Rule changes discussion

For suggestions / requests to improve the league (e.g. rules change proposals, etc)
Post Reply
User avatar
llmolsonll
Senior Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue 13 Oct '09 6:43pm
Team: Montreal
Real Name: Francois
Fav NHL Team: Habs
Organization Report URL Number: 6
Location: Montreal, QC

Rule changes discussion

Post by llmolsonll » Wed 05 Dec '12 10:22pm

Cant pinpoint the exact thread, but we talked about discussing our current rules this offseason. So lets do it!

A few rules and ideas i would like to discuss :

1) new schedule : we have been using the same schedule over and over again i believe. Every two weeks we go over the same pattern : series VS team A, series VS team B, series away VS team A, series away VS team B. It doesnt "hurt" the league, but how about a new schedule? How about simply letting OOTP schedule our games including interleague play?

2) career ending injuries : they suck. In-game year 2044, CEI probably wouldnt exist anymore. Even these days, CEI seem like a concept of another era. Players may take a while to recover, suffer talent loss, but career ended? Hardly ever. Who can remember a MLB whose career ended overnight due to an injury recently? In a few other leagues i participated in and still do in some, we changed CEI to 12 months injuries for players under age X (usually 32 years old). I strongly feel we should adopt such a rule, if not abandonnig CEI altogether.

3) salary cap : how about letting our hard salary cap go in favor of a (heavy) luxury tax and revenue sharing? Lets be realistic, we can have a hard 85M$ cap, yet totally blow it with cash incentives and releasing players then resigning others : three teams have spent around 96M$ dollars this season. Trading our hard cap for a luxury tax on player expenses seems fair, then redistribution towards our poorest teams (must be done manually i believe).

4) minor league age limit/pro experience limit : thanks to OOTP's game engine, morale hurts development. So if after two seasons, a 19/20 years old player hasnt developped enough to move on to A ball, he may see his progress limited by OOTP's model. I would be in favor of removing age limit and the 2-years rule for R ball. Lets just promote our guys when we see fit.

5) contract length : i dislike signing players reallly long term and the 5 year limit doesnt bother me. But OOTP 13 (and 12 actually) doesnt feel like 5 years is longterm anymore and player demands can be outrageous in term of years. Perhaps adding a 6th year to our limit would hurt?

Winnipeg59
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed 22 Aug '12 6:06pm
Team: Former St. John's
Real Name: David
Fav MLB Team: Blue Jays
Fav NHL Team: Jets + Leafs
Organization Report URL Number: 4
Location: London, ON

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by Winnipeg59 » Wed 05 Dec '12 11:02pm

Cool discussion points!

Happy to weigh-in and I'll preface everything by saying that if it helps the commish do less work each sim, I really appreciate it - they usually work way too hard!
And not quoting the entire post above of course, just responding:

1) Don't know enough of the model in-game about generating a schedule but you would think this is semi-perfected by now? So, let the game do it.
2) They do indeed produce a negative reaction. But it is part of the game and the dice-roll. I could go either way (and hope it never, ever happens to me of course - knocking on wood)!
3) Love it! As far as I know, it should happen in-game (unless that differs in an online environment). The "soft cap" could still be $85mil (or whatever), with a stiff overage penalty.
4) Love it! That seems to be the most manual effort for me, albeit only once a season for opening day. But I like your logic of not hurting young talent artificially.
5) Love it! Especially with the Lux Tax. Personally I would be very cautious with anything really long, but blow the budget if you so desire.

I should also state, for the record, this is my first CBL season, so will bow to the decision and input of the vets of course!!!
By the way, this is an outstanding league. :thumbup:
David - GM St. John's Explorers 2044-2052
Eastern League Champions - 2047
Atlantic Division Champions - 2044, 2045, 2051

User avatar
Claybor
Posting Freak
Posts: 1927
Joined: Sun 10 Aug '03 9:28pm
Team: Kingston
Real Name: Steve
Fav MLB Team: Redsox
Organization Report URL Number: 12
Location: Salem, Va.
Contact:

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by Claybor » Thu 06 Dec '12 12:19am

1. Either way is OK with me.
2. I don't mind CEI's that much, but making them 12 months would work too.
3. I like the cap, I just think perhaps there's too much $$$ around which makes it too easy to get around it.
4. Another one that's probably a bit much to monitor so doing away with it might be for the best.
5. I personally like the 5 year limit but would not be radically opposed to adding a year.

User avatar
JAttractive
Posting Freak
Posts: 2031
Joined: Thu 11 Sep '03 4:27pm
Team: Niagara
Fav MLB Team: Blue Jays
Fav NHL Team: Leafs - Boycotting
Organization Report URL Number: 11
Location: St. Catharines (Niagara)
Contact:

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by JAttractive » Thu 06 Dec '12 2:02am

1) new schedule : I want a schedule that doesn't have all teams playing on the same day. Right now everyone gets the same days off and such. In theory a teams #1 SP will face their opponents #1 SP every 5 days, the #2 faces the opposing #2 and so on. I know it doesn't entirely work out like this due to roster moves, injuries etc. but it still annoys me. Is that stickware schedule generator program (or something like it) still around?

2) career ending injuries : Have to agree. Haven't had one happen in an online league but it would be a lot more frustrating than in solo play. Give a 12 month injury and with so much time off it is very likely the player will receive talent decreases anyway. Heck make it 12-24 months or something if that's possible.

3) salary cap : Hmm not sure what I think. I have always felt that active, strong GMs can really take advantage of a cap and put even more distance between themselves and the rest of the league. If it's supposed to help balance things I am not sure it succeeds. I also find it frustrating to lose a player I drafted and have been following for a long time to make cap room just because I am slightly over the cap. My preferred method for solo leagues: no cap but everyone gets the same TV deal and make it a large % of our revenue. Set every team to the same market size and fan loyalty and I add a few other tweaks (I think revenue sharing among others). The result is that all teams have about 60-100 million to spend depending on their attendance figures and such. There are no New York Yankees because it's not possible under this system. Losing teams always have money to spend and can use free agency more effectively as a way to rebuild. I guess in a way there is a cap of sorts as it's simply not possible to generate lots of income but there is no set value to it. You simply have to work within your budget that year.... Ultimately though it's not a big issue for me in this league. I am used to the cap.

4) minor league age limit/pro experience limit : Didn't know morale mattered but would like to see this rule removed. Hard to enforce and not sure it accomplishes anything.

5) contract length : I never give out contracts greater than 5 years (too many years of being in leagues without them has partially made this habit though). I actually like this limit as a bad signing can really screw up a team for years and years in a cap league. With the turn-over in online leagues this can be frustrating for new GMs who find themselves saddled with the mistakes of the previous GM.

User avatar
Gardi
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun 25 Oct '09 4:33pm
Team: Regina
Real Name: Norman
Fav MLB Team: New York Yankees
Fav NHL Team: Boston Bruins
Organization Report URL Number: 17
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by Gardi » Thu 06 Dec '12 8:12am

I will go along with pretty much whatever the group wants.

The only thing I am not in favour of is interleague play. I read somewhere that this has come up in MLB and some people would like to go back to the old schedule.

User avatar
ill16ca
Posting Freak
Posts: 1379
Joined: Fri 30 Aug '02 5:12pm
Team: Saskatoon
Real Name: Andrew
Fav MLB Team: Jays
Fav NHL Team: Habs
Organization Report URL Number: 19
Location: Montreal

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by ill16ca » Thu 06 Dec '12 12:58pm

1. Doesn't matter to me. I don't care about interleague, as long as the schedule stays balanced.
2. I'd be in favour of getting rid of CEIs, although I'd suggest something more like 18 months instead of 12 months. 12 month injuries aren't uncommon in OOTP (I just had one a couple of weeks ago).
3. $85 million does seem a bit low with all the money flowing in the league and the crazy salary demands of players (who, as far as I know, don't take cap restrictions into considerations when making salary demands). I wouldn't be against implementing a heavy luxury tax.
4. Entirely in favour of this. I too have noticed that morale hurts development, so we should be allowed to put players in rookie ball if that's where they're best suited. Although I'd also be in favour of ditching morale altogether - IMO it's not well implemented at all in OOTP.
5. Either get rid of the 5 year limit (which is difficult to monitor) or increase it to 6 years. I've mentioned this before, but I prefer to sign players to longer term contracts at a lower average annual value - it makes more sense when you're limited by a salary cap.

User avatar
Checker33
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon 07 Jun '10 5:21pm
Team: Lethbridge
Fav MLB Team: Boston Red Sox
Fav NHL Team: Hartford Whalers
Organization Report URL Number: 20

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by Checker33 » Sat 08 Dec '12 3:45am

Im in favor of all of them except removing the cap. I like the salary cap. I wouldn't mind raising it a bit, but in another league Im in, they did away with the cap and then payers were asking for and getting over 30 million per year.

User avatar
kq76
Posting Freak
Posts: 2249
Joined: Thu 13 Mar '03 12:18am
Special: Admin
Real Name: Kieran
Fav MLB Team: Toronto Bluejays
Fav NHL Team: Vancouver Canucks
Location: Vancouver, BC
Contact:

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by kq76 » Sat 08 Dec '12 4:28pm

1) I don't trust OOTP to do it right, but an alternative custom one is probably fine. I don't care one way or the other about interleague as I see about equal pros and cons to it.

2) CEIs are still a fact of life in baseball and most likely always will be (hello, Death). I'm not in favour of a fantasy land where CEIs don't exist. 12-month injuries are not the same as CEIs; CEIs are in effect potential killers while 12-month injuries are not.

3) I'm wary of further increasing the divide between the haves and have nots in the league, but I'm also curious to try out the luxury tax feature. I just wish you could set it at a set #, not a % above average payroll which is difficult to predict. I'm open to it.

4) There was a reason we put in the minors age rule. OOTP doesn't deal with this well at all and has too many older players taking up valuable spots in the low levels.

5) "This is the hill we will die on." I can't believe it, but I'm actually rooting for the NHL over the NHLPA on something. I hate long-term deals and I love that we added this rule ages ago. Long-term deals can cripple franchises for years including severely hampering what future GMs can do and for this reason alone I hate them.

Winnipeg59
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed 22 Aug '12 6:06pm
Team: Former St. John's
Real Name: David
Fav MLB Team: Blue Jays
Fav NHL Team: Jets + Leafs
Organization Report URL Number: 4
Location: London, ON

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by Winnipeg59 » Sat 08 Dec '12 7:15pm

To further the discussion on some of the original topics, found some info - purely FYI:

1) Re: Schedules - Found the follwing on the OOTP forum. Might help?
- SCHEDULE upload (97 kb) 4-4-4/4-4-4/completely balanced/interleague against everyone
- http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/o ... quest.html

And, from the online manual, the following...in case anyone is indeed a schedule guru among us: Schedules
It states that you can have the game rotate through several by naming convention. I'm assuming the commish would have to have that set up at his end?

Also I am sure someone could kindly "ask" for a 24 team 2L/3D/4T schedule in the forum and one of the experts would come through? If we have several, then they could be rotated year by year or every couple?

4) Re: Age limits in minors
If you let the cpu managers (even without managers) handle this, then yes it might get clunky (just make sure you don't allow them to sign and release minor level players)! But you could micro-manage this manually. We could just eliminate the need to age-limit the different minor levels?

5) Re: Length of contracts
Love the "hill we'll die on" line! by the way. This is a tough one in an online league as you could really damage a team if careless, then quit and leave the mess to the next person. Not nice! Maybe answer is to indeed review and stay with 5 or 6-year deals? Gary? Donald? Anyone??? :silent:
David - GM St. John's Explorers 2044-2052
Eastern League Champions - 2047
Atlantic Division Champions - 2044, 2045, 2051

Halifax
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue 28 Dec '10 1:35pm
Team: Halifax
Organization Report URL Number: 2

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by Halifax » Sat 08 Dec '12 9:05pm

Prefer no interleague play.
Would like to see one division with no DH.

CEI's are fine. There are always players who disappear from action- most before they are well known.

Generally the less policing work for the commish the better. Let the game handle as much as possible.

Would be careful messing around with the finance settings-- OOTP finances easily go haywire.

User avatar
llmolsonll
Senior Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue 13 Oct '09 6:43pm
Team: Montreal
Real Name: Francois
Fav NHL Team: Habs
Organization Report URL Number: 6
Location: Montreal, QC

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by llmolsonll » Mon 10 Dec '12 6:26pm

how about our commish, any thoughts Chris?

User avatar
llmolsonll
Senior Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue 13 Oct '09 6:43pm
Team: Montreal
Real Name: Francois
Fav NHL Team: Habs
Organization Report URL Number: 6
Location: Montreal, QC

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by llmolsonll » Mon 10 Dec '12 6:34pm

another idea, increasing # of rounds for our draft. Its hard to find young players to fill our minor leagues, particularly rookie level, cause there isnt enough. We added a R level a couple seasons ago, but still only draft for 10 rounds. If we look at our free agent pool, we dont even have 25 players younger than 22 years old.

How about 12 rounds of drafting?

User avatar
llmolsonll
Senior Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue 13 Oct '09 6:43pm
Team: Montreal
Real Name: Francois
Fav NHL Team: Habs
Organization Report URL Number: 6
Location: Montreal, QC

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by llmolsonll » Mon 10 Dec '12 6:53pm

I also will add that our thin drafts eventually lead to thin free agent classes. Obviously, more players drafted means more players overall and bigger free agetn classes.

User avatar
llmolsonll
Senior Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue 13 Oct '09 6:43pm
Team: Montreal
Real Name: Francois
Fav NHL Team: Habs
Organization Report URL Number: 6
Location: Montreal, QC

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by llmolsonll » Mon 10 Dec '12 7:03pm

another thgouht : how about letting foreign free agents into the league? For those playing in solo leagues and using this feature like me, we know most of them are useless, so its not an exagerated influx of talent into the league. But once in a while, a player or two will get us excited.

Halifax
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue 28 Dec '10 1:35pm
Team: Halifax
Organization Report URL Number: 2

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by Halifax » Mon 10 Dec '12 9:14pm

Would not have foreign free agents -- in another league using that feature it has unbalancing effects.

It is a good idea to add a couple (should investigate what number is best) more draft rounds for amateurs- it would be good to have a few more young free agents when a minor league team needs filling up. But would not overdo this as a way to increase veteran free agent counts.

User avatar
chrisj
Posting God
Posts: 7979
Joined: Thu 11 Apr '02 11:07am
Team: Calgary
Special: Commissioner
Real Name: Chris
Organization Report URL Number: 22
Location: Edmonton, AB
Contact:

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by chrisj » Mon 10 Dec '12 11:03pm

My thoughts:

1) new schedule : the issue with the schedule is that currently, within each division, it is a balanced schedule. I haven't seen any other schedule provide the ability to be as balanced - but if someone has seen one....

2) career ending injuries : I agree with those who say true CEI are rare... but in OOTP, I feel CEI are meant to show those players who just never regain their form, which is common. I don't like the idea to just changing a CEI to 12 or 24 months without adding a significant talent drop on top of it.

3) salary cap : I'm open to this idea if others would like to put it to a vote.

4) minor league age limit/pro experience limit : I'm open to this as well, as long as there are no negative effects.

5) contract length : I dislike long term contracts in online leagues for many of the reasons mentioned above (issues with owner turnover)... but as a commish, I would almost like to see the rule removed as it is difficult to police, and I know I miss many as it currently is.

User avatar
chrisj
Posting God
Posts: 7979
Joined: Thu 11 Apr '02 11:07am
Team: Calgary
Special: Commissioner
Real Name: Chris
Organization Report URL Number: 22
Location: Edmonton, AB
Contact:

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by chrisj » Mon 10 Dec '12 11:04pm

Further... I love rule change discussion threads as new ideas are good. :) But can we do a seperate thread for each idea? It's a bit easier idea to get an idea of where people are on a particular idea when its like that (or maybe that's just me...)

User avatar
llmolsonll
Senior Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue 13 Oct '09 6:43pm
Team: Montreal
Real Name: Francois
Fav NHL Team: Habs
Organization Report URL Number: 6
Location: Montreal, QC

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by llmolsonll » Mon 10 Dec '12 11:25pm

chrisj wrote:Further... I love rule change discussion threads as new ideas are good. :) But can we do a seperate thread for each idea? It's a bit easier idea to get an idea of where people are on a particular idea when its like that (or maybe that's just me...)
I'll volunteer and post individual new threads. Polls would be interesting too.

User avatar
llmolsonll
Senior Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Tue 13 Oct '09 6:43pm
Team: Montreal
Real Name: Francois
Fav NHL Team: Habs
Organization Report URL Number: 6
Location: Montreal, QC

Re: Rule changes discussion

Post by llmolsonll » Mon 11 Mar '13 10:49pm

We had some discussions last offseason, but no decisions. I would like to relaunch a few threads, but a few polls would be nice.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest