Considering Dropping F2P

[Lemandria]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

Tournaments and Collections more interesting, there was little consideration as to how those changes/improvements would effect the base game.

In the end, it's a card collecting game. Gaining new cards is the purpose, the rationale, the fun behind the toil.

If you grant certain users a virtual monopoly on who can and cannot afford more cards, you're granting them control over your player base.

Which will (inevitably, like a glacier retreating) melt away.

Oh sure, the magnates are great fellas, the developers share leagues with them from high atop the mountain of disdain for all those 'less than elite' persons. Sneer, dismiss, hand wave, condescend.

But the magnates won't care if their greed kills your game. Not one bit.

We don't have a World War to end this Gilded Age. And we can't Eat The Rich. So...something has to give.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Lemandria

In the end, it's a card collecting game. Gaining new cards is the purpose, the rationale, the fun behind the toil.

Maybe that's my problem. It's more of a card collector game than a competitive endeavor. If I can get my head around that, maybe I can enjoy the game more...

[mayday10]

Personally, I wouldnt spend money. As the economy is, $100 worth of PP really does nothing.... at least nothing close to any justification of spending $100. Its like throwing money into the Ocean. Itll be gone in 10 minutes.
Now if there is a specific card you REALLY want for sentimental reasons or if you think it will put your team at a level you want to play at, and that card is <175K pp, and you have $100 to spend, go ahead.

I did spend some decent money early. Happy to support the development of the game and hopefully issues with PT are fixed next release, and Regular OOTP continues to improve.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by joker7702

I have become somewhat frustrated with the incremental growth I have experienced over the last three years of perfect team. I am thinking of putting a moderate amount of money, probably not more than $100, in on the game. If anybody has made the transition before, was it worth it?

The best value for $100 spent is if you are starting a brand new team and are in entry pool on a Monday. With $100 worth of points you should easily complete the live missions before the end of two days (if you have the time to spend all day playing). With the live mission reward cards playing around the clock during entry pool, you could have 200K by the end of the week which means the live reward cards were "free" to you. Figure another 50-100K in Rookie, Stone, and Bronze also, before you encounter other teams with the same players in significant numbers. Unfortunately, even if you can succeed in getting 500K before promotion to gold you will still struggle. A 90 win team in diamond cost me about 1.5 million points, which I earned flipping cards in the AH and grinding tournaments (1000+ packs earned).

[benderguy1]

Originally Posted by bailey

A 90 win team in diamond cost me about 1.5 million points, which I earned flipping cards in the AH and grinding tournaments (1000+ packs earned).

I agree with Bailey here.

I've thrown $$ at the game for my main team, but this is still the key. I'm in the also-ran category in Diamond for three weeks now. It would have to take a near miracle for me to win Diamond and head to Perfect -- you encounter too many teams each week with "all of THE cards". Flipping cards can get you some PP and keep you competitive, while grinding the pack tournaments basically gets you those lottery tickets every week. $100 won't make much of a difference -- you're almost better off buying 175 packs and hoping for a big hit or two.

[OMGPuppies]

$100 ain’t nothing in this game. Gonna put in money? Gotta put in way more than that.

[Spieler]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I think it is worth it to invest $100 or so in order to obtain a player or players that would make the game more enjoyable for you. I wouldn't do it if you expect $100 to make you a top team. You need to add a zero for that purpose.

If $100 is a lot of money to you, don't bother. If you see it as seed money to play the AH, maybe. Otherwise, what he said.

[ronhatch]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

Maybe that's my problem. It's more of a card collector game than a competitive endeavor. If I can get my head around that, maybe I can enjoy the game more...

Well, as someone that is mentally geared towards collecting and has almost zero interest in any kind of purported competition when some players can buy an advantage... no, you almost certainly wouldn't enjoy the game more if you focused on collecting.

I've come to realize that the key problem is that in baseball, the in-game strategy is of very little consequence compared to the basic question of who you're putting on the field. Because of that, the game MUST be designed to make it essentially impossible for the average player to complete a full collection... otherwise, most players could copy the lineup from the best team they've seen and games would essentially devolve to a coin flip. That effect already shows up in the lower-tier tournaments.

Regarding the main topic of the thread, while I'm increasingly convinced that this game is not one I'll be spending any money on past the original purchase price, I've been very happy with an approach I've used for other games that allow in-game purchases. I set aside a small amount of money each week as long as I'm still playing and enjoying the game... but I only spend the money on the game after the amount set aside reaches a threshold. For the game I was playing, that threshold was to get the maximum bulk discount on the in-game currency. In the case of PT, you could do the same thing and it would likely be worth it to also wait for the sales.

[chazzycat]

Originally Posted by ronhatch

I've come to realize that the key problem is that in baseball, the in-game strategy is of very little consequence compared to the basic question of who you're putting on the field. Because of that, the game MUST be designed to make it essentially impossible for the average player to complete a full collection... otherwise, most players could copy the lineup from the best team they've seen and games would essentially devolve to a coin flip. That effect already shows up in the lower-tier tournaments.

I'm not sure this is a baseball problem, seems like more of an OOTP problem to me.

There's actually a lot of interesting strategic things to do in baseball. But as long as league totals are strictly tied to 2010 and strategic options are limited, there's little room to operate.

Want to get a bunch of fast, contact hitters and really emphasize the hit & run? Good luck with that...MLB didn't really do much hit and run in 2010...

Want to play like real modern MLB and try to win via hitting the most home runs? Good luck with that...

Want to take better advantage of park factors by having different priority pitchers or lineups for home vs. away games? Good luck with that...

Want to counter your opponents pseudo-openers by pinch hitting early in the game? Good luck with that...

Kapler has been running some 4-man outfields. Wanna try that? Good luck...

But there are a million ways to generate your payroll! The financial aspect of baseball is the fun part, right?

[Lemandria]

But there are a million ways to generate your payroll! The financial aspect of baseball is the fun part, right?

Steinbrenner's no longer with us.

But while he was alive, he bought championships with far more restrictions than PT puts on its owners.

George couldn't hire Bonds and Trout and Speaker a half hour before game one.

He had a salary cap. He had a player's union, etc.

And he couldn't mint money by predation of the other owners.

[ronhatch]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

I'm not sure this is a baseball problem, seems like more of an OOTP problem to me.

It's exaggerated by OotP for sure, but no strategy in the world is going to result in a team consisting entirely of scrubs beating a team consisting entirely of hall of famers. Yeah, sure... you could call that an OotP problem again since that could never happen in the real world... but my point is that it's inherent to the rules of baseball (or really any team game, probably) and allowing players to have teams with any available cards. You would need some kind of draft to avoid it.

In any case, if your goal is to collect all the cards rather than "winning", the user agreement works against you... since you can generate the most points by strategically losing a.k.a. tanking. As someone that always wants to collect ALL THE THINGS, that's really my biggest point of frustration with the game... I see the tankers and honestly I want to join them. There needs to be a better outlet for earning points "honorably".

[Spieler]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

There's actually a lot of interesting strategic things to do in baseball. But as long as league totals are strictly tied to 2010 and strategic options are limited, there's little room to operate.

Might be interesting to change the era each season/week (or every n weeks). This week 2010, next week 1935, week after 1968, then 1950, etc. Maybe w/ and w/o DH. Could make preparing for a new season a little more tactical and interesting while you are waiting for an upgrade. And could bring a little diversity to the weekly seasons.

I could see some objections based on not having enough time to prepare between seasons, but at least you have more time with the current Sunday playoff format, vs the old one. Would prolly drive the spreadsheet data collectors nuts though, comparing apples to oranges, but they still have the tournaments for that ;-)