*The Economics of the NSFL

[7hawk77]

Lol well I'm at 1150 now so, T6 bots?

Maybe if you were still OL...


Really though, I think I'd be fine with unlocking every tier up to like tier 10. Maybe bring up to in the next voting summit or to HO.


In the long term they would get unlocked anyways and gives more options for GMs which is always good. The budget becomes so back breaking that I'm not sure it would matter.




Currently I'm leaning towards recreating as an OL to see how that would work with being a real player in a bot dominated position. I think over time, it would mainly just benefit the team by not burdening the salary cap as heavily as the bots do.

I also think the OL bot solution can work for really any position where there is a player shortage for that position. I know people have speculated it might happen for DL too, but I'd still like to allow players the ability to play a position if they wanted it instead of making it off limits.

[timeconsumer]

I also think the OL bot solution can work for really any position where there is a player shortage for that position. I know people have speculated it might happen for DL too, but I'd still like to allow players the ability to play a position if they wanted it instead of making it off limits.

Wew QB bots!

[kckolbe]

An entire line of T6 bots would cost 67.5 million, so I don't think we'd have to worry about seeing too many of them, maybe a single LT.

And honestly, with price so prohibitive, allowing bots for EVERY position does seem a good idea. It would definitely allow GMs to customize their team in a completely new way and would make being the GM of a DSFL bot team even more valuable an experience in getting promoted to NSFL GM.

[7hawk77]

Wew QB bots!

Might be cheaper than what Bercovici wanted to get paid...

[Molarpistols]

At a certain point with OL bots, you're getting minimal marginal return on them (investment to performance).

I think the highest tier of OL currently is pretty close to this already. Most of the good OL stats are maxed or close to maxed that another 100/200/300 tpe isnt going to do much but add secondary stats that have far less impact on performance.

As for OL impact on budgets, I did include the OL bots in the average salary number, since there's a fair spread in their use, and OL is a need. You'll be hard pressed to find a GM that would dare use OL bots any lower than the 2.5m bots, which still puts it above equilibrium salary.

Just from my memory of looking at them, I would guess the average spent on OL is around 18-20m total, or 3.5m+-4m per.

Pretty sure at 16.5m, Otters spend the least on OL. So slightly more than average.

I would like to see OL prices get adjusted, or each team given a few balanced options to choose from for free. At this point it's safe to say we're not forcing people away from a position they want to play, so making it more balanced can help. I know several teams are paying their players less so they can afford better bots. I think that is a bigger problem than minimum salaries.

[kckolbe]

I know several teams are paying their players less so they can afford better bots. I think that is a bigger problem than minimum salaries.

I'd say I agree with everything you just posted except for this part. If a player isn't getting paid much, but still prefers to remain on that team rather than seek a bigger contract somewhere else, then that isn't a bot issue, but more a parity issue. I think raising minimums and adding some type of scaling rule (multiple ways to go about it) would offset this a bit, requiring players to get paid closer to what they are worth.

But lowering the cost of bots and/or increasing cap space would only hurt teams that are already having difficulty recruiting talent in FA.

[timeconsumer]

I'd say I agree with everything you just posted except for this part.  If a player isn't getting paid much, but still prefers to remain on that team rather than seek a bigger contract somewhere else, then that isn't a bot issue, but more a parity issue.  I think raising minimums and adding some type of scaling rule (multiple ways to go about it) would offset this a bit, requiring players to get paid closer to what they are worth.

But lowering the cost of bots and/or increasing cap space would only hurt teams that are already having difficulty recruiting talent in FA.

I think it's a problem if you know that contract money could be spent on your players getting equipment or training they otherwise are not going to do media to get (not everyone is a max earner) and you as a GM still make the call to drop the money on more expensive and less efficient bots. You can win it all with cheap bots if you have the right pieces around them. But hey that's their call on how they think they can win.

[kckolbe]

I think it's a problem if you know that contract money could be spent on your players getting equipment or training they otherwise are not going to do media to get (not everyone is a max earner) and you as a GM still make the call to drop the money on more expensive and less efficient bots. You can win it all with cheap bots if you have the right pieces around them. But hey that's their call on how they think they can win.

But that player would likely to sign for the low amount anyways, whether to bring in another player, sign better bots, whatever. Aside from raising minimum salaries, you can't prevent players taking less to give their teams a perceived advantage. Trust me, it confuses and irritates me to see players who can't afford training taking the minimum, but it happens even on teams that have plenty of cap space.