Competitive balance discussion

[Ty Cobb]

For what it's worth, my Trout City Trolls won their Rookie Lg. World Series yesterday...money spent: 0. I LOVE this!!!

[max venerabel]

Took me a while to find the right thread for this, but I think its worth adding my two cents here.

I am having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how you play this game as anything other than a mad scramble to get more and more star players on your team. Weather you do that by simply paying for them via cash, or by grinding it out and collecting achievements or auctioning for profit, it amounts to the same thing -- the point of the game seems to be to inflate your team over time until its packed with studs at every position. The whole pyramid system, the endless supply of new players, and the fact that there will always be opponents taking this aspect of the game to heart in any given league, demands this strategy of every player.

I personally get a lot more enjoyment out of playing within a limited supply of some sort, and doing the best I can with that supply. In my solo leagues, that means a self imposed salary cap and careful rules to stop me from gaming the AI, and in online leagues I play in there is a static player pool which keeps runaway roster inflation in check. In PT, I think its more fun to hold only a few stars, balancing them out with a solid all around roster and thinking about maximizing chemistry and strategy, like most MLB teams need to do. However, I don't see a play mode where this is a realistic strategy for winning.

I realize we can all set our own personal "house rules" (like I'm only spending $20, or not spending at all), but it seems like a missed opportunity to not have a game mode which supports this for all involved. The "zero sum" style of play I've described wouldn't be hard to create -- all you'd need is the option of setting a hard cap on overall ratings for your team, or limits on the number of high value cards, and have the server search for others with similar options to populate the leagues you are in.

As PT is structured now, any league you are in is likely to have people all over the map in their strategies, from whales to guppies as they move up and down the pyramid, so there's no way to be certain that you are playing against people that have your same notion of limits to spending. The game seems tilted toward insistently upgrading through free perks or paid ones, rather than finding a balanced roster.

I realize this is a tricky thing for OOTP devs to negotiate, as competitive balance might be seen as antithetical to the lucrative quality of creating pressure to consistently upgrade your team via in game purchases. But, for myself and possibly many others, balance and scarcity is really what makes game play repeatable.

If I find myself doing nothing but searching for ways to get gold players at every position, because there's always a team or two in my league doing just that, I'm going to get sick of this pretty quick.

So anyway I hope its something that they are thinking about.

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by max venerabel

I am having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how you play this game as anything other than a mad scramble to get more and more star players on your team. Weather you do that by simply paying for them via cash, or by grinding it out and collecting achievements or auctioning for profit, it amounts to the same thing -- the point of the game seems to be to inflate your team over time until its packed with studs at every position. The whole pyramid system, the endless supply of new players, and the fact that there will always be opponents taking this aspect of the game to heart in any given league, demands this strategy of every player.

I think there is plenty of room for interesting decisions beyond which player has the highest overall rating. For example, do you take a high-powered right-handed slugger who murders lefties, or a high-contact switch hitter with elite defense? Which one is "better" for your team may depend on many factors, and involves trade-offs. The most successful teams will have a selection of players that complement each other, and fit the overall team strategy.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Josquin

I think there is plenty of room for interesting decisions beyond which player has the highest overall rating. For example, do you take a high-powered right-handed slugger who murders lefties, or a high-contact switch hitter with elite defense? Which one is "better" for your team may depend on many factors, and involves trade-offs. The most successful teams will have a selection of players that complement each other, and fit the overall team strategy.

And a lot of times, you just can't make your team full of perfects, so it's how you manage the guys you have now. For example, my top team has this outfield/DH:
LF Kevin Mitchell (88 R - power)
LF Roy White (82 S, balance+D)
CF Lorenzo Cain (86 R, speed/D)
RF Harper (86 L -power/D)
RF Ohtani (81 L - power/speed)
RF Stanton (75 R - power)

I can only play 4 of them each game. Cain obviously mans CF since he's the only guy rated above like a 25 there. But how the other 5 handle LF/RF/DH is a real tough problem. A good problem, but not an easy one. Do you want the extra D and play a guy like White? Or the extra power and give Stanton more ABs? Ohtani has to sit a few times a week to pitch, so how best to make up the depth charts is a tough challenge.

Now, granted, this team is pretty strong, so it's not easy to get to this point. But even my other test team, which isn't nearly as stacked, has some tough calls in the OF. Ichiro vs Ozuna vs, say, Mallex Smith, is a tough decision that depends a lot on what the rest of the roster looks like.

[daves]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

And a lot of times, you just can't make your team full of perfects, so it's how you manage the guys you have now. For example, my top team has this outfield/DH:
LF Kevin Mitchell (88 R - power)
LF Roy White (82 S, balance+D)
CF Lorenzo Cain (86 R, speed/D)
RF Harper (86 L -power/D)
RF Ohtani (81 L - power/speed)
RF Stanton (75 R - power)

I can only play 4 of them each game. Cain obviously mans CF since he's the only guy rated above like a 25 there. But how the other 5 handle LF/RF/DH is a real tough problem. A good problem, but not an easy one. Do you want the extra D and play a guy like White? Or the extra power and give Stanton more ABs? Ohtani has to sit a few times a week to pitch, so how best to make up the depth charts is a tough challenge.

Now, granted, this team is pretty strong, so it's not easy to get to this point. But even my other test team, which isn't nearly as stacked, has some tough calls in the OF. Ichiro vs Ozuna vs, say, Mallex Smith, is a tough decision that depends a lot on what the rest of the roster looks like.

What happens if you put someone at 1st despite no 1b ratings?

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

And a lot of times, you just can't make your team full of perfects, so it's how you manage the guys you have now. For example, my top team has this outfield/DH:
LF Kevin Mitchell (88 R - power)
LF Roy White (82 S, balance+D)
CF Lorenzo Cain (86 R, speed/D)
RF Harper (86 L -power/D)
RF Ohtani (81 L - power/speed)
RF Stanton (75 R - power)

I can only play 4 of them each game. Cain obviously mans CF since he's the only guy rated above like a 25 there. But how the other 5 handle LF/RF/DH is a real tough problem. A good problem, but not an easy one. Do you want the extra D and play a guy like White? Or the extra power and give Stanton more ABs? Ohtani has to sit a few times a week to pitch, so how best to make up the depth charts is a tough challenge.

Now, granted, this team is pretty strong, so it's not easy to get to this point. But even my other test team, which isn't nearly as stacked, has some tough calls in the OF. Ichiro vs Ozuna vs, say, Mallex Smith, is a tough decision that depends a lot on what the rest of the roster looks like.

Indeed. My most valuable player last season was Devon White (8.8 WAR). I wouldn't have swapped him out even for Trout.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by daves

What happens if you put someone at 1st despite no 1b ratings?

Like in regular OOTP. They'll suck there until they develop experience. They may learn it eventually, but could be a while.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Josquin

Indeed. My most valuable player last season was Devon White (8.8 WAR). I wouldn't have swapped him out even for Trout.

My first season in the private beta, my Reyes card had something like 9 WAR and got me so many achievements... This last year, he's in danger of getting bumped off my roster because it's been so frustrating.

[Josquin]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

My first season in the private beta, my Reyes card had something like 9 WAR and got me so many achievements... This last year, he's in danger of getting bumped off my roster because it's been so frustrating.

Which leads me to believe that it might be better to have multiple "good" options at each position and swap out any that aren't peforming than to stack the team with the highest overall rated cards, but no flexibility.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

And a lot of times, you just can't make your team full of perfects, so it's how you manage the guys you have now. For example, my top team has this outfield/DH:
LF Kevin Mitchell (88 R - power)
LF Roy White (82 S, balance+D)
CF Lorenzo Cain (86 R, speed/D)
RF Harper (86 L -power/D)
RF Ohtani (81 L - power/speed)
RF Stanton (75 R - power)

I can only play 4 of them each game. Cain obviously mans CF since he's the only guy rated above like a 25 there. But how the other 5 handle LF/RF/DH is a real tough problem. A good problem, but not an easy one. Do you want the extra D and play a guy like White? Or the extra power and give Stanton more ABs? Ohtani has to sit a few times a week to pitch, so how best to make up the depth charts is a tough challenge.

Now, granted, this team is pretty strong, so it's not easy to get to this point. But even my other test team, which isn't nearly as stacked, has some tough calls in the OF. Ichiro vs Ozuna vs, say, Mallex Smith, is a tough decision that depends a lot on what the rest of the roster looks like.

Roy White has been awesome for me. Two 5 WAR seasons and on his way to a 7 WAR season this year. His OPS+ is 166 right now.

[Echo127]

Originally Posted by daves

What happens if you put someone at 1st despite no 1b ratings?

I put Giancarlo Stanton at 1B a little ways into season 2 and hes rated over 50 now!

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by max venerabel

I am having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how you play this game as anything other than a mad scramble to get more and more star players on your team. Weather you do that by simply paying for them via cash, or by grinding it out and collecting achievements or auctioning for profit, it amounts to the same thing -- the point of the game seems to be to inflate your team over time until its packed with studs at every position. The whole pyramid system, the endless supply of new players, and the fact that there will always be opponents taking this aspect of the game to heart in any given league, demands this strategy of every player.

I personally get a lot more enjoyment out of playing within a limited supply of some sort, and doing the best I can with that supply. In my solo leagues, that means a self imposed salary cap and careful rules to stop me from gaming the AI, and in online leagues I play in there is a static player pool which keeps runaway roster inflation in check. In PT, I think its more fun to hold only a few stars, balancing them out with a solid all around roster and thinking about maximizing chemistry and strategy, like most MLB teams need to do. However, I don't see a play mode where this is a realistic strategy for winning.

I realize we can all set our own personal "house rules" (like I'm only spending $20, or not spending at all), but it seems like a missed opportunity to not have a game mode which supports this for all involved. The "zero sum" style of play I've described wouldn't be hard to create -- all you'd need is the option of setting a hard cap on overall ratings for your team, or limits on the number of high value cards, and have the server search for others with similar options to populate the leagues you are in.

As PT is structured now, any league you are in is likely to have people all over the map in their strategies, from whales to guppies as they move up and down the pyramid, so there's no way to be certain that you are playing against people that have your same notion of limits to spending. The game seems tilted toward insistently upgrading through free perks or paid ones, rather than finding a balanced roster.

I realize this is a tricky thing for OOTP devs to negotiate, as competitive balance might be seen as antithetical to the lucrative quality of creating pressure to consistently upgrade your team via in game purchases. But, for myself and possibly many others, balance and scarcity is really what makes game play repeatable.

If I find myself doing nothing but searching for ways to get gold players at every position, because there's always a team or two in my league doing just that, I'm going to get sick of this pretty quick.

So anyway I hope its something that they are thinking about.

In summary, you want everyone else to be held back so that you can play your way and compete. If I am wrong, please correct me.

[pstrickert]

I know there are different approaches to building a team. Nearly all of them seem compatible; that is, the competitive balance is not distorted, one way or another, no matter how you choose to play the game. With one exception: maxing out a roster in no time at all by expending a lot of cash. And I mean a lot — not $20 or $30. I’m especially not convinced that the F2P approach is compatible with the mega-P2P approach. (Please note: I’m referring to the extreme cases of cash input, not the judicious, and relatively modest, use of cash.) I don’t mind a challenge. But when I have one or more of the mega-spenders in my league, the competitive balance is so out of whack that I really lose interest in the game. (And when the same thing happens 2 or 3 weeks in a row, I’m tempted to find something else to do.) Just my thoughts, for what they’re worth, at this (admittedly) early stage of PT development.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by max venerabel

Took me a while to find the right thread for this, but I think its worth adding my two cents here.

I am having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how you play this game as anything other than a mad scramble to get more and more star players on your team. Weather you do that by simply paying for them via cash, or by grinding it out and collecting achievements or auctioning for profit, it amounts to the same thing -- the point of the game seems to be to inflate your team over time until its packed with studs at every position. The whole pyramid system, the endless supply of new players, and the fact that there will always be opponents taking this aspect of the game to heart in any given league, demands this strategy of every player.

I personally get a lot more enjoyment out of playing within a limited supply of some sort, and doing the best I can with that supply. In my solo leagues, that means a self imposed salary cap and careful rules to stop me from gaming the AI, and in online leagues I play in there is a static player pool which keeps runaway roster inflation in check. In PT, I think its more fun to hold only a few stars, balancing them out with a solid all around roster and thinking about maximizing chemistry and strategy, like most MLB teams need to do. However, I don't see a play mode where this is a realistic strategy for winning.

I realize we can all set our own personal "house rules" (like I'm only spending $20, or not spending at all), but it seems like a missed opportunity to not have a game mode which supports this for all involved. The "zero sum" style of play I've described wouldn't be hard to create -- all you'd need is the option of setting a hard cap on overall ratings for your team, or limits on the number of high value cards, and have the server search for others with similar options to populate the leagues you are in.

As PT is structured now, any league you are in is likely to have people all over the map in their strategies, from whales to guppies as they move up and down the pyramid, so there's no way to be certain that you are playing against people that have your same notion of limits to spending. The game seems tilted toward insistently upgrading through free perks or paid ones, rather than finding a balanced roster.

I realize this is a tricky thing for OOTP devs to negotiate, as competitive balance might be seen as antithetical to the lucrative quality of creating pressure to consistently upgrade your team via in game purchases. But, for myself and possibly many others, balance and scarcity is really what makes game play repeatable.

If I find myself doing nothing but searching for ways to get gold players at every position, because there's always a team or two in my league doing just that, I'm going to get sick of this pretty quick.

So anyway I hope its something that they are thinking about.

What I am looking forward to is when things settle and promotion/relegation has largely done its work. Then I will be happy in whatever league and level that I end up in, given my preference of playing and paying for PT.

I will never be at the Diamond or Perfect levels which no doubt will require hundreds of dollars to be invested to reach and excel in. I will be content to be with the folks who accumulate PP slowly, depend on luck in opening packs, use the Auction House wisely, and who are okay with having lesser players on their rosters.

EDIT: Heh, I believe I just echoed what you said here: "I personally get a lot more enjoyment out of playing within a limited supply of some sort, and doing the best I can with that supply." My point is, I believe PT will be enjoyable to you merely if you continue to play that way. You will end up with other guys just like you, I bet.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I will never be at the Diamond or Perfect levels which no doubt will require hundreds of dollars to be invested to reach and excel in.

Suit yourself. I am not giving up before the game is played. I plan to win the major league level after spending $20. I will laugh as my carefully-constructed roster chews up these diamond-studded teams that claim to have the one and only best player at each position. There's a lot more to this game than just throwing money at Markus for cheap wins.

[pstrickert]

I’ll be rootin’ for you, Orcin!

[NYY #23]

I agree with Orcin on this one. We've been in some pretty competitive leagues together, so don't think you have to spend big bucks to compete at the top level. I've spent $40 (though not wisely since we're still in beta), but last year when I had 5 diamonds on my team I finished under .500. This year with one diamond I'm holding my own and will make the playoffs barring an epic collapse.

Roster construction plays a big part of it, and don't think you have to buy all the best players. I may not have the best team, but don't feel like I can't beat any team. I'll take my chances getting into the playoffs and getting hot at the right time.

So don't get discouraged if you have a bad year, the gap probably isn't as wide as it looks, and sometimes your best players will have a bad year. Last year I picked up Severino to be my ace. He was ratings-wise, but put up a 9.82 ERA. This year he's done much better.

With adjusted payouts, card odds, and bugs being fixed a clean slate next week should be good for a more even playing field. And sure some may be able to buy a good team quickly by buying their way to the top it seems possible to get there without spending money if you are willing to put in the time, or get lucky.

[Lotto]

I know salary caps will never be implemented, but I'd like to see a joinable league where players can't buy PP. This would eliminate the I win because I spend $$.

Im frustrated as my league has two teams with stacked teams (4-5 rated 100 players, full squad of 94+) its ridiculous as no way to keep up unless start shelling out $$.

[waylander]

Things will work rather quickly I think. Spenders will rise quickly and be seeded with other spenders. The standard, bronze and silver markets will collapse quickly as well - which will make building a competitive team even easier for the lower teams.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Lotto

I know salary caps will never be implemented, but I'd like to see a joinable league where players can't buy PP. This would eliminate the I win because I spend $$.

Im frustrated as my league has two teams with stacked teams (4-5 rated 100 players, full squad of 94+) its ridiculous as no way to keep up unless start shelling out $$.

You didn't read any of the posts above yours, did you.