|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 30, 2013 21:46:41 GMT -5
On the heels of adjusting Market Sizes, which will remain fixed at all times, I have also adjusted the Fan Loyalty ratings for each team. The ratings are based upon each team's percentage of stadium capacity filled during the course of the 1953 season. This time, I am willing to utilize all available ratings, of which there are 7: "GREAT", "Very Good", "Good", "Average", "Fair", "Poor", "Extremely Poor". I obviously don't like the idea of using "Extremely Poor" but, fortunately, the two (2) teams that got stuck with the piss-poor ratings are the two (2) teams who will be moving shortly! I am debating changing the "Extremely Poor" up to a minimum of "Poor" which would coincide with the minimum required Fan Loyalty rating as denoted in the League Settings thread. Unlike Market Sizes, Fan Loyalty is subject to change by way of the OOTP AI engine and stadium construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Jul 31, 2013 0:51:32 GMT -5
I'm sorry... Boston not having Great? People lived and died watching every pitch of this team hoping for a world series!
|
|
K.
Other 
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Jul 31, 2013 2:39:43 GMT -5
I obviously don't like the idea of using "Extremely Poor" but, fortunately, the two (2) teams that got stuck with the piss-poor ratings are the two (2) teams who will be moving shortly! I am debating changing the "Extremely Poor" up to a minimum of "Poor" which would coincide with the minimum required Fan Loyalty rating as denoted in the League Settings thread. Unlike Market Sizes, Fan Loyalty is subject to change by way of the OOTP AI engine and stadium construction. IMO it should change when moving as it's a whole new set of fans basically. Fan loyalty changes very slowly and is very hard to change. As stated earlier this should not depend on one season but on a full body of work. One season's numbers are excellent to determine initial fan interest in the team at the time, not long term fan loyalty. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 31, 2013 6:14:20 GMT -5
Agreed, the ratings will be set to "Average" when team(s) move, at minimum.
I will see if I can check the 1952 and 1951 attendance, but I will have no data for Milwaukee because they had previously moved from Boston, where there was "Extremely Poor" Fan Loyalty, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 31, 2013 6:49:29 GMT -5
Updated to include 2 more years of attendance records to get a better gauge of "Loyalty" (long-term) as opposed to "Interest" (short-term), per K.'s suggestion. This resulted in a few teams being bumped up, including the A's and Browns, who had the dreaded "Extremely Poor" rating but now is just "Poor". There are 8 teams with a rating greater than "Average" and 8 teams with "Average or less" so it's a good balance.
I am going to keep Milwaukee at "GREAT" with consideration that, even with the smallest market in all of baseball, still had the best attendance in 1953 (and all the way through 1958) while breaking in their new stadium (County Stadium).
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Jul 31, 2013 12:40:07 GMT -5
The thing is that this doesn't take into account success of the team at the time. Yankess filled 33% of their stadium then as they were very good. What had they been crap then? It'd not have been 33%. Yet they will sport Good loyalty for decaes because of attendance figures those 3 years.
Obviously teams will have higher percentage attendance if they happen to be good those 3 years. Attendance figures for such a short period should be used to gauge fan interest at the time. Fan loyalty should be decided upon by long term fan loyalty over decades (and it also takes that long in game to change it).
(And stadium size also impacts attendance percentages. Some teams have small or large stadiums for their markets. If they fill a higher pecentage, that doesn't necessarily mean they have more loyal fans, they just might have an easier time somewhat filling a smaller stadium.)
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Jul 31, 2013 16:47:21 GMT -5
The thing is that this doesn't take into account success of the team at the time. Yankess filled 33% of their stadium then as they were very good. What had they been crap then? It'd not have been 33%. Yet they will sport Good loyalty for decaes because of attendance figures those 3 years. Obviously teams will have higher percentage attendance if they happen to be good those 3 years. Attendance figures for such a short period should be used to gauge fan interest at the time. Fan loyalty should be decided upon by long term fan loyalty over decades (and it also takes that long in game to change it). (And stadium size also impacts attendance percentages. Some teams have small or large stadiums for their markets. If they fill a higher pecentage, that doesn't necessarily mean they have more loyal fans, they just might have an easier time somewhat filling a smaller stadium.) Hmm, I see your point, but I think there's only 2 options: 1) base loyalty on 20 years worth of % of capacity 2) set everyone to Average Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Aug 1, 2013 1:33:02 GMT -5
I'm sorry... Boston not having Great? People lived and died watching every pitch of this team hoping for a world series! Pfft "Very Good" is still real nice. And the Yankees aren't even "GREAT"? WTF how can that be? |
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Aug 1, 2013 4:10:05 GMT -5
The thing is that this doesn't take into account success of the team at the time. Yankess filled 33% of their stadium then as they were very good. What had they been crap then? It'd not have been 33%. Yet they will sport Good loyalty for decaes because of attendance figures those 3 years. Obviously teams will have higher percentage attendance if they happen to be good those 3 years. Attendance figures for such a short period should be used to gauge fan interest at the time. Fan loyalty should be decided upon by long term fan loyalty over decades (and it also takes that long in game to change it). (And stadium size also impacts attendance percentages. Some teams have small or large stadiums for their markets. If they fill a higher pecentage, that doesn't necessarily mean they have more loyal fans, they just might have an easier time somewhat filling a smaller stadium.) Hmm, I see your point, but I think there's only 2 options: 1) base loyalty on 20 years worth of % of capacity 2) set everyone to Average Thoughts? Though subjective you could go with the overall perception of a fan base through time. I think this is what this setting represents. However it depends what you want to do with it. Fan loyalty isn't that important in the game really. But if you're going to base merchandising income on it though, it becomes massively important, because merchandising, even more so than market size (which was handled very well), is what causes the discrepancies and the great divides between the haves and have nots. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 1, 2013 5:59:18 GMT -5
Actually, I would prefer to go with overall perception, but I'd rather avoid being subjective at all costs, if possible. However, I am willing to entertain this idea, but need some guidance as to how to measure "loyalty"
If purely subjective on the basis of the perception of fan loyalty, over time, I could offer the following:
Boston: GREAT
Chicago: Good
Cleveland: Average
Detroit: Good
New York: Very Good
Philadelphia: Fair
St. Louis: Fair
Washington: Average
Brooklyn: Good
Chicago: Very Good
Cincinnati: Average
Milwaukee: Good
New York: Average
Philadelphia: Average
Pittsburgh: Average
St. Louis: GREAT
Each league will have (1) GREAT, (1) Very Good, (2) Good and the rest Average with only A's and Browns being Fair since those teams will move shortly.
Thoughts?
As far as TV broadcasting deals and merchandising income, I am planning on basing them on a combination of Market Size and last 5 seasons of on-field performance.
|
|
bigmark
General Manager 
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by bigmark on Aug 1, 2013 8:16:38 GMT -5
thats a decent idea
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Aug 1, 2013 8:24:20 GMT -5
If you go with perception, there is a lot more room for error, and you are going to hear the same complaints from the teams that have lowered loyalty.
If you don't think it would create too many issues, why not just start each team with their highest loyalty rating, using either reality or perception. But if it has to be one or the other, I don't see how you can choose perception over reality, especially since we are starting in the 50's, and I doubt many of us were around to know what the perception was at that time.
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Aug 1, 2013 17:13:21 GMT -5
On the other hand market sizes also are based on current numbers and current perception of fanbases are also based on the decades preceding, they didn't just pop up yesterday.
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Aug 1, 2013 17:15:22 GMT -5
Actually, I would prefer to go with overall perception, but I'd rather avoid being subjective at all costs, if possible. However, I am willing to entertain this idea, but need some guidance as to how to measure "loyalty" If purely subjective on the basis of the perception of fan loyalty, over time, I could offer the following: Boston: GREAT Chicago: Good Cleveland: Average Detroit: Good New York: Very Good Philadelphia: Fair St. Louis: Fair Washington: Average Brooklyn: Good Chicago: Very Good Cincinnati: Average Milwaukee: Good New York: Average Philadelphia: Average Pittsburgh: Average St. Louis: GREAT Each league will have (1) GREAT, (1) Very Good, (2) Good and the rest Average with only A's and Browns being Fair since those teams will move shortly. Thoughts? Quite like it. What will teams that move get? The 2 Fairs but also for example Brooklyn? And expansion teams? |
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Aug 1, 2013 17:30:40 GMT -5
As far as TV broadcasting deals and merchandising income, I am planning on basing them on a combination of Market Size and last 5 seasons of on-field performance. Merchandising income is extremely static and a key component of unbalanced financial resources in the long run. If you go with performance of the last 5 seasons you could for instance have a team that happens to have been good the last 5 seasons have loads of merchandising income for decades more even if they put in 100 loss season after 100 loss season; while a team that just had 5 crappy seasons could be stuck with crappy merchandising income for decades even if it makes the playoffs every season. Performance has very little effect on this sort of income so it doesn't seem right to base starting merchandising income on a short performance window IMO. Just a suggestion, but teams with a big market and loyal fans supposedly sell more merchandising. Teams in small markets with fair weather fans don't sell a lot, I would think. So base it on market size and loyalty. The higher the sum of those 2 things (you could give a weight to each factor to make one more important), the more merchandising a team sells. Another angle to take into account is making certain, if your stated goal is not not create a wide discrepancy in financial resources, is to have the biggest number relatively close to the smallest number. As such you could for example use the idea of giving the biggest market team with the most loyal fans 20M as merchandising income and the smallest market one with unloyal fans 10M to start with. That means the maximum difference between 2 teams in this field will be at most 10M, which is pretty mangeable and acceptable. Pick your own numbers as applicable, but not letting the numbers rise too high and keeping the difference close enough makes for a more even, competitive environment. You could even implement a rule in which after every season you reset income over 20M and under 10M back to the max of 20M and 10M. That way on field success and futility still makes that sort of income move (slowly) as long as you're not at the max or min, but over several decades no large chasm can come into existance between teams. Another idea is to enable people to increase merchandising income while expanding their stadium (extra luxury boxes or whatever - an idea from CBL). If you base merchandising income on market size and loyalty and stadium upgrades can increase loyalty, it'd even make sense if it also increase merchandising income. |
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Aug 1, 2013 17:32:07 GMT -5
And as for your research into capacity and recent performance: it still is very useful and would not go to waste as you can use that to determine starting fan interest, which is the in game indicator of recent success and current willingness of people to show up in the stadium.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Aug 1, 2013 23:33:46 GMT -5
I'm fine with this obviously! But I also like that a lot of the teams with lower are the ones that will benefit from moving soon.
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Aug 2, 2013 2:32:35 GMT -5
And as for your research into capacity and recent performance: it still is very useful and would not go to waste as you can use that to determine starting fan interest, which is the in game indicator of recent success and current willingness of people to show up in the stadium. Recent performance (coupled with market size) is also a good indicator for starting TV deals. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 2, 2013 5:06:48 GMT -5
Quite like it. What will teams that move get? The 2 Fairs but also for example Brooklyn? And expansion teams? I think I will give the teams that move its current Fan Loyalty ratings or Average, whichever is higher. Expansion teams will probably start at "Average" as well. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 2, 2013 5:13:38 GMT -5
Actually, I was thinking of fixing merchandising income based on market size and records (but could add fan loyalty); let it be a floating formula that I will have to correct each season, with a min and max. That way there is still fluidity but does not take forever to change. I looked at BBSBL and it looks like Erbes just made it a rule, based on market size and last 5 seasons of on-field performance. I might do the same thing to TV deals.
I will consider expanding merch income when expanding or constructing a new stadium (perhaps a 5 year or 10 year temporary boost).
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 2, 2013 5:16:43 GMT -5
I'm fine with this obviously! But I also like that a lot of the teams with lower are the ones that will benefit from moving soon. Of course you are. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Aug 2, 2013 5:52:57 GMT -5
Final corrections made. New announcement made. Thanks for your input guys.
|
|
