Competitive balance discussion

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Mormo

My team's average rating is 89.08
Their team average rating is 79.48

Is someone really going to defend that? In my mind, I'm just being punished for supporting a game in beta. I've accepted it for now and look forward to a more accurate rating system but I don't think it can be defended as it currently is. It just sucks and we'll have to deal with it for now.

I don't know anything about your team, or the team that finished 10 games ahead so I'm not going to defend anything, other than says it's plausible.

I will say that I believe the highest overall ratings shouldn't always win. People will value different ratings, power, defense, contact. I don't think money has anything to do with that. I've seen great teams that have spent money, and great teams that haven't.

Often times there are reasons for underperforming. That could be anything from having bad luck, to a bad defense.

I'm sure they will work to improve overall ratings, but I think there are limits given the individual components of ratings. What someone values is different, and luckily there is more than one way to win.

I think if you take a little bit of time and look at the difference between the teams beyond overall ratings you may learn something that would benefit you in the long run.

[Matt Arnold]

9 games could easily be just RNG variations.

For example, one of my teams, I ended up 12 games back of the division leader. My team current sports 14 gold players on the roster, they have only 6 (although granted I didn't have all 14 all season). So in some ways I can feel like I got robbed. But they were 38-17 in one run games, and our teams were within 2 runs of each other in run differential. So really the teams should be pretty close.

Now, after that, am I truly a better team than they are? I don't know. We actually have a decent number of players in common. But they built a team on speed, average, and defense, and basically have ignored HR. They had 3 guys steal 50+ bases, but only had one guy with more than 11 HR. They've exploited a strategy that's certainly worked for them so far. Will it keep up as they move up the levels? I don't know.

And as for ratings, Oquendo put up 4.5 WAR for them, and Cano only put up 3 WAR for me. So should Oquendo be rated higher than Cano? I don't know. There were 2 other Oquendos in the league who only put up about a 1 WAR equivalent. Chone Figgins was also worth 4.5 WAR for me. Does that mean I need to go swap out A-Rod for him in another league? It's tempting.

But basically, no matter what formula we use, there's always guys who will be underrated or overrated. And even moreso because the PT league environment is very different than regular leagues. When Pete Rose is a bench player in a league, things are weird. We do our best, and obviously missed on a few guys in this first version, but the team above that I mentioned, they're not even using the guys who I often see on the lists of players who people feel are very underrated (like Len Barker, whose card plays like a mid-90s OA). They just seem to have a wildly different team philosophy, and it's fascinating to watch to see how long it will work for them.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by Mormo

I understand that but honestly, there are only two schools of thought on this: those who spend money and those who don't.

This isn't a fighting game where everyone is supposedly equal and you can just simply pick who you're better with. You can have any variance you'd like within tiers but when that variance crosses tiers with different price points that's an issue. In this case, everyone isn't supposedly equal and prices reflect perceived superiority. Overall rating was never huge to me because many times I've snuck in a win against perfect/diamond teams.

But to be 9 games back over an entire season isn't RNG and I couldn't ignore it.

My team's average rating is 89.08
Their team average rating is 79.48

Is someone really going to defend that? In my mind, I'm just being punished for supporting a game in beta. I've accepted it for now and look forward to a more accurate rating system but I don't think it can be defended as it currently is. It just sucks and we'll have to deal with it for now.

Im sorry, I do not think I understand your problem. The overall numbers mean nothing. You need to look at the batting ability of the batters and his splits and his speed and his fielding. If you just go by his overall you will never win. I am not arguing with you just stating a fact. I can spend 1 million dollars and field a losing team if I just look at the overall rating. I myself kind of like it this way because I have time to do my homework and I have a advantage over someone who just spends money on a team and puts in no time to know his team. So look at it like a plus and not a minus. If it was only overall we would have no strategy involved at all. We would just buy the highest overall players and leave the room.

[daves]

Originally Posted by Mormo

Why bother having it at all? It is misleading and deceptive.

The variance in performance can be up to 8 points. You can get an 86 who consistently outperforms a 94 or a 78 that consistently outperform an 86. Consistently. 3rd basemen seem to be the most overrated and shortstops and catchers seem to be the most underrated. Gap power in the algorithm seems criminally underrated.

I have a 90 Rick Reuschel who is consistently better than 98 Noah Syndergaard. How am I suppose to know his when I'm buying them? Is it because Noah is a decent batter? I have an 87 Hank Aaron that feels more like 95 CONSISTENTLY over the 4 seasons. Why is he 87? I could tell by looking at him that he would perform way better and he even exceeded that.

Is this an intentional part of the experience? If so that's another reason to not come back next year. I'm not a baseball expert and use this game to learn about the game and I love it, but I feel cheated. It's hard for me to value different attributes across different positions when the overall rating means so little. People spend their hard earned money on the idea that these cards will be a certain standard. Unacceptable.

Complete transparency: I have a guy in my division with all silver batters and relievers. I went through his team and could easily understand that his team is better than mine. I'm not mad because he's better than me. I'm mad because he spent a lot less to do so. I feel completely robbed and I can't be the only one. I almost want a refund.

When building a team you need to review certain attributes needed for certain positions not just the overall rating. For instance, many like a great defensive SS or Catcher, but many of the defensive players are not highly rated. It means we need to review and compare players to find what we want before buying.


I believe OOTP is working on the next version to allow auction searches by attributes?

[Mormo]

Wow. You guys are defending it. Fair enough. I just needed confirmation that the game was meant to be this way and I got it. Thank you, everyone, for enlightening me.

[Mormo]

Originally Posted by Zorro

If it was only overall we would have no strategy involved at all.

Please don't suggest I buy the highest rated players and have no strategy.
In all fairness, everyone else got my point and responded directly to what I said.

[Mormo]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

But basically, no matter what formula we use, there's always guys who will be underrated or overrated. And even moreso because the PT league environment is very different than regular leagues. We do our best, and obviously missed on a few guys in this first version

The game is relatively fine how it is. However, when I look at the game, and especially when I express my views, the underlying theme is I should have never spent money on it. That's probably my own personal problem and I didn't come looking for sympathy from fellow players. But I thought the developers would like to know that people such as myself see clear incentive to lose on purpose to stay in the lower leagues and to exploit a meta within cheaper cards, all while not spending a dime.

I just wanted to point out the ratings are inconsistent with performance (which is true no matter what anyone here says), but apparently accepting that fact goes against the F2P agenda. Fair play.

I really appreciate you guys for being active on the forums.

[Dogberry99]

I'm glad we all seem to agree that we shouldn't judge a card based on the overall rating.

So can someone please tell me why the cards have overall ratings? If it is there merely to make some cards more rare than others, then why do we need to see that? We're already not seeing it for the card categories (ie Live vs Record Breakers vs Unsung Heroes vs et al).

If we're going to have an Overall Rating for a card, make it mean something.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by Mormo

Wow. You guys are defending it. Fair enough. I just needed confirmation that the game was meant to be this way and I got it. Thank you, everyone, for enlightening me.

Defending it because it isn't too big a deal. Just look at the dudes numbers and judge for yourself. I'm sure you do that and I understand the question. I wondered the same at first but no longer see it as a big deal.

[eldur00]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

I'm glad we all seem to agree that we shouldn't judge a card based on the overall rating.

So can someone please tell me why the cards have overall ratings? If it is there merely to make some cards more rare than others, then why do we need to see that? We're already not seeing it for the card categories (ie Live vs Record Breakers vs Unsung Heroes vs et al).

If we're going to have an Overall Rating for a card, make it mean something.

That here is probably the smartest post in this whole thread.


If the overall doesn't mean anything, then don't have it and make card rarity something that happens only in the back end, hidden from the player base.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by eldur00

That here is probably the smartest post in this whole thread.


If the overall doesn't mean anything, then don't have it and make card rarity something that happens only in the back end, hidden from the player base.

Because it at least gives you a vague idea of where the guy ranks.

Not sure how rarity works so have no comment on that.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by eldur00

That here is probably the smartest post in this whole thread.


If the overall doesn't mean anything, then don't have it and make card rarity something that happens only in the back end, hidden from the player base.

I think it would be entertaining to maintain the level groupings (bronze, silver, etc) but get rid of the numbers. The groupings would add some variability in the prices and the amount one gets from a quick sell while keeping the fun of searching for those who produce better. It also forces a level of price on a player in the auction house causing one to have to add cost/value into the equation (ie - do you buy the silver player at 400 or make the jump to over 1000 for a guy that produces very similar or possibly only marginally better). By getting rid of numbers and only having groupings, then it is increasingly up to one's analysis of the player's ratings (though groupings would play into it as well) or how you seem them produce for others.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by Mormo

Please don't suggest I buy the highest rated players and have no strategy.
In all fairness, everyone else got my point and responded directly to what I said.

I am not saying you do or don’t do that . I am stating if it came down to just overall ratings being the end all WE would all do that . Hence no strategy. Sorry if you took it wrong. I meant no offense.

[eldur00]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

I think it would be entertaining to maintain the level groupings (bronze, silver, etc) but get rid of the numbers. The groupings would add some variability in the prices and the amount one gets from a quick sell while keeping the fun of searching for those who produce better. It also forces a level of price on a player in the auction house causing one to have to add cost/value into the equation (ie - do you buy the silver player at 400 or make the jump to over 1000 for a guy that produces very similar or possibly only marginally better). By getting rid of numbers and only having groupings, then it is increasingly up to one's analysis of the player's ratings (though groupings would play into it as well) or how you seem them produce for others.

That could work. I'd much rather have that than overall ratings that don't represent in every case the true value of a player.

[CrazyWR]

Originally Posted by Mormo

Please don't suggest I buy the highest rated players and have no strategy.
In all fairness, everyone else got my point and responded directly to what I said.

I'm not a baseball expert and use this game to learn about the game and I love it, but I feel cheated. It's hard for me to value different attributes across different positions when the overall rating means so little. People spend their hard earned money on the idea that these cards will be a certain standard. Unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Mormo

I'm not a baseball expert and use this game to learn about the game and I love it, but I feel cheated. It's hard for me to value different attributes across different positions when the overall rating means so little. People spend their hard earned money on the idea that these cards will be a certain standard. Unacceptable.

pretty sure thats exactly what you were complaining about.

"Oh no player B looked at the underlying ratings and bought lower overall players that fit a strategy better whereas I just bought the best guys I could find overall wise, why isnt my money buying me wins??"

This is basically a L2P issue. Not sure what you're expecting here. You said yourself you don't really understand baseball. Not sure why you think there would be no learning curve here.

[zrog2000]

I also do not like that overall ratings are purposefully misleading. That is deceptive, not a feature.

[shockenawe]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

lol What a POS.

Now I'll ask you directly again. Yes or no. Does this make sense and look like balance to you? Do you think this is a natural progression? Please expound on your answer. You are keeping us all entertained with your 'logic'. You bring so much to the table.



Again, Silver League lost the 'World Series' in 7, just FYI.

It looks like the team did not fair well against better competition. As someone pointed out above, the decline started between Bronze and Silver and continued into the Gold leagues, where the competition got that much stiffer and every flaw in the team is magnified because of this.

I would venture a guess that a lot of team's trajectory looks this. Some teams have to win, some teams have to be mediocre, and some teams have to suck in every league that is played. It's the nature of the beast.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by CrazyWR

You said yourself you don't really understand baseball.

Neither does OOTP when coming up with the OVR rating? Is that what we're reduced to arguing now? It just looks bad when so many of the highest rated cards are complete garbage while everyone who spends 5 minutes looking at their league ends up adding Len Barker and Larry Dierker instead of any live diamond pitcher.

[old timer]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

Neither does OOTP when coming up with the OVR rating? Is that what we're reduced to arguing now? It just looks bad when so many of the highest rated cards are complete garbage while everyone who spends 5 minutes looking at their league ends up adding Len Barker and Larry Dierker instead of any live diamond pitcher.

The developers have already mentioned the ratings from some cards are off, like Len Barker. So they'll be (hopefully) improving how the OVR is generated for OOTP 20. But isn't the main problem the difference in ratings between Live and historical cards? Aren't most of the highly rated cards being complained about, Live cards?

[Weaseltail]

Originally Posted by Mormo

Complete transparency: I have a guy in my division with all silver batters and relievers. I went through his team and could easily understand that his team is better than mine. I'm not mad because he's better than me. I'm mad because he spent a lot less to do so. I feel completely robbed and I can't be the only one. I almost want a refund.

I think you're right about the OVR ratings. They are pretty hit and miss, and sometimes I think it's counterproductive to even look at them. It's not a big issue for experienced players, but it is a real problem for newer players. And you're right that someone spending money relying on the OVR ratings won't be happy.

I actually have the silver team in your div (Juneau Silver Stars). The reason I created the team was because I thought the OVR ratings weren't a good gauge of player ability and I wanted to see if I could design a competitive team using only silver players (except SP, I learned pretty quickly other than Barker silver SP's aren't great).

You have a good roster and I think some of the issue is RNG-related, but your point is spot on. There are a lot of highly-rated, expensive players that aren't very good, but it's really hard for newer players to know this and avoid spending money on them.