Competitive balance discussion - Page 56

matingly23 · 01-06-2019, 02:47 PM

Oh well, lost game 1 11-0.

I guess you should expect to get shut out by Koufax and have Ruth launching bombs when you're in week 3 and a Silver League, this is soooo balanced and competitive!

I am on the EDGE OF MY SEAT!!!

matingly23 · 01-06-2019, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddox

Hey at least you made it to the playoffs. I have two teams and am not in the playoffs with either one and have not been in several seasons. At least you got that 1,000 playoff appearance point payout.

I will look for upgrades in the market today,although I do not have many points built up on either team. I may be looking at another season of no playoffs again next season. To me this is a marathon and not a sprint, and I believe that those who think of it a a sprint (those buying perfect level teams in the first two weeks) will be the first ones to get bored. This mode to me is more about slowly building your team and not amassing the most victories from day 1.

I have two teams in this league and both are still alive. Both will get decimated by the "Silver League .318 Champions" because someone spent $1000 on this game.

Not so fun. Has been great up till now though.

matingly23 · 01-06-2019, 03:05 PM

Ooh a close one, 13-2 in game 2.

Alex Wood wasn't enough and Greg Maddux was. The Babe was held in check but "Silver" Johnny Bench had 5 RBI.

What bad luck eh? Very competitive though.

bobbycockstrong · 01-06-2019, 03:52 PM

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

matingly23 · 01-06-2019, 04:12 PM

Only lost game 3 by a 4-2 score, McCullers pitched out of his mind.

Randy Johnson starting, Walter Johnson coming out of the pen - yep, that's some balanced Silver competition right there!

matingly23 · 01-06-2019, 04:13 PM

As much as I am complaining, I have an idea that would both create $$ and keep things balanced.

Offer an option to be in a league of teams that can not buy any PP.

But to be in such a league, you must pay a monthly subscription fee.

I'd be down for that if the fee is reasonable. I'm willing to pay a little bit to have a fair league.

Zorro · 01-06-2019, 04:14 PM

Actually I would not like a cap. I wish all the teams would have the 100 perfect cards because they are really not that good,(Most of them) If everyone had the perfect cards I would probably win every year. I would definitely make the playoffs. I have notice in my perfect league that the best teams really do not have that many perfects on their team. They use strategy to win instead. Some platoon with Diamond, Silver , Gold instead. They take the time to study the attributes. Also you can see after a couple years how players play against lefty or righty players. I have noticed that most players only see the ratings and say “Hey that is a great player” because he is a perfect. I love that kind of player in my league because he is not only lazy but has no idea what he is doing. If we cap the league that player would not load up his team with really useless players and the strategy of others would be lost. I see what you are saying but for myself I like it the way it is.

CrazyWR · 01-06-2019, 04:15 PM

There's literally a thread RIGHT BELOW THIS that is for competitive balance posts.

Also, I agree with Zorro.

matingly23 · 01-06-2019, 04:18 PM

I have an idea.

Create leagues where it is not possible to purchase PP.

But charge a monthly subscription fee to access such leagues.

Randro · 01-06-2019, 04:20 PM

People will just have the same cheap players if there's a cap. People know who the best ones are if you need to use one.

Westheim · 01-06-2019, 04:33 PM

All these splendid ideas have already been brought up at least seven times each in the 50+ pages thread LITERALLY labeled "Competitive Balance Discussion", along with plenty of replies by OOTPD why this and that will or will not happen.

zrog2000 · 01-06-2019, 04:41 PM

In my gold league, the league whale with a .700 winning percentage added a perfect Ted Williams, a Christy Mathewson, Johnny Vander Meer and an ARod right before the playoffs. He even has Mike Trout on the bench.

He has won all 5 playoff games so far by a total score of 31-3. What strategies should teams facing him use to compete?

mcdog512 · 01-06-2019, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zrog2000

In my gold league, the league whale with a .700 winning percentage added a perfect Ted Williams, a Christy Mathewson, Johnny Vander Meer and an ARod right before the playoffs. He even has Mike Trout on the bench.

He has won all 5 playoff games so far by a total score of 31-3. What strategies should teams facing him use to compete?

None, just let him move up up and away.

bobbycockstrong · 01-06-2019, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westheim

All these splendid ideas have already been brought up at least seven times each in the 50+ pages thread LITERALLY labeled "Competitive Balance Discussion", along with plenty of replies by OOTPD why this and that will or will not happen.

Yeah, ive seen it. Ive posted in it too. But just because its LITERALLY labeled that, doesnt mean thats whats in it. Its turned into endless pages of people just complaining back and forth and talking about spending money or not. Luck in packs, whether you paid money or not. In addition to live updates from peoples playoffs. Assumptions about teams in peoples leagues they think must have paid moneyt. Etc.

I was trying to shift the conversation back to an actual concept that has nothing to do with spending money or not. But as I said in my original post, I might be a dummy so forgive me.

webdox · 01-06-2019, 04:57 PM

I did some upgrading right before the playoffs but kept all my new players unactive and will keep them there until next season. Didn't seem fair to plug them in at the last moment.

matingly23 · 01-06-2019, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdog512

None, just let him move up up and away.

What I do about my Silver Whale if we both end up in the same Gold League?

Waste another week with the outcome already decided before playing a single game?

matingly23 · 01-06-2019, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I have seen such stacked teams before PP were available for purchase. So, you do not know if this team was stacked with $$. And if it was, you now have a good challenge. Should be fun!

Oh it's so fun to get one's teeth kicked in because someone opened up their wallet - Fun Times!

mcdog512 · 01-06-2019, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matingly23

What I do about my Silver Whale if we both end up in the same Gold League?

Waste another week with the outcome already decided before playing a single game?

Dude, I will give you this....you are persistent. Why are you even playing if you are so bothered by this weeks league?

matingly23 · 01-06-2019, 05:06 PM

Because with one alteration this would be an incredibly fun game.

As it is, it's plain stupid that Whale teams are in Silver leagues.

There is no "challenge", you just get plain curb-stomped with 0 chance.

That is the complete opposite of balance.

Fix it, don't tell me it's a "fun challenge".

Just got knocked out of the play-offs, another 11-0 loss to Koufax, the Bambino swatted another bomb. Wow that was a FUN CHALLENGE. Yep.

stl jason · 01-06-2019, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matingly23

Oh it's so fun to get one's teeth kicked in because someone opened up their wallet - Fun Times!

then go play solo league in commissioner mode so you can control everything... sheesh.

my F2P/pack-only team just got swept in their silver league LCS and outscored 31-12.... I guess I should whine and complain until I get the devs to make me a personal league where I can win it all without spending any money....

on the other side of my silver league, my F2P/pre-ww2 team is up 2-1 in their series... if they're lucky, they win their LCS and meet the team that kicked my other team's backside... if my other team meets the same fate, so be it... still was a fun and entertaining season.

01-06-2019, 03:52 PM	#1104
bobbycockstrong Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 178	An Idea to Address Competitive Balance 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

01-06-2019, 04:14 PM	#1107
Zorro Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,944	Actually I would not like a cap. I wish all the teams would have the 100 perfect cards because they are really not that good,(Most of them) If everyone had the perfect cards I would probably win every year. I would definitely make the playoffs. I have notice in my perfect league that the best teams really do not have that many perfects on their team. They use strategy to win instead. Some platoon with Diamond, Silver , Gold instead. They take the time to study the attributes. Also you can see after a couple years how players play against lefty or righty players. I have noticed that most players only see the ratings and say “Hey that is a great player” because he is a perfect. I love that kind of player in my league because he is not only lazy but has no idea what he is doing. If we cap the league that player would not load up his team with really useless players and the strategy of others would be lost. I see what you are saying but for myself I like it the way it is. Last edited by Zorro; 01-06-2019 at 04:19 PM.

01-06-2019, 04:15 PM	#1108
CrazyWR All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2018 Posts: 549	There's literally a thread RIGHT BELOW THIS that is for competitive balance posts. Also, I agree with Zorro. Last edited by CrazyWR; 01-06-2019 at 04:16 PM. Reason: ETA

01-06-2019, 04:33 PM	#1111
Westheim Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 14,000	All these splendid ideas have already been brought up at least seven times each in the 50+ pages thread LITERALLY labeled "Competitive Balance Discussion", along with plenty of replies by OOTPD why this and that will or will not happen. __________________ Portland Raccoons, 94 years of excell-.... of baseball: Furballs here! 1983 * 1989 * 1991 * 1992 * 1993 * 1995 * 1996 * 2010 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2026 * 2028 * 2035 * 2037 * 2044 * 2045 * 2046 * 2047 * 2048 * 2051 * 2054 * 2055 * 2061 * 2071 1 OSANAI : 2 POWELL : 7 NOMURA \| RAMOS : 8 REECE : 10 BROWN : 15 HALL : 27 FERNANDEZ : 28 CASAS : 31 CARMONA : 32 WEST : 39 TONER : 46 SAITO Resident Mets Cynic - The Mets from 1962 onwards, here.

01-06-2019, 02:47 PM	#1101
matingly23 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 135	Oh well, lost game 1 11-0. I guess you should expect to get shut out by Koufax and have Ruth launching bombs when you're in week 3 and a Silver League, this is soooo balanced and competitive! I am on the EDGE OF MY SEAT!!!

01-06-2019, 03:05 PM	#1103
matingly23 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 135	Ooh a close one, 13-2 in game 2. Alex Wood wasn't enough and Greg Maddux was. The Babe was held in check but "Silver" Johnny Bench had 5 RBI. What bad luck eh? Very competitive though.

01-06-2019, 04:12 PM	#1105
matingly23 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 135	Only lost game 3 by a 4-2 score, McCullers pitched out of his mind. Randy Johnson starting, Walter Johnson coming out of the pen - yep, that's some balanced Silver competition right there!

01-06-2019, 04:13 PM	#1106
matingly23 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 135	As much as I am complaining, I have an idea that would both create $$ and keep things balanced. Offer an option to be in a league of teams that can not buy any PP. But to be in such a league, you must pay a monthly subscription fee. I'd be down for that if the fee is reasonable. I'm willing to pay a little bit to have a fair league.

01-06-2019, 04:18 PM	#1109
matingly23 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 135	I have an idea. Create leagues where it is not possible to purchase PP. But charge a monthly subscription fee to access such leagues.

01-06-2019, 04:20 PM	#1110
Randro Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 36	People will just have the same cheap players if there's a cap. People know who the best ones are if you need to use one.

01-06-2019, 04:41 PM	#1112
zrog2000 All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2018 Posts: 1,335	In my gold league, the league whale with a .700 winning percentage added a perfect Ted Williams, a Christy Mathewson, Johnny Vander Meer and an ARod right before the playoffs. He even has Mike Trout on the bench. He has won all 5 playoff games so far by a total score of 31-3. What strategies should teams facing him use to compete?

01-06-2019, 04:57 PM	#1115
webdox Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 295	I did some upgrading right before the playoffs but kept all my new players unactive and will keep them there until next season. Didn't seem fair to plug them in at the last moment.

01-06-2019, 05:06 PM	#1119
matingly23 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 135	Because with one alteration this would be an incredibly fun game. As it is, it's plain stupid that Whale teams are in Silver leagues. There is no "challenge", you just get plain curb-stomped with 0 chance. That is the complete opposite of balance. Fix it, don't tell me it's a "fun challenge". Just got knocked out of the play-offs, another 11-0 loss to Koufax, the Bambino swatted another bomb. Wow that was a FUN CHALLENGE. Yep.