TLDR version marked in bold below
Let me just say, this has nothing to do with spending money. Its more so about the "competitive" than the "balance" aspect.
I made a new post because the other post mostly deteriorated into people complaining about spending money or not, and stuff like separate leagues for people who spend money and those that dont.
I havent spent any money on PT, but have nothing against those that have. I think its great for the game/developers to get the extra revenue, and if people enjoy opening packs or want to purchase their favorite/desired player off the AH then great.
I do think however, that "competition" runs the risk of turning stale. For some it already has (as mentioned in the other thread), but based on everything I have seen with the game so far, albeit its a short period with beta and live - you will eventually run into a wall in some form or fashion. I suspect running into a wall doesnt tend to produce sustained interest.
That wall may come in different forms for different people, but most likely one or more of the following will apply to most players as they hit diamond/perfect league:
- Some teams (particularly free teams/theme teams/etc) feel like they cant compete in perfect leagues
- Some teams will feel they have the best teams possible and there is no real need to tinker or try new players - this applies both to so called "whales" or people that havent spent any money.
- The same "meta"/best/etc players are abundant supply in every single league at the top (perfect/diamond)
- There becomes a repetition/people lose interest/etc
The first two are a part of the back and forth in the other thread, but the third and fourth bullets apply to both and I think that is the real issue that I want to address.
In my league for example, there are 20 Sean Doolittles, 20 Corbins, ~20 Will Smiths, ~20 Machados, Dierkers, Paxtons, etc. The best gold players seem to be on more than half the teams. In perfect leagues, i suspect this applies to the live 100s (mike trouts, etc) and the common diamond players.
There is nothing wrong with that per se, but fast forward a month and you will likely even have more teams with these same guys and more players that everyone has. There becomes no variety. Is that something that can last? Maybe the solution is to roll out new players into packs, and thus people will scratch the itch to get new players/try new things/etc (I think this is already occurring but I cant tell).
What I propose however, is probably a bit more drastic, but I think it can lead to more enjoyment over a longer period of time for more players, and it doesn't necessarily have an impact on people that want to spend money on the game to get diamond/perfect players.
What I propose is a combined ratings cap on the 25 man roster - akin to a "salary cap", but instead since there are no salaries in PT its more about ratings. For example the combined overall average rating for your 25 man roster would be capped at some figure (somewhere at 75-80 I think would work well) and you have to build your team around that. You still would have a reserve roster to keep other high rated players as necessary.
So if you want to have a bunch of perfect 100s in your team, thats great you can do that, there is just a trade off elsewhere.
I think this would add a lot more variety to the game, which maybe isnt an issue a month+ into live, but will be more so in a few months, or a few months into OOTP20. This could be combined with the above mentioned addition of new players into packs over the course of the season to add even more variety.
I think its safe to say you would see a lot more diversity in leagues, especially once people make their way towards the upper end diamond/perfect leagues. There likely would be a lot more diversity in strategy/approaches - do you focus on hitting? pitching? defense? There would likely have to be a trade off somewhere. Do you adjust your team to compete against the other 4 in your division? etc.
This shouldnt impact people who spend money, because they will have more flexibility with great players on their reserve roster (akin to having a great farm system, so to speak). It might even liven up the AH market a bit, with bronze/silver players becoming more valuable.
What it will do, in my opinion, is create an environment of competition to see who are truly the better GMs/managers out there. This is an odd one because unlike other video/computer games - like FPS, RTS, sports, etc - where you are actually controlling something with your actions that have a competitive impact on the outcome (a skill gap, as some call it), there isnt any of that in OOTP because its a simulation. But if you introduce a standard control (in this case the suggested overall average ratings cap), you create a skill gap through management of your roster in a "fair"/"balanced" environment. Maybe its more akin to those card/deck games, where some people spend money and some dont, but at the end of the day when its time to play the ruleset/deck restrictions are the same for everyone.
Anyways, just an idea. Not sure what others think, because a lot of the back and forth in the other thread was about spending money or not and making separate modes. I think this is a solution/idea that doesn't have to do with spending money, its more about the competition, diversity of teams, and longevity of playing PT. If PT was kept exactly as is, thats fine with me I think its a neat mode. I just think "competitively" it could get a little better, especially thinking about the long term, and I wonder if I will be as interested in a month if my team is essentially the same/maxed out and there is no real reason to change it up, and i havent really changed it for a while.
Once a true "competition" is established, it could even lead to buy-in modes, where people spend money/PP to enter into a league with some sort of prize pool at the end (PP, special cards, whatever) - which in turn could generate even more revenue for OOTP developers.
Just my own personal thoughts, maybe im on to something or maybe im just a dummy haha
