Competitive balance discussion

[bailey]

Would a competitive league where all 30 managers have an equal chance to win be any fun? Gee, you win a championship every 30 weeks and qualify for the playoff 1 in every 3 weeks. And at the end of 30 weeks, every manager is exactly on .500.

[traylor45]

Originally Posted by bailey

You need 1/2 million points to build a competitive perfect league team. You can earn those points through a LONG TERM and PATIENT plan of accumulating achievement points. So the game is balanced, real money just accelerates the process of being competitive.

Let's hope for 20, they don't have such obvious "must have" value plays like Trout and Betts.

That goalpost won't stay at 1/2 a million (which I think is pretty accurate right now). As people slowly accumulate PP, prices of the "meta" cards is going to rise, causing that number to rise as well.

With the timeline on OOTP19 being a year or two (Markus said on here it would up for at least a year, but not sure after that), I don't us ever reaching the point where the "whales" aren't at a massive advantage. Markus also said he wants you to earn enough PP for a pack every 2-3 days....that's 400 PP a day...you're not going to get anywhere near half a million PP at 400 PP a day.

[stl jason]

Originally Posted by traylor45

That goalpost won't stay at 1/2 a million (which I think is pretty accurate right now). As people slowly accumulate PP, prices of the "meta" cards is going to rise, causing that number to rise as well.

With the timeline on OOTP19 being a year or two (Markus said on here it would up for at least a year, but not sure after that), I don't us ever reaching the point where the "whales" aren't at a massive advantage. Markus also said he wants you to earn enough PP for a pack every 2-3 days....that's 400 PP a day...you're not going to get anywhere near half a million PP at 400 PP a day.

my best team so far has gained about 53K points through in game achievements / sold cards and the random AH sale (biggest there was about 5900).

that comes to about 1174 points per day.... at that rate, it would take about 425 days to gain a half million... still a long haul, but can be done if you have patience (or if you get that super lucky pull and land a rare card to sell)

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by bailey

Would a competitive league where all 30 managers have an equal chance to win be any fun? Gee, you win a championship every 30 weeks and qualify for the playoff 1 in every 3 weeks. And at the end of 30 weeks, every manager is exactly on .500.

How do you figure this is a thing? You are assuming that all 30 of these managers have the same "skill" and that they use the same players and strategy.

Seems to be confusing "skill"/strategy/cards you use/whatever (an action within a framework) with "competitive balance" (the framework).

[Orcin]

My perfect league has a team in the playoffs with no perfects, 13 diamonds, 12 gold or less, so success at the highest level can definitely be achieved with a modest roster if you have good strategies and a smart plan.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by boxner1

Unlikely in a ratings cap league. Some managers will buy one or two 100's and only be able to fill out a roster with 40's. Others will spread out their cap with all mid-level players.

There will be an Ichiro on every roster. Also an Aparicio. Those are historical cards, but they are ranked bronze when they shouldn't be and are common enough that everybody can have one. There are probably another four or five no-brainer cards like that. No matter where you set your ratings cap, the result will always be the same.

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

But lets pretend you and I have equal "skill" in OOTP and we both decide that we are not going to spend a penny on the game. And we make new teams. And you pull 1 gold in your starter packs and a bunch of bronze and sub-bronze. But I pull a historical perfect and a rare non-live diamond.

Such a long post, yet fundamentally flawed. You can not pull a perfect and diamond in your starter packs; they are fixed. 1 Gold, 3 Silver, 12 Bronze, 20 assorted somethings.

Originally Posted by traylor45

That goalpost won't stay at 1/2 a million (which I think is pretty accurate right now). As people slowly accumulate PP, prices of the "meta" cards is going to rise, causing that number to rise as well.

Despite all the "meta" talk, the number of players is finite and actually not very big, including who-knows-how-many people with multiple accounts that will only spend money on one. There comes a point, where you will not be able to sell a Mike Trout even for 20k, because everybody that wants one already has one. Same for every card in the game.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Such a long post, yet fundamentally flawed. You can not pull a perfect and diamond in your starter packs; they are fixed. 1 Gold, 3 Silver, 12 Bronze, 20 assorted somethings.

How so? You get 1000PP to buy a pack. You are saying you can not pull a perfect and diamond in the same pack? Thought I had seen screenshots of someone who had.

Regardless, the point is the same. Instead of a 100 and a diamond, i pull an ultra rate 100 with my 1000PP. And get 400k for it. The principle is the same. Nothing I typed was "fundamentally flawed".

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

How so? You get 1000PP to buy a pack. You are saying you can not pull a perfect and diamond in the same pack? Thought I had seen screenshots of someone who had.

Regardless, the point is the same. Instead of a 100 and a diamond, i pull an ultra rate 100 with my 1000PP. And get 400k for it. The principle is the same. Nothing I typed was "fundamentally flawed".

It's semantics, but that's not officially one of the starter packs. Only the first six are the starter packs. You are free to do what you wish with the gifted 1k, buy a regular (non-starter) pack, or buy players in the AH.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by atabakin

It's semantics, but that's not officially one of the starter packs. Only the first six are the starter packs. You are free to do what you wish with the gifted 1k, buy a regular (non-starter) pack, or buy players in the AH.

Yeah i know but I thought it was implied in my scenario that i bought a pack and the other guy spent his money on a few cheap players on AH. Regardless, like you said - semantics. The point was, one player had a magical pull that led to 400K and the other guy had nothing. Therefore the 400k person has a massive competitive advantage now.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

Yeah i know but I thought it was implied in my scenario that i bought a pack and the other guy spent his money on a few cheap players on AH. Regardless, like you said - semantics. The point was, one player had a magical pull that led to 400K and the other guy had nothing. Therefore the 400k person has a massive competitive advantage now.

Now that I reread the original post, you're right that it was implied. The quote left out that part.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by Westheim

There will be an Ichiro on every roster. Also an Aparicio. Those are historical cards, but they are ranked bronze when they shouldn't be and are common enough that everybody can have one. There are probably another four or five no-brainer cards like that. No matter where you set your ratings cap, the result will always be the same.

Also, explain to me how this is different than Mike Trout and Mookie Betts being on many perfect and diamond league teams? How there are 15-20 Corbins, Dierkers, Doolittles, etc in my league? With no cap there is no reason to get these people because they offer great value for PP. Its the same thing, cap or no cap - sometimes there will be common/meta players. Thats how it goes.

Really one of the few, if only, things ive seen against a cap is that "there will be so many ichiros" etc argument, but its not really a valid argument since the same thing applies to having no cap. There will be common/meta/popular players, regardless of cap and/or competitive balance.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

Yeah i know but I thought it was implied in my scenario that i bought a pack and the other guy spent his money on a few cheap players on AH. Regardless, like you said - semantics. The point was, one player had a magical pull that led to 400K and the other guy had nothing. Therefore the 400k person has a massive competitive advantage now.

This is a good thing, right? You can hit the jackpot without spending real money.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

Also, explain to me how this is different than Mike Trout and Mookie Betts being on many perfect and diamond league teams? How there are 15-20 Corbins, Dierkers, Doolittles, etc in my league? With no cap there is no reason to get these people because they offer great value for PP. Its the same thing, cap or no cap - sometimes there will be common/meta players. Thats how it goes.

Really one of the few, if only, things ive seen against a cap is that "there will be so many ichiros" etc argument, but its not really a valid argument since the same thing applies to having no cap. There will be common/meta/popular players, regardless of cap and/or competitive balance.

The difference I see is that people won't pay the premium for a "common" Ichiro that they will for a Trout or rarer perfect players. With less money coming in, PT as a platform becomes less viable.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by Orcin

This is a good thing, right? You can hit the jackpot without spending real money.

Yeah, ive said as much. Anything I have said in this thread has nothing to do with spending money. Its only about competitive balance. You can achieve a competitive advantage whether you spend money or you have better "luck" in your packs without spending a cent. Its the same thing.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by atabakin

The difference I see is that people won't pay the premium for a "common" Ichiro that they will for a Trout or rarer perfect players. With less money coming in, PT as a platform becomes less viable.

Maybe thats true, I dont know. But what do you think about the viability of PT if a large majority of players feel that they can not compete and stop playing? or stop spending a little money?

Ultimately the devs will have to do the math and see what works best for them. Is having a very small percentage spend hundreds/thousands of dollars better than having a decent chunk of players spend a little money (less than 100?). If those players who spent less than a 100 in 19 decide that "you know what? I just cant compete even if i spend 100 bucks, so im not going to spend any money in 20."

These are all hypothetical about the viability of the platform and revenue.

But again, anything I have said in this thread is not about money or viability - its about "competitive balance" which this thread is about. Like I said, if the decision is to favor revenue generation over competitive balance, thats perfectly fine with me. But it doesnt magically make things "balanced" or solve the question of the thread.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

Maybe thats true, I dont know. But what do you think about the viability of PT if a large majority of players feel that they can not compete and stop playing? or stop spending a little money?

Ultimately the devs will have to do the math and see what works best for them. Is having a very small percentage spend hundreds/thousands of dollars better than having a decent chunk of players spend a little money (less than 100?). If those players who spent less than a 100 in 19 decide that "you know what? I just cant compete even if i spend 100 bucks, so im not going to spend any money in 20."

Fair point. I think we won't get a true sense of this till 21. Even if some who spent a little in 19 don't spend in 20, there will be many who didn't play at all in 19 playing and spending a little in 20. I trust there will be metrics on the back end to track year over year activity.

[acclaim99]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

How so? You get 1000PP to buy a pack. You are saying you can not pull a perfect and diamond in the same pack? Thought I had seen screenshots of someone who had.

Regardless, the point is the same. Instead of a 100 and a diamond, i pull an ultra rate 100 with my 1000PP. And get 400k for it. The principle is the same. Nothing I typed was "fundamentally flawed".

Packs are weird. I got one with the extra points I got after a game two nights ago..... I got two 100's in that pack, both Sale, but that gave me extra PP to get more peoples.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

How so? You get 1000PP to buy a pack. You are saying you can not pull a perfect and diamond in the same pack? Thought I had seen screenshots of someone who had.

Regardless, the point is the same. Instead of a 100 and a diamond, i pull an ultra rate 100 with my 1000PP. And get 400k for it. The principle is the same. Nothing I typed was "fundamentally flawed".

The fundamental flaw is, even if one interprets your previous post this way, your chance is under 4% to pull either a diamond OR a perfect. If your strategy for an entirely new 36-card team foots on banking 1,000 PP on a lucky grab rather than buying six to eight valuable silver cards off the market, then I call that strategy fundamentally flawed. And even if you DO pull a great card, it has still nothing to do with skill.

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

Also, explain to me how this is different than Mike Trout and Mookie Betts being on many perfect and diamond league teams? How there are 15-20 Corbins, Dierkers, Doolittles, etc in my league? With no cap there is no reason to get these people because they offer great value for PP. Its the same thing, cap or no cap - sometimes there will be common/meta players. Thats how it goes.

Really one of the few, if only, things ive seen against a cap is that "there will be so many ichiros" etc argument, but its not really a valid argument since the same thing applies to having no cap. There will be common/meta/popular players, regardless of cap and/or competitive balance.

There is no difference in everybody having a Trout or everybody having an Ichiro. All rosters will gravitate towards the same set of cards, and with that I really mean *all* rosters, because everybody can afford an Ichiro or might pull him sooner rather than later; I pulled four at least... A cap achieves nothing except adding a tedious amount of bureaucracy to the game, and don't even get me started on all the whining that will start because this and that card is a 74 when it should be a 72.

Besides no cap of any sort coming I still wonder how so many people can not stop raising the pitchforks over some guys pumping money into the game so you can play it in the first place.

And don't start again with the "well if the entry fee was $10" - no such concept has been viable for many years in the gaming market, period. You get them with a free game, then poke them for unlimited amounts of cash. It doesn't matter if a game has 10,000 players and only 10% of those are spending money. Of those 10%, many will spend many times over that $10 entry fee that would otherwise shoo off half of the player base. At that point, you can just as well charge full price for your game. Surprisingly, free games done well will make their developers *absurd* amounts of money. It has been this way for many years. It is not just OOTP PT - the entire market works this way. You have to accept it the way it is or get something else to do.

Addition: everybody, read that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play - and there is more information to be found in the literature.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

Maybe thats true, I dont know. But what do you think about the viability of PT if a large majority of players feel that they can not compete and stop playing? or stop spending a little money?

Ultimately the devs will have to do the math and see what works best for them. Is having a very small percentage spend hundreds/thousands of dollars better than having a decent chunk of players spend a little money (less than 100?). If those players who spent less than a 100 in 19 decide that "you know what? I just cant compete even if i spend 100 bucks, so im not going to spend any money in 20."

These are all hypothetical about the viability of the platform and revenue.

But again, anything I have said in this thread is not about money or viability - its about "competitive balance" which this thread is about. Like I said, if the decision is to favor revenue generation over competitive balance, thats perfectly fine with me. But it doesnt magically make things "balanced" or solve the question of the thread.

The devs have already done the math. What we have is the result.

And you are wrong about this thread... it was opened to complain about people spending money, not game balance.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The devs have already done the math. What we have is the result.

And you are wrong about this thread... it was opened to complain about people spending money, not game balance.

That's way too simplistic. It absolutely was and is about game balance, albeit the fact people spend money is the crux of most peoples arguments here.