|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 27, 2013 16:08:54 GMT -5
Please see the adjusted Market Sizes that we will be using going forward. The Market Sizes are based on each market's population. I have decided that we will use these settings, which will not and can not be changed. That means, each season, I will have to check to make sure they did not change and Stadium Construction will no longer be able to change them (I will adjust those rules shortly). You will notice that I have removed "Huge", "Really Big", "Tiny" and "Non-existent" settings in order to, hopefully, provide a better balance for league revenues. See link: Market SizesI will look at changing the initial Fan Loyalty, but they will be subject to change at any time and can be modified by Stadium Construction. Then I will create the stadiums and weather databases. After that, on to Gripes! |
|
Matt
Other 
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Jul 27, 2013 17:57:41 GMT -5
St. Louis is a small market team? Wow. Never would have guessed that.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Jul 27, 2013 23:41:49 GMT -5
LA doesn't qualify as big?
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Jul 27, 2013 23:44:19 GMT -5
And no "very big" teams?
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Jul 28, 2013 10:02:16 GMT -5
K posted this in another thread:
I just don't think it's "accurate" to bump LA down to Good, when they were the 2nd or 3rd largest US city in every decade beginning in the 1960's. Using what K posted, if that is accurate, with Huge being gone, if you want NY to be Really Big alone, then I'd think LA would qualify as Big. There shouldn't be market size groups that are completely void of any teams. A combination of the actual population number, plus where they ranked at the time (2nd biggest, 3rd biggest) is what probably makes more sense. To me at least. Might change things for some other teams as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 28, 2013 14:51:09 GMT -5
Yea, I'm going to revisit this because going by population size is probably not fair. Certain market sizes include the city itself and surrounding exurbs (according to TV market sizes, San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland are considered one market and Minneapolis and St. Paul are considered one market as well). I will repost later.
And yes, looks like I missed "Really Big" whoops!
Will repost later today or tomorrow.
Thanks!
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Jul 28, 2013 15:14:52 GMT -5
Interesting idea to adjust to historical sizes every decade.
There's quite a few small markets now. So, even if no Huges are there (and Really Big will get used), you will still get really big discrepancies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jul 28, 2013 21:55:32 GMT -5
Yeah Boston at below average post 1990 is a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jul 28, 2013 21:57:00 GMT -5
Boston deserves at least Big post 1970 because they were consistently good and had a huge fanbase...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Jul 29, 2013 0:50:51 GMT -5
Mets gotta be one of largest markets when they come through
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 29, 2013 6:20:33 GMT -5
Updated original post; I missed the "Really Big" Market Size but I have decided not to use it. In order to better balance the market sizes, but still resort to some sort of realism, we are going to use 6 of the 10 permissible Market Sizes (Big, Good, Slightly Above Average, Average, Below Average and Small). This time I based it on TV market size instead of the city's population size (which had hurt teams like Oakland and Minneapolis). It is called "Market Size" after all. I used the following link as guidance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_and_Canadian_cities_by_number_of_major_professional_sports_franchisesMarkets 10M or larger were assigned to "Big", Markets between 7M and 10M were assigned to "Good", Markets between 5M and 7M were assigned to "Slightly Above Average", Markets between 3M and 5M were assigned to "Average", Markets between 2M and 3M were assigned to "Below Average" and Markets below 2M were assigned to "Small." I won't do the decade by decade change; too much work. Again, though, these ratings will not change, whether by internal OOTP AI changes, point system, stadium changes, etc. I will have to check each season to ensure these have not changed. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 29, 2013 6:24:22 GMT -5
Boston deserves at least Big post 1970 because they were consistently good and had a huge fanbase... If New York was a "Huge" Market, then yes. But the "huge fanbase" comment is certainly going to be reflected somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 29, 2013 6:24:35 GMT -5
Mets gotta be one of largest markets when they come through Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 29, 2013 6:25:41 GMT -5
Interesting idea to adjust to historical sizes every decade. There's quite a few small markets now. So, even if no Huges are there (and Really Big will get used), you will still get really big discrepancies. After my latest tweak, I think (I hope) there's not as much discrepancy anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 29, 2013 6:26:53 GMT -5
There is no very big setting. I used 4M people and up as the qualifier for Big. LA will probably got 4M at the end of this decade? I was correct, there was no "Very Big" setting. It's "Really Big" =) But yea, not going to use it. Want to keep it better balanced. Broadcasting Deals will reflect this as well. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 29, 2013 6:28:22 GMT -5
In any case, LA is now on par with NY in terms of Market Size.
St. Louis seems to be better set at Below Average as opposed to "Small" and "Tiny" before.
Only Milwaukee is the "Small" market now.
|
|
|
|
Post by slflar on Jul 29, 2013 8:31:16 GMT -5
In any case, LA is now on par with NY in terms of Market Size. St. Louis seems to be better set at Below Average as opposed to "Small" and "Tiny" before. Only Milwaukee is the "Small" market now. I assume I'll notice a larger team market with the next File download? Philly (A) on the my current download states "small" |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 29, 2013 9:01:52 GMT -5
Correct. I haven't made any file changes since publishing the league reports from last week. I want to do stadium and weather data along with Fan Loyalty settings first before I publish a new file. I am also waiting for more gripes. I would like to see 20+ changes per team.
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Jul 29, 2013 10:14:08 GMT -5
I won't do the decade by decade change; too much work. Again, though, these ratings will not change, whether by internal OOTP AI changes, point system, stadium changes, etc. I will have to check each season to ensure these have not changed. A shame, I liked the idea. So, we're going to have 1953 market sizes based on 2010 population market sizes? |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jul 29, 2013 10:19:42 GMT -5
I'm fine with Good but post 2000 there's no reason it shouldn't go to big. We're the second largest market at the moment behind New York. Also if we are setting Fan Loyalty you know the Sox are the highest level!
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Jul 29, 2013 11:10:25 GMT -5
There is no very big setting. I used 4M people and up as the qualifier for Big. LA will probably got 4M at the end of this decade? I was correct, there was no "Very Big" setting. It's "Really Big" =) But yea, not going to use it. Want to keep it better balanced. Broadcasting Deals will reflect this as well. So you were right, but you were wrong?  |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Jul 29, 2013 11:11:51 GMT -5
Correct. I haven't made any file changes since publishing the league reports from last week. I want to do stadium and weather data along with Fan Loyalty settings first before I publish a new file. I am also waiting for more gripes. I would like to see 20+ changes per team. I was hoping to have a whole list of gripes to you by now, but I just haven't had the time. Hopefully this week I'll start getting some to you. |
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on Jul 29, 2013 15:30:37 GMT -5
Cleveland seems about right.
Ways in the future by Toronto should be a larger market. It is the 3rd largest city in the MLB population wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 29, 2013 16:28:34 GMT -5
I won't do the decade by decade change; too much work. Again, though, these ratings will not change, whether by internal OOTP AI changes, point system, stadium changes, etc. I will have to check each season to ensure these have not changed. A shame, I liked the idea. So, we're going to have 1953 market sizes based on 2010 population market sizes? Me too! But unless I find TV market sizes from each decade, I probably will leave it alone. Population sizes from the census reports (what I used at first) don't do justice to cities like Oakland and Minneapolis. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 29, 2013 16:28:54 GMT -5
I was correct, there was no "Very Big" setting. It's "Really Big" =) But yea, not going to use it. Want to keep it better balanced. Broadcasting Deals will reflect this as well. So you were right, but you were wrong? yes/no and yes/no. =) |
|
