The Brewster

If a desire is to get cash out of the game, then why not prohibit teams from reloading their in-game accounts to the cash max of $20M with their Bonus Funds? I mean, a team finishes with >$20M cash at end of a season, you put it in their BF and you don't allow transfers from BF back into the game.

What would be the point of the bonus fund then? The points isn't to sap cash out of the game for individual teams - its to set a cap for any one period of time for how much cash is in the game league-wide because that is one of the mechanisms that drives FA demands.

If teams are not allowed to reload, then the idea of controlling the amount of league-wide cash still holds; in fact, not allowing reloading would further decrease the league-wide in-game cash.

It might encourage more fiscal responsibility. Knowing you can't replenish your cash-at-hand from your BF account should make you think twice about how you do your finances.

BF can still be used for Stadium maintenance and all Stadium rewards (rebuild/modify/relocate). Perhaps other stuff; we would have to look at what other PP Awards there are that they can/should apply to.

For instance, should we allow BF Cash -> PPs?

Nah. That's why we cap maximum bonus funds at $40 million. That's a limited number of reloads. Plus, not being able to reload would have an actual negative effect on cash going out of the game, as more cash in game encourages people with cash to spend it.

I don't understand. If Team A and Team B both have $20M in game. Team A has $40M BF and Team B has 0 BF. If Team A spends all $20M and reloads, there is no effect on in-game cash. (Actually, the cash level is raised to what it was, with, say, one or two less free agents to spend it on.)

The in-game cash is not effected whether Team B spends or not. But we do have lesser fiscal responsibility if Team A can make crappy financial decisions (or contracts) and recover by reloading.

avery wrote:I don't understand.

It's hard to understand balancing financials in the OOTP game engine regardless of who you are. Not saying you don't have a point. If it feels unfair to anyone that's not what the GB wants. But we got where we are through a lot of math and a TON of trial and error. That's true of most everything - whether settings or MBBA-specific systems.

avery wrote:I don't understand. If Team A and Team B both have $20M in game. Team A has $40M BF and Team B has 0 BF. If Team A spends all $20M and reloads, there is no effect on in-game cash. (Actually, the cash level is raised to what it was, with, say, one or two less free agents to spend it on.)

The in-game cash is not effected whether Team B spends or not. But we do have lesser fiscal responsibility if Team A can make crappy financial decisions (or contracts) and recover by reloading.

Except how many reloads do you really get if you're that big of a dumbass? That's the point. If you spend enough that you're going into debt $20 million and you have $40 million in bonus funds, now you're out of bonus funds. Generally speaking, though, that's not how it plays out. Look at finances long-term and you'll notice that the teams who are in debt also don't have any bonus funds - they're just plain losing money.

cheekimonk wrote:

avery wrote:I don't understand.

It's hard to understand balancing financials in the OOTP game engine regardless of who you are. Not saying you don't have a point. If it feels unfair to anyone that's not what the GB wants. But we got where we are through a lot of math and a TON of trial and error. That's true of most everything - whether settings or MBBA-specific systems.

It's all good. I was just starting a discussion point. And also I said it was a possible suggestion, not a suggestion. I really just wanted to discuss it or lay the idea out there.

That's what the Governing Board does.

recte44 wrote:That's what the Governing Board does.

What is this Suggestions forum for?

Suggestions for the Governing Board to discuss. However, as we've pointed out, we've already spent countless time with this one.