Just throwing this out for comments...

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Orcin

There is one thing about the current system that I don't understand. Currently, four teams are promoted from Diamond to Perfect and two teams are relegated from Perfect to Diamond. The same ratio applies to all levels. So the current system seems to be designed to push teams up the ladder. Why not have four teams promoted and FOUR teams relegated?

I believe the specific numbers of teams to move up or down is a dynamic number that is changed to populate the levels based on goals of the development team (which I believe is a pyramid scheme).

The current numbers of 4 up and 2 down suggest they are trying to grow the number of teams in Perfect. I suspect if the levels were all the "right" size, the up/down numbers would be equal.

[neugey]

Originally Posted by Orcin

There is one thing about the current system that I don't understand. Currently, four teams are promoted from Diamond to Perfect and two teams are relegated from Perfect to Diamond. The same ratio applies to all levels. So the current system seems to be designed to push teams up the ladder. Why not have four teams promoted and FOUR teams relegated?

It does seem like the root cause of the issue. It would seem to me now that there is sufficient population in each level and that next week they change it to be 4 up and 4 down across the board (except just 4 down from Perfect and 4 up from Iron).

[Argonaut]

Originally Posted by Orcin

There is one thing about the current system that I don't understand. Currently, four teams are promoted from Diamond to Perfect and two teams are relegated from Perfect to Diamond. The same ratio applies to all levels. So the current system seems to be designed to push teams up the ladder. Why not have four teams promoted and FOUR teams relegated?

I suspect in the initial stages it needs to be designed to push teams up the ladder in order to fill out all the leagues, as more teams come into the entry pool. I would hope that the "endgame" be more balanced in promotion/relegation, or even tilted the other way. Have 8 teams come down from Perfect, and 4 teams go up from Diamond. This could be facilitated by having half as many Perfect Leagues as Diamond Leagues (unless my early morning math is wrong).

But then there should be reward for staying in Perfect despite heavy relegation. Encourage teams to compete, even if you're getting beaten up by whales. That's why I suggested exploring different PP payouts per level.

[HRBaker]

It's easy to conclude that it will all work out in the end, but (1) we won't know that until we get there, and (2) we could lose hundreds of players in the meantime because there's no satisfaction left to keep interest.

Not a sob story, but an example of what a lot of teams are experiencing at Perfect Level. I made it to Perfect in my 6th Week, getting in as 1 of 12 teams promoted to Perfect before it dropped to 4 teams. I had invested $100 to make that run - and here's where I am halfway thru Season 6 with 2000 pps in the bank.

My P405 League;

AC East
1st Place Team 63-45
5th Place Team 46-63 18 GB

AC Central
1st Place Team 66-41
5th Place Team 37-73 30.5 GB

AC West
1st Place Team 69-41
5th Place Team 37-72 31.5 GB

NC East
1st Place Team 80-29
5th Place Team 34-75 46 GB

NC Central
1st Place Team 81-28
5th Place Team 45-64 36 GB

NC West
1st Place Team 78-32
4th Place (Me) 44-64 33 GB
5th Place Team 39-71 39 GB

Total Spread
Top Team 81-28
Bottom Team 34-75 47 GB

Out of 30 Teams
13 Teams are playing over .500
17 Teams are playing under .500

So what can a team like mine do? Nothing.

Wait and check every week or so to see if I can get lucky opening a few packs (maybe 5-6 per season) - but I'll never get lucky enough to compete in Perfect - and there's no way to drop to Diamond unless I gut the team and start over (which is questionably illegal).

So. because I got to Perfect too soon and don't want to throw more money into the team, I'll let the team slide for the year and check in now and then.

For a game that's suppose to engage as many players as possible, and make it tempting to throw another $20 bucks into the mix, the current process doesn't do that.

[PurdueBrad]

I would be a big fan of having leagues/levels done via a salary cap as they've discussed for tournaments. This is coming from someone who has had a couple lucky pulls but, I wouldn't hate having to balance them with the rest of my lineup to put together the right cap number for where I want to compete. I think then, the big fish could still take their high cap players to the most competitive level league but a lot of the others of us may relish in the opportunity to be creative.

[dman7666]

The developers have previously stated that they are opposed to the concept of giving additional PP points based on level but what if there was a different metric like a manager score?

Each season you would receive a score based on your performance that season but it would be weighted so that a last place standing in Perfect Level would be worth more than a first place finish in Diamond and so on.

Then there could be a public leader board where everyone could see where there are ranked. The rankings could be for each season and cumulative so managers could see where they stand against everyone else both for that season and for all the seasons combined. This would give people something to strive for as they try to move up the rankings and would give a reward for trying to compete at the highest level one can.

The leaderboard could even carry over from PT version to PT version so there could be an all time greatest manager etc etc.

[HRBaker]

Well, it seems unless something (anything) is changed, the most rewarding challenge in this game as it stands today is F2P. You'll never get to Perfect, but you'll actually be able to stay interested for the entire year while you slowly climb the levels.

As far as my P2P team, i'll wait until Sunday before the new season starts and gut the team to start over. By doing it between seasons, I can't be accused of giving some teams gift-PPs while denying others the chance... everyone can beat up on me while I get demoted to a more competitive level.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

Well, it seems unless something (anything) is changed, the most rewarding challenge in this game as it stands today is F2P. You'll never get to Perfect, but you'll actually be able to stay interested for the entire year while you slowly climb the levels.

As far as my P2P team, i'll wait until Sunday before the new season starts and gut the team to start over. By doing it between seasons, I can't be accused of giving some teams gift-PPs while denying others the chance... everyone can beat up on me while I get demoted to a more competitive level.

I went the opposite route and picked up Ted Williams legend card.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

I went the opposite route and picked up Ted Williams legend card.

Like I could afford that LOL

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

Like I could afford that LOL

Yea, my wife would likely shoot me if she knew I dropped money on a game card......but, it's fun and I do like the OOTP company but I really do understand people with families, fixed incomes or just not making very much money simply can't do that.

[HRBaker]

Agreed. I do think, however, that folks should be able to enjoy the game at any challenge level without running into a "dead end" so-to-speak. I also understand that many players think one team rebuilding gives an uneven advantage to those that get to play that team after the rebuild starts (by earning more PPs) ... that's why I think the answer is to do it on Sundays. That way it affects everyone the same. I'm thinking I'll drop down to Gold or Silver, then build up again in a F2P mode - see how that works. Fortunately I have 2 other F2P teams that are still growing, and are actually more fun than my P2P team.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

Agreed. I do think, however, that folks should be able to enjoy the game at any challenge level without running into a "dead end" so-to-speak. I also understand that many players think one team rebuilding gives an uneven advantage to those that get to play that team after the rebuild starts (by earning more PPs) ... that's why I think the answer is to do it on Sundays. That way it affects everyone the same. I'm thinking I'll drop down to Gold or Silver, then build up again in a F2P mode - see how that works. Fortunately I have 2 other F2P teams that are still growing, and are actually more fun than my P2P team.

A Sunday start might minimize the effect for the teams in your conference, as far as wins go but there should still be some teams that you play less than others (those outside your division). Then there are also the teams in the other league that don't face the team at all and never get a chance at piling up some PP in addition to all the teams that aren't even in the league. So no matter the start day, people are affected by a team that tanks.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

Yea, my wife would likely shoot me if she knew I dropped money on a game card......but, it's fun and I do like the OOTP company but I really do understand people with families, fixed incomes or just not making very much money simply can't do that.

Wait... this is somehow different than dropping money on pieces of cardboard with pictures and stats on them?

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

A Sunday start might minimize the effect for the teams in your conference, as far as wins go but there should still be some teams that you play less than others (those outside your division). Then there are also the teams in the other league that don't face the team at all and never get a chance at piling up some PP in addition to all the teams that aren't even in the league. So no matter the start day, people are affected by a team that tanks.

But the opposite is true as well. Regardless of what level my team plays at, better teams will earn more PP than weaker teams and teams I don't play won't be effected.

Lower level rosters change all the time, and it would be incorrect to assume it was always to improve the team. In my theme team, for example, I had to sell all my non-20th Century players which made me weaker. What's the difference here? One way or another, the ability to change your team makeup has to be available, and drawing lines between how that is done is ultimately up to the developers.

I've been a supporting customer for 17 years (since OOTP3) and I would hope my descriptions and justifications posted here make clear I'm only looking for a way not to have to abandon a team after investing $100 in it.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Wait... this is somehow different than dropping money on pieces of cardboard with pictures and stats on them?

Yeah, the difference is about $50 in some cases lol. Even more in others.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

But the opposite is true as well. Regardless of what level my team plays at, better teams will earn more PP than weaker teams and teams I don't play won't be effected.

Lower level rosters change all the time, and it would be incorrect to assume it was always to improve the team. In my theme team, for example, I had to sell all my non-20th Century players which made me weaker. What's the difference here? One way or another, the ability to change your team makeup has to be available, and drawing lines between how that is done is ultimately up to the developers.

I've been a supporting customer for 17 years (since OOTP3) and I would hope my descriptions and justifications posted here make clear I'm only looking for a way not to have to abandon a team after investing $100 in it.

Here's hoping you find some kind of happiness with whatever direction PT takes.

[daves]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

I'm not really referring to your thoughts directly, but rather using it as a potential springboard into a conversation about Tourney's and whether they help the F2P guy or just end up making prices hard and thus things harder for F2P.

That being said, in regards to F2P I've yet to see a good explanation as to how tournaments might help. I remember conversations in PT19 where people thought Tournaments would give them a chance. But if whales are hoarding cards and others either can't get them, or have to pay the premium other players may price them at once tourney's start, then it's still the PP and/or money that will dominate tourneys (except for those that might be making their purchases early. Once you add in Collections, it seems that all the new features have hurt the AH rather than help. Prices have come down in the AH, but still remain quite high especially at the higher levels. Hopefully I'm wrong and prices eventually get down to PT19 levels, but I'm becoming less confident of that.

What I meant by tournaments is there are different levels and caps. The $2,000 team can't dominate all tournaments because they don't qualify for all.

Open QT, 5 different sizes: 8 to 128 teams (in increments of power of 2), (essentially the most basic type), best-of-3, semi finals best-of-5, finals best-of-7.
Open QT Win or Die, 5 sizes, best-of-1 elimination
Special Historical QT, 5 sizes
Special Capped QT, 3 different total card value “salary caps“
Deadball Special Weekly, 128 teams, rules & strategy & stats deadball era, only historical players
Daily Open Win or Die, 512 teams, starts 1 PM ET, best-of-1 elimination
Daily Special Historical WoD, same as above
Weekly Special Historical, 128 teams, best of 7 for all rounds, starts Tuesday 6 PM ET
Weekly Open, 1024 teams (can be increased / decreased after a couple of weeks depending on how these go), best-of-7.
Weekly Open Round Robin, 256 teams, round-robin
Tournaments featuring both DH and no-DH

[HRBaker]

With as long as this thread has become, I thought I would summarize my thoughts/plans here to be as transparent as possible. If there is something here defined as "illegal" by the developers, I would hope they would state so in advance.

1) I do not believe what I am hoping to do is "tanking". I see it as "rebuilding". Rebuilding is done at practically all levels below Perfect on a daily basis. Players are bought and sold because they improve the team or because an owner doesn't like the performance he is getting out of the player and chooses to try someone else. Selling off players to match a theme is obviously allowed, and I don't see selling off players to match a different direction as anything different.

2) It's obvious (and proven) that a quick trip to Perfect can find yourself not strong enough to compete, and limited to fixing that problem to spending more money. Once you find yourself in that scenario, your enjoyment of the game (and your previous investment) is also limited to watching time progress with no further goals. It will ultimately result in less frequent check-ins to check your team - and possible abandonment.

3) Im well aware that tournaments are likely designed to help resolve this issue - and if tournaments were available and did, in fact, lessen the effects of getting "stuck" with no options, maybe this issue wouldn't exist at all - but it looks like they will not be available for a while (and I don't blame OOTP for that... I realize it's a complex task) and in the meantime there is no option.

4) So, what do I "think" would be ok to do and why?

I plan to Sell Off off 4-7 players. Not "deactivate" them, but sell them off to regain the perfect points I spent in the first place to obtain them. In that way, I can redirect my investment to a different set of players that might provide me with more success. The players I've chosen are ones that can be replaced with players on the Reserve List. How, and how quickly I reinvest those points will depend on who becomes available and when. I certainly won't be the only team that has a large amount of PPs in the bank.

I will do this on Sunday (between seasons) so that my timing does not effect one team over another based on my new schedule for next week.

Let me make clear;

"Tanking" is (should be seen as) when a team "deactivates" high rated players to hide them or moves them to his Reserve list to lessen his teams chances to compete.

"Rebuilding" is (should be seen as) when a team "sells" his high rated players to provide the funds to take the team in another direction. In addition, "rebuilding" should ALWAYS be a valid option at any level.

It should be that simple, and what I am proposing does exactly that.

If the developers disagree with me, I suppose I may get banned, although that would be a great disappointment. I truly believe that engaging more customers to stay involved and be tempted to spend money is the best business model for OOTP. Customers abandoning teams doesn't accomplish that.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by bailey

In both PT19 and PT20 teams that join in the first week get shoved up the ladder and end up in a league where they can't compete. Instead of changing the game, maybe these folks should change their strategy and not sign up in the first week?

Exactly right about moving too fast though I prefer other solutions to not playing. In PT19 I was swept up in the initial wave and moved up at times way before the team should have. In PT20 I started the first week but took my time in the lower leagues to let people fill up the top before moving up.

[daves]

Originally Posted by bailey

In both PT19 and PT20 teams that join in the first week get shoved up the ladder and end up in a league where they can't compete. Instead of changing the game, maybe these folks should change their strategy and not sign up in the first week?

I did this for one of my teams. I would have waited longer, but the free Gold pack had a deadline.