Competitive balance discussion

[stl jason]

Originally Posted by old timer

Yeah, 1500 PP/season seems really low. My career record is 500-526 and I've averaged 5677 PP/season (not counting this season). I never made less than 3k, even when I lost 102 games at diamond level.

in 47 days of play (11/28 - 1/14... I haven't tallied the 1/15 points yet); my pre-ww2 team has gained 54900 total points (from achievements and card sales, the highest sale was about 5900 with most of the other sales in the iron/bronze categories.).... comes to about 1168 points per day.

obviously not every day is that much (some days they only pull in a couple hundred at most) but for an average it'll do.

[Maddox]

Originally Posted by traylor45

At Perfect level, I get 1k points a week.

At Diamond Level I'll get 5-10k points/week.

At which level do I want to be at right now, if I want to win the Perfect level?

I want to be relegated back to Diamond so that I can actually earn PP.

Everybody wants to earn more points.

Sure going back to diamond may help you, but do you then become the team in Diamond that nobody can earn PP from? Does that make some borderline diamond team want to drop down to gold, which in turn makes some borderline gold team want to drop back down to silver?

As players we can be selfish when it comes to what we would like to see in the game. We don't have to worry about the other players. The Devs absolutely have to worry about those aspects. If they allow a team to tank what are the ripple effects of that on other players?

Let me just end by saying again (as I have elsewhere in these threads) that I do believe they advanced too many teams too quickly this go around. Any time you are promoting teams that hovered around the .500 mark in a league then that is too aggressive. But, I don't believe there is anything they can do to this year to fix what has already been done.

[kingcharlesxii]

Originally Posted by uschi_baerchen

And here the skill drops in. The question is: “How doI find undervalued Players that can replace underperforming players on my team?”

• Know your underperformers
  1. for this you must define a meaningfull metrix, e.g. WAR per 600 PA forbatters, WAR per 200 IP for pitchers, but take whatever you like
  2. you also need the statistics for at least 1000 IP and 3000 PA, socollect them in a spreadsheet over several seasons
• Know the undervalued players
  1. For this you have to collect the player-data of the other teams in yourleagues
  2. You will get a metrix value and names, for these names you can search theprices in the AH
  3. Identify the positions, where your players suck and there is a highdifference to otherwise relatively cheap players from above
• Spent the minimum PP for the highest difference in pop

Some further thoughts:

• 1. Pitchers like Corbin, Dierker, Whitley, Kopech are way cheaper than10.000, have a look at them
  2. Batters like Ichiro, Simmons, Vizquel, McReynolds are way cheaper than2.000, Martinez is a mega-bargain, have a look at them
  3. As for catchers go with Realmuto since the catchers all suck (except thetotally overpriced ones)

You should get with the strategy eventually to Gold,maybe Diamond; for Diamond maybe Perfect you must dive a bit deeperunfortunately

Yep, already did all that. Perhaps not coincidentally, I've already mined out most of the cheap good players (there's a lot of positional overlap) which is why I'm stuck. I did make it to Perfect with my strategy and I do have a bit of experience winning in OOTP.

[waylander]

Originally Posted by xekyn92

The mode as it exists in OOTP19 is undeniably pay-to-win and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that (I myself have spent a good amount of money to support the developers).

The issue is the lack of variety, your team is stuck in one league and there’s virtually no skill involved at the higher levels, it’s simply a contest of who spent the most money. The developers aren’t going to hurt their bottom line, nor should they be expected to, but I think they need to find ways to make the game mode more engaging for F2P players so they don’t get stuck in a state of purgatory.

First and foremost we need to be able to enter leagues with our friends, the game right now feels incredibly isolated and the ‘community’ aspect of it is sorely lacking. Even being able to directly challenge my friends teams to an exhibition/showmatch that doesn’t reward any PP would be a nice addition.

Secondly, they need some alternate league/tournament structures that actually involve some strategy/skill and put players on a relatively equal footing, even if the main league system remains the same as it is now. There’s a lot of fun/gimmicky things they could do in this regard:

1) Leagues that only allow you to use iron, bronze, silver, gold etc cards or combinations/limitations of these, restricting the amount of diamond/perfect cards that can be used in order to make it more strategy based as opposed to who can assemble the most overwhelmingly talented set of cards. If i’m only allowed to use 1 perfect card, do I value having an ace more or should it be a position player? This would have the secondary effect of also encouraging players to retain/collect lesser rated cards instead of just autoselling everything that isn’t gold or above, they’ve put so much work into creating all of these interesting historical cards, why not give us opportunities to use them? Card collecting definitely needs more emphasis in PT, maybe give small PP rewards for completing certain historical team collections etc.

2) What about a game mode where we pay varying PP entry fees (like 1k/5k/10k to encourage people to buy PP still) and compete for the entire pot (with a tax skimmed off the top similar to the AH). To make it even funnier, make it entirely random, you don’t enter with your own cards, each participant gets 10-20 regular packs and you have to build the best roster you can with what you unpack (with all of the cards deleted at the end, perhaps the top 3 finishers get to keep one card or something). You could also have free entry versions of this that reward packs / modest amounts of PP as well, obviously you would have a limit on how many you can enter at once.

3) Draft leagues. Again have an entry fee perhaps so OOTP can still make a little money (in addition to prize payouts). Have it so the game randomly generates a random pool of cards from standard packs (like 10 packs for each player in the league) after which the players draft in a randomly determined reverse snake order until their rosters are built. It’ll challenge players to identify good late round card choices and make it so noone has an unfair advantage. Have us compete for a share of the PP, reward packs or maybe the opportunity to keep a card from our roster to be used in the main league.

There’s a ton of creative ways they can make the game more engaging for F2P players and provide opportunities to earn PP/packs/cards without outright ruining the pay-to-win model they’re using in the main game. They just need to provide people with alternatives to keep things fresh and exciting.

I would love to see a serpentine draft that runs a single season. You pay the PP cost of enough packs to fill out your roster - and at the end of the season these cards are transferred to your main team. The draft component can be a little difficult to handle, but nothing we don't deal with in current non-perfect leagues.

I really think this is a win/win for both sides of the argument. The draft league is capped, so it will be whale free. It also generates a new revenue stream for OOTP, encouraging players to spend more to participate. Seems to work for Wizards of the Coast with their Magic franchise.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

They're not saying that that is not F2P. They are saying that framing the discussion regarding Competitive Balance in terms of F2P and P2W is a False Dichotomy. (assuming I understood them correctly)

Late Edit: Actually, I'm not even certain I understood you correctly, much less the previous comment. When you say "on the reserve roster" are you referring to tanking?

Yeah this is all i meant, that the issue with competitive balance is not purely f2p vs p2w. You can achieve competitive advantage even being a f2w team. Sorry if i wasnt clear for all, but you got it at least.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

No, not tanking, sorry for the confusion. Referring to getting one gold card in the initial 6 packs and the player is bad enough that they are no longer good enough to be on the 25 man roster. So they aren't helping the team with their play, nor are they worth much more than the 1000 sell it now price. So everything the team has going for them now was acquired through achievements earned. I was making the point that there are some that did not spend nor did they get a lucky break and yet are in Perfect level leagues. So it is possible to compete by only earning achievements.

Yeah I get that, and good for them. That is not the point. Their doing that is doing so despite a competitive disadvantage.

You could also spend 100 bucks on PP - pack absolute rubbish and put all that rubbish on your reserve roster, but still manage your way to perfect with random bronzes. Its unlikely, but Im sure there is one single person out there that spent money, got nothing from the money they spent, but still managed to get to perfect. It doesnt mean that its competitively balanced.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by Mat

5-10k is very high. I cannot remember the exact number but I have seen a comment from Markus saying PT is designed so users earn ~1500PP a week. Obviously there would be variance but this would be the median earned pp.

If you are deliberately moving down a league to earn more PP, then you are gaming the system.

I dont think 5-10k is too high. Maybe the 10k high end, but 5k easy for a perfect leagues caliber team in diamond. Why wouldnt they expect to get 5k? I had an awful team in diamond didnt spend any PP all season - at the end I have 7k from that season. My team was complete trash that season too towards the bottom of the league. As a side note, this was a pack only team so i blew it all on packs and didnt even get a gold (rekt), but I digress...

The point he is making is valid though I think - the further down you are the more PP you are likely to earn. This is true I think in terms of both the simple achievements (like 4 hits, 2 SBs, 4 runs scored, corner painter/maddox, etc) because you are theoretically facing inferior opponents, but also larger PP achievements like big streaks (hits, RBIs, wins, saves, etc) - those streaks are more likely to get broken at higher levels because you are facing theoretically better competition.

Anyways, I dont have a solution for it off the top of my head, but I think its a very fair argument to say you will likely get more PP via achievements the lower level you are (especially when comparing perfect to lower levels).

[Thalion]

I could have sworn that Markus (or one of the other developers) worked under the assumption that a team would be earning something between 1 - 3 packs a week. I may be mistaken about the numbers, but it wasn't that high.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Thalion

I could have sworn that Markus (or one of the other developers) worked under the assumption that a team would be earning something between 1 - 3 packs a week. I may be mistaken about the numbers, but it wasn't that high.

Average should be closer to 3-5k, when you count the weeks that you get one of the "big" achievements that pay out a few K. But the variance certainly will be high, since some weeks you'll probably net only 1.5, and other weeks you can bank 10k or more in one game.

Remember, if you make the playoffs (1k), have 3 All-Stars (200 ea), and win a couple end of season awards (250 each), it's not hard just from that to get 2k, not even counting any of the in-game achievements.

[Thalion]

Yeah, that's kinda what I remember now. I distinctly remember it wasn't 10k though. Thanks, Matt.

[Mat]

Thanks Matt, for the clarification.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

Yeah I get that, and good for them. That is not the point. Their doing that is doing so despite a competitive disadvantage.

You could also spend 100 bucks on PP - pack absolute rubbish and put all that rubbish on your reserve roster, but still manage your way to perfect with random bronzes. Its unlikely, but Im sure there is one single person out there that spent money, got nothing from the money they spent, but still managed to get to perfect. It doesnt mean that its competitively balanced.

I guess we see it different, maybe we have a different definition of competitively balanced. Mine would be whether or not anyone can make it to Perfect level and be competitive (winning half their games with an occasional lucky year where everything clicks).

My take is that there are three ways to be competitive even in Perfect. One is to spend the money. Second is to be lucky and get that magical lucky card you can flip. The third is to look for every competitive advantage you can (honest advantages, not scamming the system). If you don't have the money or the luck, then put in the time doing the homework and get a team that works well together and maximizes your production per PP earned. That was the reason for my comment, that the third way is possible. You can get to Perfect without a single diamond card with just a mixture of gold and silver.

A team can win a championship without spending a dime at levels below Perfect, and they can even represent well at Perfect. I don't know of any that have "won" at the Perfect level, but I also don't have all the info as to who has and what they spent. Given the number of lower leagues where teams with huge numbers of wins have been knocked out of the playoffs by a team with wins in the 80s, I don't see why those same teams can't be knocked off at the perfect level by a team that may have snuck in as a wildcard team as it has happened quite often in lower levels. Maybe that isn't competitively balanced, maybe it is. Depends on expectations.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

I guess we see it different, maybe we have a different definition of competitively balanced. Mine would be whether or not anyone can make it to Perfect level and be competitive (winning half their games with an occasional lucky year where everything clicks).

My take is that there are three ways to be competitive even in Perfect. One is to spend the money. Second is to be lucky and get that magical lucky card you can flip. The third is to look for every competitive advantage you can (honest advantages, not scamming the system). If you don't have the money or the luck, then put in the time doing the homework and get a team that works well together and maximizes your production per PP earned. That was the reason for my comment, that the third way is possible. You can get to Perfect without a single diamond card with just a mixture of gold and silver.

A team can win a championship without spending a dime at levels below Perfect, and they can even represent well at Perfect. I don't know of any that have "won" at the Perfect level, but I also don't have all the info as to who has and what they spent. Given the number of lower leagues where teams with huge numbers of wins have been knocked out of the playoffs by a team with wins in the 80s, I don't see why those same teams can't be knocked off at the perfect level by a team that may have snuck in as a wildcard team as it has happened quite often in lower levels. Maybe that isn't competitively balanced, maybe it is. Depends on expectations.

As ive said a few times, im fine with the game as is generally speaking if thats how the devs want it. But I think where we disagree (disagree isnt even the right word, because like I said im fine with the game as is, but we see thing differently) is that you are good with/prefer the game being "competitive" as you described it above - but something being competitive is NOT the same as competitive balance.

Something is either competitively balanced or its not. This game is not. I have yet to see a single argument to suggest it is, probably because it is so clearly not balanced. Hence all of my commentary. The game can, however, still be competitive for people depending on how they view competitive - even if its not balanced.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

As ive said a few times, im fine with the game as is generally speaking if thats how the devs want it. But I think where we disagree (disagree isnt even the right word, because like I said im fine with the game as is, but we see thing differently) is that you are good with/prefer the game being "competitive" as you described it above - but something being competitive is NOT the same as competitive balance.

Something is either competitively balanced or its not. This game is not. I have yet to see a single argument to suggest it is, probably because it is so clearly not balanced. Hence all of my commentary. The game can, however, still be competitive for people depending on how they view competitive - even if its not balanced.

I don't think someone spending more money is a competitive imbalance. Everyone has the freedom to spend what they want. If you don't want to or don't have it, you still had the same opportunity presented to you. The only thing totally out of your control is the luck factor when opening packs.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

Something is either competitively balanced or its not. This game is not. I have yet to see a single argument to suggest it is, probably because it is so clearly not balanced.

Hard to say. How do you define "balance"? Also, is the game supposed to be "balanced"?

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

I don't think someone spending more money is a competitive imbalance. Everyone has the freedom to spend what they want. If you don't want to or don't have it, you still had the same opportunity presented to you. The only thing totally out of your control is the luck factor when opening packs.

It is literally involves using actions outside the game to make one's team better than their competition (or if spent on packs, the chance to make one's team better). There is nothing wrong with that. However, it is still a way to create an imbalance in competition levels. The fact that we all have access is pleasant, but we are not all equal in our ability to collect and utilize out of game resources. In this regard, it is similar to how in the US, every voter gets one vote, but more money directly translates into greater amounts of political access. Warren Buffet and I have the same number of votes, but it is far easier for him to get an audience with politicians because he is capable of donating more than I am.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Also, is the game supposed to be "balanced"?

He seems to be consistently deferring to the devs on this matter, implying that since they want this model, this game is not in fact supposed to be balanced.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

He seems to be consistently deferring to the devs on this matter, implying that since they want this model, this game is not in fact supposed to be balanced.

I am asking a question. Do you believe that this game should be balanced, and what is your definition of "balanced" for this game?

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I am asking a question. Do you believe that this game should be balanced, and what is your definition of "balanced" for this game?

And I answered the part of your question for them that I thought I could, since I thought they might be offline, you ass.

If you are asking me, then I think it is a very complicated question. However, boiling it all down to quick sound bites... No, I do not believe this game should be balanced.

I am not going to relitigate the definition of balance for you, since that is literally what bobbycockstrong has been going on and on about, and they are far more eloquent about it than I could ever hope to be. I refer you to his previous posts that explained this.

[eldur00]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I am asking a question. Do you believe that this game should be balanced, and what is your definition of "balanced" for this game?

Whether this game needs to be balanced or not is not for us to decide. If the devs are fine with the unbalance (aka the bottom line number looks good to them), then it can stay unbalanced, as far as everyone is aware, I don't have any problem with that.



To balance this game, we would have to touch topics you have already shown absolutely zero interest in being discussed.


One way to balance things would be to have a salary system, with the cap being lower at the lower leagues, and higher the highest you get. But it's been said countless times already it's not going to happen.


The other way to make the game balanced is not possible in its current format. The FTP player can't grind more than the average player to bring his manageable assets higher. Everybody has the same number of games played in a day (minus playoffs). PP distributed are random (random is not the right word because obviously you won't steal 200 bases with Paul O'Neill in a season). The FTP player cannot make up for the guy that stumbled on 400K points (be it through purchasing points or sheer luck) in his division by playing more games to increase his own assets.



In most other games, a certain balance can be achieved if you're willing to put the time in and grind it out. You may not get ALL the best cards as if you had spent hundreds of dollars, but you're usually able to be competitive and your skill can come and put itself in the balance as well.


Basically, to make this game more balanced, it would need to offer some form of grinding alternative for the motivated player. And no, waiting 3 months and sitting idle for your team to get enough PP is not what I'm talking about.