now. short and simple: it does crazy stuff to your money supply which effects demands of players blah blah blah... if that's okay, go for it. Last edited by NoOne; 07-27-2018 at 01:43 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,691
|
In case you're curious, historical inflation rates can be found here.
I've used the inflation feature in the past, but I soon discovered that it was boosting the values of multi-year contracts - which kinda' defeats the purpose. So, for instance, you have a player with a three-year contract that pays $1 million per year. After year 1, inflation rises by 1%. So in year 2 you'd be paying that player $1,010,000. Does anyone know if that has been fixed?
__________________
American-Ethnic (and Canadian) Namesets Historical Minor League Schedules 1870s City/Team Nickname Randomizers "It's Usually Sunny in Philadelphia" weather mod Negro League Schedules Last edited by joefromchicago; 07-28-2018 at 11:27 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,644
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 62
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 62
|
Is there a general consensus on the inflation feature? Do people generally find that it causes more issues down the road than compliments the in-game experience?
I'm just wondering, because I generally like to play fictional games deep into the future. I ran my last league from OOTP 18 until 2036. Is it a better experience to keep inflation-impacted variables like ticket prices, salaries, and other changeable costs static over time? Or does increasing/decreasing them each year cause issues (unrealistic outcomes, discrepancies) in the long run? I just don't want to turn on this feature if it's going to have a negligible impact on my financials as the game progresses. Also, the fewer adjustments and tinkering I need to do after each season, the better. Last edited by Left-handed; 07-30-2018 at 05:16 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,228
|
personal preference...
e.g. i consider it to be 6 in one hand half dozen the other, so why do it. it stays proportional. the rich are still rich, the poor are still poor and the ramifications are roughly the same no matter how many zeros you place in the minimum salary - to - max salary value. whether the max contract is 2.50 or 25,000,000, it's the same in scale from the big picture view. (supply/demand keeps budgets in scale etc etc) if it adds difficulty, it's due to a lack of understanding of TVM. when you account for it, it's still all the same with a different wrapper each year. on the other hand, it is more realistic. if i were to try to model it, i'd look over salary increases since FA... i may even ignore first decade or so of FA, depending on if i see a drastich shift occuring. i look for min and max % increases. then setup some rand a% - to b% each year. or use an average etc etc... since it will be in the future, it's really upto you what happens to salaries. as you saw this offseason, collusion is alive and well in the MLB and always has been. Last edited by NoOne; 07-30-2018 at 06:37 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 62
|
Quote:
I was reading a thread not long ago about the outcome of instituting a max cash maximum (I think it's $99,999,999,999 in OOTP 19). Over the long run, teams hoarded tons of money, players were receiving obscene contracts, etc. That's not the kind of league I want to create; I want a more financially competitive league without instituting a hard salary cap. In other words, I don't want a big market team in my league with a $500,000,000 budget while a small market team may only have a $95,000,000 budget. I'm afraid that the inflation feature may end up causing major discrepancies with my leagues financials. And not to mention, the comment above that I responded to where apparently there was a flaw in that long term fixed contracts would be inflated year over year. Is that an existing problem that anyone else knows about? Last edited by Left-handed; 07-30-2018 at 08:42 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 587
|
Would the experts in here generally say auto-setting league financials every year is the "safest' way to go?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,691
|
Quote:
Player salaries follow their own logic, and the game handles that by tying salary offers to the amount of cash available. Rich teams will offer more, and that sets the market price for players, regardless of inflation. Furthermore, salaries aren't the only things that inflation will affect. There's also ticket prices, media deals, and merchandising. And while those ancillary aspects of baseball have also risen dramatically in the free-agent era, I don't think they've risen quite so much as player salaries have. The inflation feature, as I see it, is primarily useful for the gamer who, for whatever reason, doesn't want to use the historical factors in the game, perhaps because the game has progressed past the current season or the gamer wants to play in a fictional universe or the gamer just doesn't like OOTP's financial numbers. It's one more way to customize the gaming experience, which is a good thing. Now, if they could only figure out how to keep multi-year contracts from being affected by inflation, it would actually be usable. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
OOTP Developer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 15,554
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,691
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
OOTP Developer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 15,554
|
Quote:
The second way to handle inflation is using the feature we added a year or two ago, on the finances page, where when we roll the league finances to next year, that inflation value will be applied. In this case, contracts are not affected, but all the other financial values in the game (average ticket price, average contract values, etc..) get tweaked up a little by the inflation value. This is the better way to handle inflation, since it will only impact things when people need to renew contracts, etc... As for the initial question in the thread, the cash max is impacted by inflation. So if you set the cash max to 10M initially, and inflation was 5%, then the second year your league's cash max should be at 10.5. So it will always stay relatively the same. Of course, you can always tweak this if you don't like exactly how all the numbers move when you have inflation enabled. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 62
|
Quote:
I have inflation set between 0-2% (is that a realistic range?). To me, that means that inflation in any particular year could fall between any value in that range. Will the game tell me what inflation is for a particular season? Also, will this automatically increase my team's financials, or will human-controlled teams still have full control over that? The only thing I really change each season is average season ticket prices and some of the team budgets (scouting, player development, draft signing). Don't get me wrong; I'm not complaining. I love how much control you have in this game. But sometimes it can be frustrating to me, as a micro-manager of my league, to tinker with a bunch of variables each season ensure that all settings are set appropriately to produce realistic and competitive results season after season. If you can assure me that the game self-manages this efficiently, or at least tell me which settings I should be checking each season to produce what I'm looking for, I'll be happy as a clam. Last edited by Left-handed; 07-31-2018 at 01:24 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
OOTP Developer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 15,554
|
Quote:
And yes, it only comes into play if you don't have any historical finances. But as mentioned, basically it's a way so that the background values can slowly creep up over time. The main thing to worry about is that after 20-30 years, or if you use a higher inflation value, you might need to "re-adjust" things using the button on the main page next to the global coefficient. That will simply tweak things under the covers to try to prevent things from rolling over and teams having negative budgets. But if you keep inflation small, then it's set up so that it's more of less not noticeable any specific year, however after a few years you do need to re-adjust. And maybe after a specific time you don't like it - for me, I got annoyed at the top guys signing 50M deals. But at that point, I just changed the global coefficient and poof, they now have 25M deals. And then a few years later with inflation, new guys are signing for 30M deals, and so on. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 62
|
Quote:
Now in regards to the bolded, can you speak to that a little more? If I have my inflation set between 0 and 2 percent (relatively small), I will still need to adjust my financials (i.e. click that global coefficient button) after a few years? What does that mean exactly? I wouldn't expect that 0 to 2 percent would get out of hand very much. Because I agree. I would not want to have players signing obscene contracts, or to have team budgets driven obscenely high. I want to create a competitive environment where the top teams and lower teams stay fairly in line in terms of budgets and contracts. At the same time, I want my league to automatically adjust values to account for any adjustments I make over time with my own team. For instance, if I turn inflation off, but I continue to increase my own ticket prices, I theoretically create an unfair advantage by artificially increasing my revenue while other teams (the baseline) remains static. Make sense? Is that how that would work in theory? FWIW, I really like that this is a baked in feature now. I just want to better understand how to use it to keep things running smoothly in my league for the long run. Last edited by Left-handed; 07-31-2018 at 02:10 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | ||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,644
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
#1 means that, for the history of the league, total league revenue stays flat. And since salaries follow revenue, that means total payrolls stay flat. That gives those who want to play within a specific financial era can have that era for the life of their league. Like the 1950s level of salaries? You can have that permanently. Prefer the 1980s salary regime? Then go with that. And each season will show consistent financial results at the league level. (Individual clubs will naturally vary.) #2 means that the universe would use the inflationary curve exhibited by real-life baseball. In practice, this means a very long period of slow growth until eventually it begins to show accelerating growth. The user could choose any point along that curve to start their league. Start with 1901, and you get about 70 or so seasons of slow growth, with growth rapidly picking up after that. Or you could start with 1876, and have a century of slow growth. Or start with 1970, and you have salaries and revenue just beginning a period of rapid increase. Note that the amount of the salaries and revenue is not directly connected to the inflationary curve. You could, for example, start the league in 1920 using 1980s-level revenue and salaries with the inflation curve start set to 1965. Under such a system the user could select whatever start year they want, with the starting salary and revenue environment they find most comfortable, and the longer-term rate of growth set to whatever degree of expansion they'd like to try out. Of course, OOTP's current financial model is nowhere near capable of customization like this. But I think it is possible, and would offer plenty of options for users. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,228
|
<snip>
edit: ugh sorry, i replied up above... this one was short and sweet but... unintended, nonetheless Last edited by NoOne; 07-31-2018 at 10:14 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Hall Of Famer
|
Quote:
I too have asked this question in the past, but people seem unwilling to give a true opinion...the reason is likely because most people simply don’t use if for whatever reason. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
Hall Of Famer
|
Quote:
I am using it also, and generally keep it between 1-3 percent for realism purposes. Everything should be fine going forward, just don’t use the financial coefficient in conjunction with inflation. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|