Competitive balance discussion - Page 38

Willie M · 12-20-2018, 01:47 PM

People legitimately don't get this game mode, which is fine, but to say the game mode sucks/isn't fun because of 1 week is ridiculous.

The levels aren't even full yet. Once they are full, the amount of teams being promoted dwindles. Look at the bronze level, we're already down to only 6 teams moving up when it started at 16.

In 2 more weeks all levels will be full, promotion will be really hard, and any whales who bought teams are going to be where they should be. Rivalries will begin to form, and actually getting promoted will be a great feeling because you earned it.

Let's not forget it's a FREE mode that adds hours of fun if you choose to do so. You already paid for the regular version of OOTP, and you get a free game mode added on.

Orcin · 12-23-2018, 09:56 AM

Cookie cutter build update:

My all-historical looked like it was going to miss the playoffs in gold league on September 1. I went to the AH and bought Trout and Betts to replace Kirby Puckett and Reggie Jackson (both underperforming golds). I won 15 of the last 16 and took the division title. Maybe these two cards are a bit OP? I checked the WAR leaders in my gold league, and 70% are either Trout or Betts.

NYY #23 · 12-23-2018, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Cookie cutter build update:

My all-historical looked like it was going to miss the playoffs in gold league on September 1. I went to the AH and bought Trout and Betts to replace Kirby Puckett and Reggie Jackson (both underperforming golds). I won 15 of the last 16 and took the division title. Maybe these two cards are a bit OP? I checked the WAR leaders in my gold league, and 70% are either Trout or Betts.

Trout or Betts make up 11 of 15 of the top WAR. 4 Betts, 7 Trout.

Westheim · 12-23-2018, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYY #23

Trout or Betts make up 11 of 15 of the top WAR. 4 Betts, 7 Trout.

4 Betts, 5 Trout in my Gold league.

2 Yelich, but the top WAR was Willie Mays. My Trout missed the top 15, and came 18th with 5.0 WAR.

This on the heels of me snorting at someone this week who called 4.8 WAR "Troutesque". Can't find that post anymore, but I owe an apology.

Oh, you baseball gods - never stop being "creative" with me …!

whobob · 12-23-2018, 02:20 PM

I'd guess that other perfects are just a lot more rare, so there's just going to be a lot of those two around. They'd be 5 times more common than a historical perfect, and they're already not easy to find.

Orcin · 12-23-2018, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whobob

I'd guess that other perfects are just a lot more rare, so there's just going to be a lot of those two around. They'd be 5 times more common than a historical perfect, and they're already not easy to find.

Yes, but there are other perfect and high diamond batter cards in the league. Trout and Betts still lead the league.

NYY #23 · 12-23-2018, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Yes, but there are other perfect and high diamond batter cards in the league. Trout and Betts still lead the league.

Just looking at my league there are 24 perfect batters. Taking out Ohtani and a Mantle that didn't play much they average -

Trout (10) - 5.16 WAR
Betts (6) - 4.91 WAR
Others (6) - 3.22 WAR

It's hard to argue the relative value/effectiveness of the combo when they can be had at a fraction of the cost of others like a perfect Mays.

DonkeyKongSr · 12-23-2018, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Yes, but there are other perfect and high diamond batter cards in the league. Trout and Betts still lead the league.

Wait until more historical Perfects start showing up. I've seen Perfect Ted Williams and Gaavy Cravath's that hang with those guys offensively. Haven't run into the Perfect Ruth yet. However, Trout & Betts' running and defense do dominate these guys and most of the historical Perfects, so every single top team lineup will probably eventually be Trout+Betts+7 Historical Perfects. Plus, Betts being able to play LF-RF-CF-3B-SS-2B at above average levels make him the super-utility player.

Orcin · 12-23-2018, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkeyKongSr

Wait until more historical Perfects start showing up. I've seen Perfect Ted Williams and Gaavy Cravath's that hang with those guys offensively.

Ok, there might be one or two of each in the meta. How long until there are hundreds like Trout/Betts?

daves · 12-23-2018, 03:47 PM

On the competitive balance theme, I understand the need to spend for coins to obtain players and continue being competitive, however, every player has 3 licenses to PT so ONE of those teams should be run with NO spending. Just to see if you can build a team based on rewards only.

mcdog512 · 12-23-2018, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daves

On the competitive balance theme, I understand the need to spend for coins to obtain players and continue being competitive, however, every player has 3 licenses to PT so ONE of those teams should be run with NO spending. Just to see if you can build a team based on rewards only.

That's what I've done. I have one team being run by a buddy of mine who doesn't have a computer. I text/email him on updates and he makes the decisions. I have a team which blew about 50 bucks on and they are not the greatest and I have a free to play team I started which got super lucky on pack draws and might be my best team.

Orcin · 12-23-2018, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Ok, there might be one or two of each in the meta. How long until there are hundreds like Trout/Betts?

Here are the Top 20 position players in my gold league. Some diversity would be nice.

Name: osa top 20Untitled.jpg
Views: 383
Size: 50.0 KB

old timer · 12-23-2018, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Here are the Top 20 position players in my gold league. Some diversity would be nice.

Attachment 594183

Yes, it would be nice to see more diversity at the top. I too went for some common players since they were the best for the money (like Dierker, Barker and Doolittle). But since I got them, I've been avoiding getting these common types even if it hurts my team in the short run, because I'm so tired of seeing the same names already.

Whoofe · 12-23-2018, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daves

On the competitive balance theme, I understand the need to spend for coins to obtain players and continue being competitive, however, every player has 3 licenses to PT so ONE of those teams should be run with NO spending. Just to see if you can build a team based on rewards only.

you can, quite easily

daves · 12-23-2018, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whoofe

you can, quite easily

Yes, I understand. But you can tell when someone has spent money when teams have many diamond and perfect players. I think everyone should have one team based on no cash and only rewards.

daves · 12-23-2018, 10:13 PM

Oops wrong discussion

Orcin · 12-23-2018, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daves

Yes, I understand. But you can tell when someone has spent money when teams have many diamond and perfect players. I think everyone should have one team based on no cash and only rewards.

What's wrong with spending money?

shockenawe · 12-24-2018, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daves

On the competitive balance theme, I understand the need to spend for coins to obtain players and continue being competitive, however, every player has 3 licenses to PT so ONE of those teams should be run with NO spending. Just to see if you can build a team based on rewards only.

Or 3 teams without spending money

daves · 12-24-2018, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shockenawe

Or 3 teams without spending money

Good idea, but temptation was too great. Spent $15 and $20 on two teams. Looking at other teams, more was spent (their choice).

2002halos · 12-24-2018, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westheim

Tell you what, Matt Harvey got $11m from the Angels, and he is hardly a bronze.

Harvey's agent fooled them into thinking they were getting his One Hit Wonder card.

12-20-2018, 01:47 PM	#741
Willie M Minors (Double A) Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 159	People legitimately don't get this game mode, which is fine, but to say the game mode sucks/isn't fun because of 1 week is ridiculous. The levels aren't even full yet. Once they are full, the amount of teams being promoted dwindles. Look at the bronze level, we're already down to only 6 teams moving up when it started at 16. In 2 more weeks all levels will be full, promotion will be really hard, and any whales who bought teams are going to be where they should be. Rivalries will begin to form, and actually getting promoted will be a great feeling because you earned it. Let's not forget it's a FREE mode that adds hours of fun if you choose to do so. You already paid for the regular version of OOTP, and you get a free game mode added on. Last edited by Willie M; 12-20-2018 at 01:53 PM.

12-23-2018, 03:47 PM	#750
daves Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,058	On the competitive balance theme, I understand the need to spend for coins to obtain players and continue being competitive, however, every player has 3 licenses to PT so ONE of those teams should be run with NO spending. Just to see if you can build a team based on rewards only. __________________

12-23-2018, 10:13 PM	#756
daves Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,058	Oops wrong discussion __________________ Last edited by daves; 12-23-2018 at 10:14 PM.

12-23-2018, 09:56 AM	#742
Orcin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Indiana Posts: 9,884	Cookie cutter build update: My all-historical looked like it was going to miss the playoffs in gold league on September 1. I went to the AH and bought Trout and Betts to replace Kirby Puckett and Reggie Jackson (both underperforming golds). I won 15 of the last 16 and took the division title. Maybe these two cards are a bit OP? I checked the WAR leaders in my gold league, and 70% are either Trout or Betts.

12-23-2018, 02:20 PM	#745
whobob Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 85	I'd guess that other perfects are just a lot more rare, so there's just going to be a lot of those two around. They'd be 5 times more common than a historical perfect, and they're already not easy to find.