Competitive balance discussion

[traylor45]

Originally Posted by Westheim

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.

On a long enough timeline, everyone dies.

6000 teams in here (or at least at end of beta that's what it was.) Even if 5% are active, that's 300 teams. Markus has already stated that he'll support 19 for one year, but is unsure what they'll do after that. Even if he keeps it going 2-3 years, there's no way all 300 of those teams will be able to acquire every "meta" player in that span, without spending real money.

The idea that ALL cards will fall down to NPC price is a strawman...the game won't be around long enough for that to happen. All non-meta cards will be there in another 2-3 months, tops. But those cards that are end-game are going to drop a little bit longer, then start creeping back up as the non-PP purchasing players start acquiring enough PP to dive into that market.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

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.

Read the first post.

[bobbycockstrong]

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.

The guy that started was complaining that he was UNABLE to purchase PP with money, and thus implied at a competitive disadvantage.

Others started to complain about spending money yada yada, but ironically the OP was "complaining" that they wanted to spend money but were unable to do so (due to steam apparently). He wasnt complaining about spending money from what I can tell, he wanted to spend money.

But regardless of all that the thread title speaks for itself, doesnt it?

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Read the first post.

I read it.....read the title of the thread he picked. It seems clear people consider money invested as screwing with competitive balance.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by Westheim

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.



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.

Where did I say that was my "strategy" or anything about "Skill" in pack luck? I was using an example to make a point. Even if 4% of people pack great cards and thus have a resource advantage, they now have a competitive advantage. How is this tough to grasp? You are trying to dispute facts with opinions/what you think/want the game to be.

I already conceded that the game is fine as is, I dont care. But the game is NOT balanced. Please provide me some sort of evidence that the game is balanced? I have yet to see that. Otherwise you are just providing your opinion that you dont want a cap - which is fine, but it has nothing to do with balance or trying to refute the examples I provided. Regardless of the likelihood, the examples I provided are facts - a person with 400K PP has a competitive advantage over someone who has 1k PP, regardless of where they got the PP from.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

I read it.....read the title of the thread he picked. It seems clear people consider money invested as screwing with competitive balance.

Precisely.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Precisely.

Then we agree, it is about competitive balance with money being the big concern.

[shockenawe]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

Then we agree, it is about competitive balance with money being the big concern.

Not really. It's really 99% people complaining about those that spend money for players.

[<Pion>]

Sad to see a team in a Perfect league rolling out 40 and 50 OVR players and lose so many games. <sigh>

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by shockenawe

Not really. It's really 99% people complaining about those that spend money for players.

So is or isn't money the big concern? You just said "Not Really".

[Orcin]

Be sure to report the team.

[Thalion]

Agreed. It's completely bush league.

[shockenawe]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Be sure to report the team.

Is it against the rules to play weaker players so long as you meet the roster and lineup requirements?

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by shockenawe

Is it against the rules to play weaker players so long as you meet the roster and lineup requirements?

Not sure but I hope so. Makes a travesty of the entire game.

[shockenawe]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

So is or isn't money the big concern? You just said "Not Really".

99% people whining about those that spend money, and 1% a discussion of competitive balance.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by shockenawe

99% people whining about those that spend money, and 1% a discussion of competitive balance.

Do you seriously not see the link? Really?


This from a guy who spent plenty here. The entire point is around balance.

[DonkeyKongSr]

Originally Posted by shockenawe

Is it against the rules to play weaker players so long as you meet the roster and lineup requirements?

From the license file that installs with your game:

Use of Perfect Team Mode
When you access Perfect Team mode, you agree that you will not, nor encourage another party to:

...

(c) Cheat, deliberately lose, trade wins or Perfect Points, "feed" wins or Perfect Points from one account to another via the auction house or any other method, or otherwise fail to make a good-faith effort to play the game in a fashion intended to win via fair gameplay according to the intended operation of the game.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Be sure to report the team.

Already did. It's in the hands of the mods to determine.

[grall1126]

Just take the 1962 Mets, I am going to play a season with that team

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by grall1126

Just take the 1962 Mets, I am going to play a season with that team

The '82 Twins gave them a run for their money.