Competitive balance discussion

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

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

Just as I thought, you don't want to have a civil discussion.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by eldur00

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

You are telling me how you think it could be balanced, which is fine. I am asking what "balanced" means to you.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Just as I thought, you don't want to have a civil discussion.

You want an answer that has already been supplied repeatedly. I apologize for my tone, but I was simply responding in kind. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be removing myself from this community of negativity. I do not need people like you in my life. At best, it brings me down to your level. Goodbye.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

You want an answer that has already been supplied repeatedly. I apologize for my tone, but I was simply responding in kind. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be removing myself from this community of negativity. I do not need people like you in my life. At best, it brings me down to your level. Goodbye.

SInce you won't do it, maybe someone else would be kind enough to link to the post or posts that actually define "balanced". I don't mean the solutions to get us to the state of balance. I am asking about what "balanced" would look like. Thank you in advance.

[eldur00]

Originally Posted by Orcin

You are telling me how you think it could be balanced, which is fine. I am asking what "balanced" means to you.

Now you just sound like Jack Nicholson in Anger Management.


I gave you my best shot at explaining. I give up.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

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.

Aren't there other things that make the game unbalanced as well. We all bring different assets to the table. Money, time, math/statistics/computer abilities to name a few. I think we should place limits on the amount of time people can spend looking at the AH or tweaking their teams. A limit on the amount of spreadsheet skills would be helpful. And don't get me started on those that do statistics and regression analysis for a living.

[SayHey1]

Originally Posted by Mat

It is not normal to be earning 5-10k PP every week. If you are earning this much you are beating up on the weaker competition.

Wrong.

I earned 16k PP last week and was a barely .500 team.


The previous week, I earned about 9k.....was 4 games below .500.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

Aren't there other things that make the game unbalanced as well. We all bring different assets to the table. Money, time, math/statistics/computer abilities to name a few. I think we should place limits on the amount of time people can spend looking at the AH or tweaking their teams. A limit on the amount of spreadsheet skills would be helpful. And don't get me started on those that do statistics and regression analysis for a living.

This.

Give two players the same set of 36 cards. One player uses a traditional approach to lineup construction and bullpen usage, trusting in batting average, stolen bases, and the philosophy of "an inning per guy", while the second player uses an aggressive sabermetrical analysis and uses bullpenning to save a roster spot by removing the fifth starting pitcher. They will arrive at very different rosters, lineups, and - very likely - results.

How do you "balance" that?

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by Orcin

SInce you won't do it, maybe someone else would be kind enough to link to the post or posts that actually define "balanced". I don't mean the solutions to get us to the state of balance. I am asking about what "balanced" would look like. Thank you in advance.

I think "balanced" to some people means everyone is 81-81 and then we have tie breakers to decide who gets into the playoffs. Then I win because I am the coolest "leet dude" here and victory is owed to me.That is as close as it can get to "everybody gets a trophy" Then the game will be balanced and I will have won.



What they refuse to accept is that somebody will always have more. Either we bury our head in the sand, we scream the sky is falling, or we adapt. Adaptation. That is a key word in human evolution. It is one of the words that separates us from the beasts in the field. The world is not safe. The world is not fair. There are no true "safe zones" There are bumps, toe stubbers, and hurdles everywhere. Most of us simply do not have the resources to buy all the perfect cards that other's do. However, many people compete quite well in this game with little to no investment.

Being able to compete with the possibility of winning. That is my definition of competitive balance. I have found that here. It is tough, but doable. I think that agrees with what Orcin has been trying to get across. As a GM I tell my manager, "Don't tell me how rough the seas were; just bring the ship in."

[spleen1015]

It's pretty simple to me. This mode was created to generate additional income for OOTPDevs, mostly. The game is P2W. If it was balanced between F2P and P2W, then what's the point of putting money into it?

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

It's pretty simple to me. This mode was created to generate additional income for OOTPDevs, mostly. The game is P2W. If it was balanced between F2P and P2W, then what's the point of putting money into it?

Nobody said PTW and FTP are equal. The toll road and the scenic route are not equal either. The toll road is much faster. Some people are in a hurry to arrive at their destination. Others like to take their time. It is the old story of the tortoise and the hare. Some people have the money to spend and will. Some people have it but will not spend money; others would but can't.

All can compete. It has already been proven that Perfect Leagues can be won by less than perfect teams.

[bobbycockstrong]

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.

I think dogberry said it well enough in his reply

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by Orcin

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

I guess balance could be subjective, but i think in terms of competition, in my opinion at least, its fairly straightforward in terms of creating a relatively fair competitive environment (what that point is, is the debate - but the fundemental goal I think is relatively straightforward).

This is a baseball game, so lets use real MLB as an example. Do you think players should be able to use steroids if they want? Do you think there should not be a luxury tax? Do you think its ok to tamper with baseballs, bats, etc during games? Do you think its ok for teams to "tap up" players before they become free agents? Etc

I mean, on a personal level someone could think those things are ok or not ok - thats their opinion, but in terms of fair competition, MLB at least determined that things like that give teams and/or players such a competitive advantage over others that they needed to regulate these things. So thus you achieve, or attempt to achieve, a competitive balance.

As for whether the game is supposed to be balanced, i dont know. Its not my place to say. I already said a few times Im fine with it as is (in what i believe is an imbalanced state currently) if thats what the devs want and if the goal is to generate revenue, introduce a new game mode, or whatever. Its for fun. There are no prizes. There is no way to know if player A (who wins hypothetical perfect410 league) is better than player B (who wins separate perfect 419 league). So its not really a true competition. Thus I dont really care. PP is still sort of a work in progress anyways, as they work towards 20. But it doesnt mean we cant discuss these things. They are viewpoints.

If the goal is (or eventually is) to create a competitive/ranked game mode, similar to many other computer/video games, to determine who is the best in PP. Or rack and stack competitors. Then you do need to strive for a competitive balance in order to achieve a relatively fair competitive environment for that to be taken seriously.

While I dont care at the moment, other people do apparently (based on responses in the thread), and the sense I guess is they care because they want to "compete" but they want a "fair competition". Some in this thread have suggested people want to "win easy", etc. But I dont think thats the case. It may be for some, but for many I suspect they just want to play in what they view as a fair competitive environment. Perhaps what that is differs for different people.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by Westheim

This.

Give two players the same set of 36 cards. One player uses a traditional approach to lineup construction and bullpen usage, trusting in batting average, stolen bases, and the philosophy of "an inning per guy", while the second player uses an aggressive sabermetrical analysis and uses bullpenning to save a roster spot by removing the fifth starting pitcher. They will arrive at very different rosters, lineups, and - very likely - results.

How do you "balance" that?

You literally just did, you gave them the same set of 36 cards. Thats a "balanced" rule set and let the chips fall where they may.

This is perhaps the simplest form of balance you could achieve in PP, but no one wants to play with the same 36 cards over and over presumably. So instead of using the same cards, you need some sort of rule set that would be considered "balanced" that prevents a significant competitive advantage. Currently, there is no rule set of any sort aside from a 25 man roster and you need at least X pitchers or whatever, and its easy to achieve a competitive advantage - whether thats through instantly purchasing it, or "getting lucky" with a pack opening, or whatever else.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by Kushiel

I think "balanced" to some people means everyone is 81-81 and then we have tie breakers to decide who gets into the playoffs. Then I win because I am the coolest "leet dude" here and victory is owed to me.That is as close as it can get to "everybody gets a trophy" Then the game will be balanced and I will have won.



What they refuse to accept is that somebody will always have more. Either we bury our head in the sand, we scream the sky is falling, or we adapt. Adaptation. That is a key word in human evolution. It is one of the words that separates us from the beasts in the field. The world is not safe. The world is not fair. There are no true "safe zones" There are bumps, toe stubbers, and hurdles everywhere. Most of us simply do not have the resources to buy all the perfect cards that other's do. However, many people compete quite well in this game with little to no investment.

Being able to compete with the possibility of winning. That is my definition of competitive balance. I have found that here. It is tough, but doable. I think that agrees with what Orcin has been trying to get across. As a GM I tell my manager, "Don't tell me how rough the seas were; just bring the ship in."

But I mean thats not what "balance" is. It is, or can be, "competitive", but its not "balance" as people would fundamentally understand the term. Competitive balance doesnt mean .500 across the board. Balance isnt about winning or losing. Balance is about a fair competitive playing field.

Ive reiterated the point multiple times, but I think its comes down to simply people achieving an immediate competitive advantage that is not readily available to all competitors. If X has a competitive advantage over Y, then its not balanced. Y can still beat X, or be on par with X, but that doesnt mean its balanced. They made the gap up some other way.

I can give you a few goofy examples if you want.

To use MLB, lets just pretend that 1, or a handful of the 30 teams, was given unlimited roster size, no luxury tax penalties, and their players were not subject to PED violations. Would you say that those teams had a competitive advantage? Would you say the other teams were competing in a balanced competition? Some might still be competitive, but it would be balanced.

Here is another goofy one. Lets say you coach a little league team. 12 years old is the max age. If one team got to use all 18 year olds, would that be balanced? Sure the other 12 year old teams could still compete. It would be tougher, they would have to adapt for sure. They might even win, who knows. But its not "balanced" in the fundamental sense of the word.

You are confusing competition with competitive balance. They are not the same thing.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

I think dogberry said it well enough in his reply

So then how do we balance the amount of time people have to spend on the game? How do we balance that some people have access to their teams during playoffs and others don't? How do we balance that some can write formulas, pivot tables, and computer programs to help in their analysis of the players and others struggle with those type of things? All of those occur outside of the game and give people an advantage over others.

[bobbycockstrong]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

So then how do we balance the amount of time people have to spend on the game? How do we balance that some people have access to their teams during playoffs and others don't? How do we balance that some can write formulas, pivot tables, and computer programs to help in their analysis of the players and others struggle with those type of things? All of those occur outside of the game and give people an advantage over others.

You actually answered your own question. That is the "skill"/"effort" however you want to phrase it aspect of the game and these things happen - as you literally say and to quote you - "occur outside of the game".

Buying PP or luckily packing cards happen INSIDE the game, thus the competitive advantage, and thus an imbalance.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

You actually answered your own question. That is the "skill"/"effort" however you want to phrase it aspect of the game and these things happen - as you literally say and to quote you - "occur outside of the game".

Buying PP or luckily packing cards happen INSIDE the game, thus the competitive advantage, and thus an imbalance.

I used the words "occur outside of the game" due to Dogberry (whom you supported) had, unless I'm misunderstanding his post, said that the competitive imbalance came from things "outside the game". (Emphasis below is mine)

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

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.

[Thalion]

Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong

But I mean thats not what "balance" is. It is, or can be, "competitive", but its not "balance" as people would fundamentally understand the term. Competitive balance doesnt mean .500 across the board. Balance isnt about winning or losing. Balance is about a fair competitive playing field.

Ive reiterated the point multiple times, but I think its comes down to simply people achieving an immediate competitive advantage that is not readily available to all competitors. If X has a competitive advantage over Y, then its not balanced. Y can still beat X, or be on par with X, but that doesnt mean its balanced. They made the gap up some other way.

I can give you a few goofy examples if you want.

To use MLB, lets just pretend that 1, or a handful of the 30 teams, was given unlimited roster size, no luxury tax penalties, and their players were not subject to PED violations. Would you say that those teams had a competitive advantage? Would you say the other teams were competing in a balanced competition? Some might still be competitive, but it would be balanced.

Here is another goofy one. Lets say you coach a little league team. 12 years old is the max age. If one team got to use all 18 year olds, would that be balanced? Sure the other 12 year old teams could still compete. It would be tougher, they would have to adapt for sure. They might even win, who knows. But its not "balanced" in the fundamental sense of the word.

You are confusing competition with competitive balance. They are not the same thing.

That's the thing though. Nobody has given only one team unlimited roster size. If they choose not to use it, that is entirely upon them.


So in this particular example, the analogy isn't valid because there are no rules in place enforcing any type of competitive advantage.

[pstrickert]

“Competitive balance” is the objective for the MLB luxury tax. (Not a surprise, I know.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majo...all_luxury_tax