Just throwing this out for comments...

[old timer]

...

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by eldur00

No, it should, but the game seem to have been designed with the tenet of good sportsmanship in mind, where everyone should strive to just want to make it to the top to win at the highest level and one way to create that is to make playoff winners to go up the ladder, because winners should be rewarded. I'm not saying the devs all sat at a table and talked about it in those terms, but to me it seems like the most logical conclusion to come to.

The "issue" is what defines a "better" team; Wining the playoffs (which can be done by winning 11 of 20 games at the end of the season) or winning more games than anyone else over a 162 game season?

Mathematics says the second choice.

And if math is right (which it is) then we're promoting some weaker teams and leaving stronger teams behind.

[HRBaker]

Here's something to think about...

I took a random 10 leagues from each of the 6 Levels, and averaged the games behind between the 1st and 5th team in each of the divisions across those leagues. Here's the results...

Level AVG.GB

IRON 21
BRONZE 24
SILVER 29
GOLD 31
DIAMOND 38
PERFECT 45

The Talent level "spread" actually gets greater as you move up levels. This confirms if you enter the upper levels not a whale, your destined to be a punching bag unless you spend cash to correct it. It also points out that we're not tightening down the competition as we move up.

[Charlatan]

Wow, has there ever been a ton of discussion here in the last day or two. I've got a couple of thoughts:

1. Regarding promotion/relegation: I think we all agree the small number of teams promoted/relegated keeps balance out of whack for too long, and can mean a bad team is often stuck for a while in a league where they're overmatched.

One solution to this would be to add more league tiers - instead of the 5 we have now add more leagues. So you could have (just throwing out an example):

Iron - Low Bronze - High Bronze - Low Silver - High Silver - Low Gold - High Gold - Low Diamond - High Diamond - Low Perfect - High Perfect

The partitioning of teams is into smaller "buckets" so in theory the teams would be more equally matched. You could also have a feature where the promotion/relegation between Low<->High in the same color is greater (so say 8 teams go from Low to High Bronze each year and 8 teams go from High to Low Bronze each year, but the transition from Bronze to Iron or Bronze to Silver is the same as it is now). That would help ensure that each level (Iron, Bronze, Silver, etc) is better sorted into the "top half" and "bottom half." I believe this would help even out the league balance and would help to prevent teams from getting pushed too high too fast.

This would, of course, require a lot more work on the part of the devs.

2. A good point was raised above - one unfortunate side-effect of being promoted too fast is that overmatched teams act as a PP gifting system to better teams, because they're frequently getting the butts whipped and potentially giving out lots of PP. So the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. What if, when team-related PP are awarded, the victim team got some percentage of the PP also? Sort of like a consolation prize? So for instance, if you get beat 20-2 and the winning team gets 100 PP for scoring 10 runs in an inning, the losing team would get.. I dunno.. 25 PP for being the victim. I'm talking about team achievements, not individual ones here. This feature would help poor performing teams accrue PP a little faster which would help them make themselves better.


Just some thoughts to help the competitive balance.

[Findest2001]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Wow, has there ever been a ton of discussion here in the last day or two. I've got a couple of thoughts:

1. Regarding promotion/relegation: I think we all agree the small number of teams promoted/relegated keeps balance out of whack for too long, and can mean a bad team is often stuck for a while in a league where they're overmatched.

One solution to this would be to add more league tiers - instead of the 5 we have now add more leagues. So you could have (just throwing out an example):

Iron - Low Bronze - High Bronze - Low Silver - High Silver - Low Gold - High Gold - Low Diamond - High Diamond - Low Perfect - High Perfect

The partitioning of teams is into smaller "buckets" so in theory the teams would be more equally matched. You could also have a feature where the promotion/relegation between Low<->High in the same color is greater (so say 8 teams go from Low to High Bronze each year and 8 teams go from High to Low Bronze each year, but the transition from Bronze to Iron or Bronze to Silver is the same as it is now). That would help ensure that each level (Iron, Bronze, Silver, etc) is better sorted into the "top half" and "bottom half." I believe this would help even out the league balance and would help to prevent teams from getting pushed too high too fast.

This would, of course, require a lot more work on the part of the devs.

2. A good point was raised above - one unfortunate side-effect of being promoted too fast is that overmatched teams act as a PP gifting system to better teams, because they're frequently getting the butts whipped and potentially giving out lots of PP. So the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. What if, when team-related PP are awarded, the victim team got some percentage of the PP also? Sort of like a consolation prize? So for instance, if you get beat 20-2 and the winning team gets 100 PP for scoring 10 runs in an inning, the losing team would get.. I dunno.. 25 PP for being the victim. I'm talking about team achievements, not individual ones here. This feature would help poor performing teams accrue PP a little faster which would help them make themselves better.


Just some thoughts to help the competitive balance.

I don't disagree with point #1, but I'd like to point out if you go by that system, plus an entry pool, it would take three months of being promoted every week just to reach the highest tier. Basically that league wouldn't even exist until the All-Star break :P And it would only exist for those who had teams promoted at a 100% efficiency.

I do, however, completely disagree with point #2. I don't want to play a game where losing rewards you with something. Ever.

Just my two cents. Thanks for the ideas!

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

The "issue" is what defines a "better" team; Wining the playoffs (which can be done by winning 11 of 20 games at the end of the season) or winning more games than anyone else over a 162 game season?

Mathematics says the second choice.

And if math is right (which it is) then we're promoting some weaker teams and leaving stronger teams behind.

What are your plans for teams that got stronger during the season or could sit their studs doing just enough to sneak into the playoffs then promote them at the end to do well in the playoffs but not get promoted.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

What are your plans for teams that got stronger during the season or could sit their studs doing just enough to sneak into the playoffs then promote them at the end to do well in the playoffs but not get promoted.

As long as rosters can be changed at any point in the season, this will always be an issue. It is already an issue. Any proposed changes do not make it any less of an issue.

Or do we need to hear again from the "no roster changes after the trade deadline" contingent?

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

2. A good point was raised above - one unfortunate side-effect of being promoted too fast is that overmatched teams act as a PP gifting system to better teams, because they're frequently getting the butts whipped and potentially giving out lots of PP. So the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

As one who is mindful of this issue, I disagree that the solution is to award points to the teams getting beat up. Those teams need to be removed from the environment to ensure the competitive playing surface remains level for those who do deserve to be at that level.

Achievements should reward good play. This is why uncompetitive losing teams should not receive welfare. It is also why those teams must be quickly removed and relegated away from those beating up on them.

[HRBaker]

My "plans" are to make the balance of the game fair for everyone. The whole concept is to push the stronger teams up - and the current method doesn't do that. We move teams down based on worst WinPct and DON'T move teams up on the same basis. An owner's "goal" should be to win as many games as possible to get promoted OR to sandbag and train and build for another day. The numbers I posted above for GB is all wrong. The spread between the best and worst teams in ANY league/division should AT LEAST be the same in Perfect as it is in Iron. The fact it isn't proves the talent spread is too great the higher you move up. As a Whale, instead of it being "harder" to win, it becomes easier.

I fear that the longer it goes on without some kind of correction, most players will play the first 6-8 weeks until they realize there's nothing more to achieve - then go on to something else until the new version comes out.

[Findest2001]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

My "plans" are to make the balance of the game fair for everyone. The whole concept is to push the stronger teams up - and the current method doesn't do that. We move teams down based on worst WinPct and DON'T move teams up on the same basis. An owner's "goal" should be to win as many games as possible to get promoted OR to sandbag and train and build for another day. The numbers I posted above for GB is all wrong. The spread between the best and worst teams in ANY league/division should AT LEAST be the same in Perfect as it is in Iron. The fact it isn't proves the talent spread is too great the higher you move up. As a Whale, instead of it being "harder" to win, it becomes easier.

I fear that the longer it goes on without some kind of correction, most players will play the first 6-8 weeks until they realize there's nothing more to achieve - then go on to something else until the new version comes out.

What about promoting based on win%, but with a significant weight added to playoff wins? They still get their "promote by playoff results" while win% is a key factor. Just a thought. I'm sure they could add a modifier to give weight to those playoff wins. Unfortunately it defeats the purpose to do it solely on win% because then there's no point to the playoffs.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Findest2001

What about promoting based on win%, but with a significant weight added to playoff wins? They still get their "promote by playoff results" while win% is a key factor. Just a thought. I'm sure they could add a modifier to give weight to those playoff wins. Unfortunately it defeats the purpose to do it solely on win% because then there's no point to the playoffs.

I would rather see win% used and then give out a reward of some kind to the playoff winners. It only makes sense to promote teams on the same basis your relegating them if you want the best to go up and the worst to go down.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Findest2001

What about promoting based on win%, but with a significant weight added to playoff wins? They still get their "promote by playoff results" while win% is a key factor. Just a thought. I'm sure they could add a modifier to give weight to those playoff wins. Unfortunately it defeats the purpose to do it solely on win% because then there's no point to the playoffs.

As has been said previously, the game generates a score for each season that is based on winning percentage, playoff performance, and likely several other factors. Doing what you suggest here wouldn't even require the creation of a new metric

[dkgo]

Next year get rid of fixed promotion and relegation. Reclassify teams every season based on overall roster strength. Then there is no reason not to try to win as many games as possible within the current season and everyone should be in a fair league.

Hell there can even be a hidden ELO type rating system for every team that categorizes them. Many ways to do it.

The games behind spread posted above is alarming. It shows the highest levels are the least competitive because there is no way for the bad teams to drop out.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by dkgo

Next year get rid of fixed promotion and relegation. Reclassify teams every season based on overall roster strength. Then there is no reason not to try to win as many games as possible within the current season and everyone should be in a fair league.

I actually like that idea. I know it's been discussed before, probably not on their roadmap.

[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?

[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?

[Findest2001]

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?

Makes sense to me.

[HRBaker]

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?

The early team advancement isn't the issue nor the problem. In any case, you can't rely on customers changing their habits to fix a problem.

[dkgo]

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?

If the optimal strategy is to not play the game that seems like a major design flaw

[dkgo]

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?

In time it will be the other way around but this early they must still be trying to add leagues to the top of the pyramid

Once the number of leagues is settled then if there are twice as many diamond leagues then you will obviously have twice as many teams relegated per league than promoted. If you relegate 4 and promote 4 then you are still increasing the number of perfect teams