New Direction?

[HRBaker]

Being fair, I've stepped back to try and compare "where we were" to "where we are now".


Last year, our primary complaint was the lack of a pyramid structure in the 6 levels of competition, and the issue that most "non-$$$" teams that crawled their way to Perfect eventually got their clocks cleaned.


This year, we HAVE a pyramid and we have 8 levels of competition. As a result, the rise-to-the-top for "non-$$$" teams is significantly harder... which, by the way, was exactly what we were asking for. Reminds me of the "Be careful what you ask for" line... So, I am forced to call that much a success.


I think two different issues are currently hurting PT21;


(1) Delay/Cancellation of the MLB season. This is obviously an unavoidable problem not associated with OOTP. Not have the changing LIVE-player ratings takes away an important variable to the game. Let's just hope PT22 will not have to face this issue.


(2) Over-exuberance in adding new cards and tournaments which, in retrospect, damaged the balance of the Auction House. Maybe these changes were made to try and make up for the LIVE-card problem, but in any case, the AH has become a rich man's paradise - leaving the F2P players with a game that has lost its excitement only 4 months into the PT21-year.


There's not much that can be done for this version, but there is a lot that can be done for the next version.


I guess my intention here is to suggest we stop complaining about PT21 (since there really isn't anything that can be done about it at this point), and reorganize our thinking into what could improve the current issues in PT22. The OOTP team needs "months" to make any significant changes to the new version, and if we keep burning up days-and-days on what we "can't" fix, we'll slowly put their backs to the wall timewise. I've been one of those people who have regularly moaned about the issues, so I'm going to try and take on a new direction.


Let's change our focus to what we think will help - and let the OOTP team weed through all that to try and make PT22 even better.


Make sense?

[Kris Jardine]

To be honest, everything I read on the forums and Discord goes into stuff we can fix/make better in the future. Even "complaining about PT21" as you suggested above provides insight and context into what we can do differently in the weeks, months and years ahead.

That being said, PT22 planning is already underway and the things we do differently, add and subtract will largely be shaped by the conversations that have happened and continue to happen on our social channels.

[mayday10]

There is a lot to like about PT right now, and I think it is a really good product with a TON of potential.
Also a lot of bad, which I believe are truly unintended consequences that are a result of the difficulties in making the 'perfect' balanced game economy where they can generate revenue while keeping as many people (both paying and non-paying) satisfied and engaged as possible. Even if they did find the best possible balance, there would still be a vocal minority who criticize everything.

As Kris mentioned above. They are watching and engaged, and seem to be very open for suggestions. Well, heck, he even says they are open. To me that is a huge strength of this product. Many of the other card collecting games are very 'cloak and dagger'. We all arent going to get all our hopes and dreams and delusions in the next version, but Im sure they will work to improve it based on well-reasoned feedback and what is feasible.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Kris Jardine

To be honest, everything I read on the forums and Discord goes into stuff we can fix/make better in the future. Even "complaining about PT21" as you suggested above provides insight and context into what we can do differently in the weeks, months and years ahead.

That being said, PT22 planning is already underway and the things we do differently, add and subtract will largely be shaped by the conversations that have happened and continue to happen on our social channels.

Thanks Kris!

[Kris Jardine]

Originally Posted by mayday10

There is a lot to like about PT right now, and I think it is a really good product with a TON of potential.
Also a lot of bad, which I believe are truly unintended consequences that are a result of the difficulties in making the 'perfect' balanced game economy where they can generate revenue while keeping as many people (both paying and non-paying) satisfied and engaged as possible. Even if they did find the best possible balance, there would still be a vocal minority who criticize everything.

As Kris mentioned above. They are watching and engaged, and seem to be very open for suggestions. Well, heck, he even says they are open. To me that is a huge strength of this product. Many of the other card collecting games are very 'cloak and dagger'. We all arent going to get all our hopes and dreams and delusions in the next version, but Im sure they will work to improve it based on well-reasoned feedback and what is feasible.

For us, its important to have that connection where people realize that we are open to suggestions for improvements. If you look at PT19 to PT20 and PT20 to PT21, almost all of the things we've tweaked, added or taken out came directly because someone on one of our socials suggested it. We don't want PT to be like other card collecting modes, we want it to be the best card collecting mode fueled by the best community. That doesn't happen without us being open and welcoming of all levels of feedback

[eldur00]

My number one thing, and pretty much only thing I'd like to see improved, which I've been asking for since PT19 (and apparently I'm starting to have "friends" in other threads finally starting to want the same thing) is to get rid of the pro/rel structure.
Nice idea on paper, terrible idea in practice.

[Torgonius]

Originally Posted by eldur00

My number one thing, and pretty much only thing I'd like to see improved, which I've been asking for since PT19 (and apparently I'm starting to have "friends" in other threads finally starting to want the same thing) is to get rid of the pro/rel structure.
Nice idea on paper, terrible idea in practice.

What do you put in its place?

There needs to be a mechanism to move teams up and down.

[dkgo]

Dynamically assign teams based on how strong they are at the start of each season. Give better rewards at higher tiers.

An overall rating cap would be the simplest way to do it and a reasonable first effort. A more accurate way would weight live cards lower since they aren't as good as historicals at the same overall.

[Torgonius]

Originally Posted by dkgo

Dynamically assign teams based on how strong they are at the start of each season. Give better rewards at higher tiers.

An overall rating cap would be the simplest way to do it and a reasonable first effort. A more accurate way would weight live cards lower since they aren't as good as historicals at the same overall.

So I put all my 'good' cards up for sale at ludicrous prices in the AH before the ranking is made, then bring them back so I can win the lower league in easy mode.

Higher rewards at higher tiers mean 'the rich get richer' and then an insane number of forum threads decrying that.

My initial though had been some sort of transaction limit for the live roster... maybe not swapping more than 5 cards in a given season. But while that would have a big impact at stone, iron and bronze, meaning people couldn't just load their teams up with 26 perfects in one shot, it would also mean that people who did well in tournaments and pulled some good improvements from packs would also be stuck, and I'm not good with that.

And once I got to Gold, I found I wasn't making more than 1 or 2 moves a season, anyways. so it wasn't going to impact me at all. Clearly, it's not a great answer.

We all want the 'fairest' system possible in a uniquely unfair world. There are those who can outspend others 100 to 1. There are those who can put in 100+ hours a week grinding tournaments where others can barely manage 5. There are people who have taken the time to study and understand the game mechanics and the rules and how to best use them to their advantage. Are you going to punish those who can spend more to make those who can't or won't spend feel better? Are you going to punish those people who can invest time?

And if we're just going to all have equal outcomes instead, why bother?

[dkgo]

No because once you are in a league those good cards would put you over the cap.

The rich already do get richer. They have better cards to win tournaments with and earn more in achievements.

A cap on the league is literally the best way to reward time spent studying game mechanics. Not all cards at the same rating are created equal. A coherent strategy will be better than a random pile.

[dkgo]

There is absolutely nothing in a tiered format that "punishes" any of the things you listed, so it makes me think you either misread or completely misunderstand the discussion.

[Torgonius]

I conflated this thread with another. Guess I shouldn't try to do work while I'm foruming!

And no, the tier system doesn't punish achievers. It rewards them, which will lead to more griping from non-achievers. Personally, I think achievers should be rewarded and the gripers ignored.

[eldur00]

Originally Posted by Torgonius

What do you put in its place?

There needs to be a mechanism to move teams up and down.

As dkgo already stated, a tiered/ladder system...which has proven to work in many, many, many other games. I feel like OOTP tried to innovate with Pro/Rel but it completely missed the mark. We are at the end of July (so, 4 months) and people are still complaining they are not seeded where they feel they should be. How long do you have to wait until you've found your fit ?

To help with potential issues, I always felt a "rating" comprised of an overall of your best 40 cards (regardless of where they are), winning record, GM score average and other things the devs feel they should include, with obviously better rewards the higher up you are winning at to entice people to want to strive for the top for things other than bragging rights.

[Tinkerman]

The live mission rewards have been a bit like putting everyone in the same car for a drag race. I would say, scientifically, they've undermined any fair analysis of how well the pro/rel system has worked in 21.

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I'm gonna make another observation. From what I've seen, the number of properly PL ready diamond teams lends itself towards a 3 league pyramid at the perfect level. The bottom 2 acting as a buffer between the elite and the diamond leagues. 'Lucky' teams promoted from diamond wouldn't face certain annihilation, and diamond leagues wouldn't be quite so dominated by the top few teams. I also think it might have an effect all the way down the leagues of less teams bouncing up and down.

[Mizzery]

I don’t believe there is anything wrong with the pro/rel system, and think the addition of additional levels was the right decision. I say this as a FTP theme player who has posted elsewhere about the frustration of not being able to advance beyond the middle tiers in 21.

The changes in the game in the live and FTF missions, high level tournaments and special edition cards have blown up the game and obscured the positive advancements in the promotion system and the dispersal of teams across more levels.

The inflation of the AH prices due to missions has eliminated the FTP path to advancement. It has also moved the game away from baseball discussions, which is what brought many of us here in the first place, before PT even existed.

In 19 and 20 there were engaging debates on card value based on game ratings and lineup strategies. Cards were valued on how they contributed to the team building meta. Now they are only valued on their slot in a mission, regardless of the intrinsic merits of the card.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzery

In 19 and 20 there were engaging debates on card value based on game ratings and lineup strategies. Cards were valued on how they contributed to the team building meta. Now they are only valued on their slot in a mission, regardless of the intrinsic merits of the card.

Wow. Very observant!

[QuantaCondor]

To break up the echo chamber: I think single PL works great. It's interesting, it serves as the definitive top level of the pro/rel ladder (and the pro/rel is one of the best features of PT). Speaking as a FTP, I don't want any league cap; it's not fun if the payoff of landing a new big card on my roster is the difference between auto promoting to a higher tier (and getting beat up more) or not. It's not interesting if all I need to do to promote is to get high OVR cards; what a disaster that would be, undermining any sense of the season's outcomes mattering. It'd lead to people sandbagging their OVRs until they could make a huge leap, it'd destroy the viability of e.g. theme teams who aren't necessarily as strong as the sum of their OVR components (compared to now: in pro/rel theme teams eventually wander to where they belong).

There are minor adjustments I'd consider. Maybe DL should be even more pyramidlike with fewer of them below PL (which I would still like to see remain one league). PL should have more promotion to the community, like being able to pick which team you think will win each week (maybe giving packs, with more packs for longshots who win) for teams who are outside of PL. But a lot of the complaints voiced here are going way, way over the top to try to solve personal issues which don't nearly need that kind of excessive action.

The only thing here I think is interesting are opt-out leagues. Maybe once a week, there's a single opt-out theme league with rotating roster restrictions and largely reduced PP payouts. I could get behind that. But the pro/rel, the defining feature of the PT ladder, the thing that gives seasonal outcomes weight and intrigue, really has to stay.

EDIT: Also, daily reminder that the F2P path is alive and well, with many examples of success in DL and PL out there. The reality is just that the average player just doesn't have a very good grasp on how the economy works, exacerbated because PT doesn't really offer a highlevel competitive mode where knowledge of the AH isn't required. That, not 'the economy', is the core issue here.

[bailey]

The OP thinks that live card updates are a good thing, but I'm not happy with it at all. The only thing live card updates are good for is AH speculation--- a feature of this game I expressly dislike.

[QuantaCondor]

Originally Posted by bailey

The OP thinks that live card updates are a good thing, but I'm not happy with it at all. The only thing live card updates are good for is AH speculation--- a feature of this game I expressly dislike.

Disagree. For cap tournaments and live tournaments, live card updates obviously matter a lot. Also, for teams at lower levels, it could make the game more interesting. And I'd argue live speculation is not even remotely the most profitable form of speculation

[Tinkerman]

I'm not bothered by the live card speculation because it has limited impact. But the speculation on the market for diamond historicals (in particular) has had a large and mostly negative effect on a lot of people's games. Sure, there're some super rich 'winners' who are in a great position going forward and have no reason to complain. It's not like they've cheated, so fair play. But it's created more disparity and a kind of stasis for a lot of players. Both things that I imagine are counter sustainable for keeping players interested.

I shudder at the thought of what 22 would be like with the same model.