This is the simplest yet most effective way of doing something . But in beta I am always trying to align play to match defaults . It's been a slow process . Another similar change would be player generation. Nobody below 50 speed...no small guys below 80 speed something like that would have a similar effect . I change positions right out the draft probably 50% of the time just to get faster guys or put stronger guys on the line

Sometimes you just have reconcile with actuality. It's like admitting that the clothes you wore as a teenager will never fit you again.

We could work this from both ends. If we rework weights closer to the way the game is actually played, then reworking the game closer to that design becomes much easier.

I am pretty sure the AI drafts players according to the head coaches offensive and defensive style but I am not sure if this carries over to renegotiated /FA bids for contracts. The issue is how it spreads out the bonus.

Julio Jones a vet took 97% of his bonus recently . Here that speed falls off a cliff and could hurt teams. I think that part should be more random as Terrell Owens and others have stayed fast later in there career .

The better the player the larger the bonus should be. Other guys I let test the market and keep an eye on them for a cheaper contract than the original offer at the end of season stage.

bgedgerly deserves a medal for taking on this effort and actually getting JDB's attention. This is the No. 1 thing ruining the game, and you're my new favorite person here.

There's an immediate step that could be taken, which is reverting the ownership logic to whatever it was before. It is perplexing that this didn't happen within hours, when it became an obvious problem.

Yes, the AI built weak teams, but it didn't let stars enter FA, and it didn't go over the cap. As it is, no AI team will ever be competitive because they end up -$40M in cap space and then try to field a roster of 46 featuring ancient mediocre guys with $50M contracts.

Everybody is making good points here. It makes a lot of sense to start with reworking the default ratings. I believe setherick has picked up that torch before. If nothing else, place much more emphasis on speed. (There's a bigger conversation to be had about bringing a dose of reason to player speeds. It shouldn't be easier to find an 80 speed DE than an 80 speed CB. There shouldn't even be a less than 80 CB. But I digress.)

I don't think we need to get in the weeds of trying to simulate human behavior, but there are some basic rules that would help. Like not signing a 35-year-old to a massive 6-year deal. And don't sign a player if it would cause the team to exceed cap space (including projected rookie salaries).

Perhaps the AI could determine a market value based on the average of actual contracts for players at the same position, age and rating league-wide. (The same could be used for extending players in their final season.) Humans could easily outbid the AI, but at least the AI team wouldn't be ruined when a human comes along.

Also, there's at least one big glaring difference in salary cap rules between here and the NFL. Only the top 53 salaries (and dead space) should apply, which means you could sign one-year, league-min contracts in perpetuity. Even if the AI wrecked a team, you could at least put a full roster together.

It's broke cause of the addition of logic to make cap management harder long ago. It's bases off the contracts made by humans in the leagues that drove the current AIs so high . ..there was nothing put in to stop the AI from going over the cap though.

I suggested the NFL s 89% rule or some modified version calling it the 110% rule but the error lies in there somewhere . This rule would help a bunch of exploitable aspects but in terms of contracts there's just too much room and the AIs choices, because they don't front load contracts gets in to alot of trouble .

We just borrow from the future the AI doesn't . I am at 60% cap used in mfn1 with a decent team, but I didn't overpay for any old guys and front loaded younger players contracts.

And I never over bid for FAs that were highly sought after by users offering max contracts . That's what drove up renegotiated contracts across the league . The bar was set high by us

The AI logic should never have started playing into a bidding war scenario. It's far to easy to game an AI.

AI should set the floor, minimum contracts. Walk away from anything else.

"Perhaps the AI could determine a market value based on the average of actual contracts for players at the same position, age and rating league-wide"

Something like this is in the logic. I don't know what it is but it should be like infinity said. More fine tuned than what we got. The younger and better the player is the more bonus laden it should be.

Change the default weights and put a more solid future cap on how far anyone can go over. Just so a team doesn't get so far into future debt. It's tricky because some users can clean stuff up by trading away talent for picks . ...then trade those picks for more future picks. Just delaying the inevitable .

Theres just too much wiggle room for owners right now that the AI fills up with horrid contracts for horrid player and picks .

The nfl 89% rules doesn't allow for all that movement of money it's distributed throughout the teams 53 contracts if it not used. Forcing teams tompay players to higher contracts . Sign he best guys and pay them is all it really does , but it does account for 4 years into the future which doesn't allow them to fall so far in to a dead cap hole like here when you gut a team to make to your liking.

I really think changing the weights would go a long way in helping the reneg/ FA signing logic . Then we could look at that seriously , but the weights might have to be reviewed each code change . Still, cause and effect of changes could get messy. That's why changing weight seems an easy fix

I don't expect the AI to ever compete with experienced owners. I just want it to stop ruining teams (and leagues)

Lol, do you think the money that is reported to the media for public scrutiny is all that's there? IRL, 89% creates a whole new level of financial shenanigans. That is what accountants and agents are for.

Still, a pretty good idea here.