Competitive balance discussion - Page 45

zrog2000 · 12-31-2018, 11:23 PM

Imagine a game where everyone won.

Thalion · 12-31-2018, 11:43 PM

That's because you haven't sacrificed a mascot to the Random Number Gods yet, Maddox

<Pion> · 12-31-2018, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chomps

Has anyone actually won a league championship without spending real money on perfect points?

I have one that has won two championships.

Mooshimanx · 01-01-2019, 12:50 AM

It doesn't really matter how the players are evaluated, this game is probably dead in the water unless they come up with a better business model than just letting people buy the best players, and really, no matter how much people love the historical players, having super-secret-ultra-rare ultra players that are legitimately just better than everyone else (and solely gated beyond money) is beyond silly. At the very minimum you need to have an option to bypass playing with entire leagues of Mike Trouts because having entire weeks where you will lose 100 games, gain no points and essentially get locked out of meaningfully playing the game is outrageously poor design.

daves · 01-01-2019, 01:00 AM

2 of the same player in the same pack doesn't seem right.

I stopped buying packs since the initial opening. Use the 1000 PP for a player you need next time.

pstrickert · 01-01-2019, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooshimanx

It doesn't really matter how the players are evaluated, this game is probably dead in the water unless they come up with a better business model than just letting people buy the best players, and really, no matter how much people love the historical players, having super-secret-ultra-rare ultra players that are legitimately just better than everyone else (and solely gated beyond money) is beyond silly. At the very minimum you need to have an option to bypass playing with entire leagues of Mike Trouts because having entire weeks where you will lose 100 games, gain no points and essentially get locked out of meaningfully playing the game is outrageously poor design.

I understand what you’re saying. To me, it’s a question of compatibility. Is the “deep pockets” approach to building a team (that is, spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars) compatible with the F2P/modest P2P approach? Can the two camps co-exist? Or does the former group, at some point, make the latter group so non competitive that it ruins the experience? I don’t know the answer.

daves · 01-01-2019, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chomps

Has anyone actually won a league championship without spending real money on perfect points?

Yes. I won twice without spending.

But then I spent money to compete at a higher level and win some more titles.

Radsmats · 01-01-2019, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Does anyone still feel like they have no chance in their league?

I did last week just because there was a whale passing through my bronze league (and after a wobble in August they won the league by a dozen games, then the playoffs).
I might have had a shot at a wild card if I had figured out the mechanics quicker ... my basic lineup from the second half of last year started this one 20-6. I would still like to see all-gold and better teams seeded to start at a higher tier.

Zorro · 01-01-2019, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Week 5... the leagues are finally all in place. I am seeing the benefits of the promotion/relegation system, exactly as Markus predicted. Our league is tough, but well balanced. Does anyone still feel like they have no chance in their league?

I always feel I have no chance at first but then the light comes on. 😁

<Pion> · 01-01-2019, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooshimanx

At the very minimum you need to have an option to bypass playing with entire leagues of Mike Trouts because having entire weeks where you will lose 100 games, gain no points and essentially get locked out of meaningfully playing the game is outrageously poor design.

But how much is this really happening (losing 100 games each season)? With studying of players, a free team can compete, have a record over .500, and even win championships in the mid to high league levels. I would think if a team was losing 100 games yearly, the weaknesses could quickly be spotted and plugged without huge amounts of PP.

It might be a fun challenge to dump every player over iron level and a starting budget of 1000 PP at the beginning of a season and see how many seasons it takes to be either competitive or at least over a .500 record. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be done in 3 seasons (possibly 2). An all bronze team could have a .500+ record at silver levels most likely and if given a couple of key silver pitchers, could definitely do it.

Scoman · 01-01-2019, 04:57 AM

I'm up to a Diamond league with no spending,but have never won a WS, lost in game 7 in my only WS appearance with 3 teams..

But quit buying packs pretty much after beta,much easier and quicker to field a competitive team thru the AH,actually I have had more success getting free packs from CM than buying packs.

Made the mistake of buying a gold pack for 5000 once,boy was that a mistake, and lost my a$$ ,never will happen again.

Socali · 01-01-2019, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chomps

...Has anyone actually won a league championship without spending real money on perfect points?

Yes. Why play the lottery? AUCTION HOUSE > Lottery

Kushiel · 01-01-2019, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zrog2000

Imagine a game where everyone won.

Everybody gets a trophy is the mantra of the millennial generation.

It is just not fair for you to win and them to lose. Something must be done immediately about this unfair game. Fix it now so that we all get six Perfect cards from each and every pack.

Zorro · 01-01-2019, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <Pion>

But how much is this really happening (losing 100 games each season)? With studying of players, a free team can compete, have a record over .500, and even win championships in the mid to high league levels. I would think if a team was losing 100 games yearly, the weaknesses could quickly be spotted and plugged without huge amounts of PP.

It might be a fun challenge to dump every player over iron level and a starting budget of 1000 PP at the beginning of a season and see how many seasons it takes to be either competitive or at least over a .500 record. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be done in 3 seasons (possibly 2). An all bronze team could have a .500+ record at silver levels most likely and if given a couple of key silver pitchers, could definitely do it.

I kinda feel if you keep losing 100 games every year that possibly it is you who are the problem and not the cards. I see to many cheap good players on the Auction block to keep anyone from losing 100 games constantly.

Orcin · 01-01-2019, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooshimanx

It doesn't really matter how the players are evaluated, this game is probably dead in the water unless they come up with a better business model than just letting people buy the best players, and really, no matter how much people love the historical players, having super-secret-ultra-rare ultra players that are legitimately just better than everyone else (and solely gated beyond money) is beyond silly. At the very minimum you need to have an option to bypass playing with entire leagues of Mike Trouts because having entire weeks where you will lose 100 games, gain no points and essentially get locked out of meaningfully playing the game is outrageously poor design.

1. No card is locked behind a paywall. Every card is available to every player via packs.
2. If you are losing 100 games in bronze level, then you are just a bad player and need to L2P.
3. If you are losing 100 games above bronze, you will have a better week coming up.

Orcin · 01-01-2019, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <Pion>

It might be a fun challenge to dump every player over iron level and a starting budget of 1000 PP at the beginning of a season and see how many seasons it takes to be either competitive or at least over a .500 record. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be done in 3 seasons (possibly 2). An all bronze team could have a .500+ record at silver levels most likely and if given a couple of key silver pitchers, could definitely do it.

This would be a fun thing to do with a second account.

Ty Cobb · 01-01-2019, 11:11 AM

"I got an unpleasant outcome in a game of chance!"

Last pack I picked up had a Machado and a couple of silvers. One before that had a bronze & five losers. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Your pack met the minimum expectation. What's the problem?

Take yer lumps, kid.

Weaseltail · 01-01-2019, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooshimanx

It doesn't really matter how the players are evaluated, this game is probably dead in the water unless they come up with a better business model than just letting people buy the best players, and really, no matter how much people love the historical players, having super-secret-ultra-rare ultra players that are legitimately just better than everyone else (and solely gated beyond money) is beyond silly. At the very minimum you need to have an option to bypass playing with entire leagues of Mike Trouts because having entire weeks where you will lose 100 games, gain no points and essentially get locked out of meaningfully playing the game is outrageously poor design.

IMO the problem isn't the business model, it's designing a promotion system that gets teams to the appropriate level faster. I know the devs are looking at this and will hopefully have a better solution in OOTP20. Things are a lot better this week (at least for my teams).

They also need to figure out the dreaded "end-game content" issue. Once you've spent your points and your team is basically set, there's not much to do other than check in every once in a while. Tournaments may help this, but unless you have an unlimited budget, you hit a wall and the game becomes very passive and much less interesting.

BMW · 01-01-2019, 11:34 AM

This is pretty much every pack I've ever gotten. I'm lucky to pull a silver. I'm switching back to the Auction House.

Weaseltail · 01-01-2019, 11:35 AM

Packs are a good strategy if you have an unlimited budget. The AH is much better if you have a small budget or are trying to get by without spending money.

The OP has a point in that if you don't have a lot of money, it really hurts when you open several packs and get garbage. It could take days to save up enough points to open another pack, all the while your team is getting creamed and there's not much you can do to fix it. That's not the case if you're opening 50 packs. Odds are you'll get something valuable.

At the end of the day it's a pay-to-win model. Nothing wrong with that, and the devs have created league levels that allow small budget teams to eventually compete, but the pack odds make it tough for low-budget teams to improve much over time.

01-01-2019, 12:50 AM	#884
Mooshimanx Bat Boy Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 10	It doesn't really matter how the players are evaluated, this game is probably dead in the water unless they come up with a better business model than just letting people buy the best players, and really, no matter how much people love the historical players, having super-secret-ultra-rare ultra players that are legitimately just better than everyone else (and solely gated beyond money) is beyond silly. At the very minimum you need to have an option to bypass playing with entire leagues of Mike Trouts because having entire weeks where you will lose 100 games, gain no points and essentially get locked out of meaningfully playing the game is outrageously poor design. Last edited by Mooshimanx; 01-01-2019 at 12:52 AM.

01-01-2019, 01:00 AM	#885
daves Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,635	2 of the same player in the same pack doesn't seem right. I stopped buying packs since the initial opening. Use the 1000 PP for a player you need next time. __________________

01-01-2019, 04:57 AM	#891
Scoman All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: heath ohio Posts: 1,771	I'm up to a Diamond league with no spending,but have never won a WS, lost in game 7 in my only WS appearance with 3 teams.. But quit buying packs pretty much after beta,much easier and quicker to field a competitive team thru the AH,actually I have had more success getting free packs from CM than buying packs. Made the mistake of buying a gold pack for 5000 once,boy was that a mistake, and lost my a$$ ,never will happen again. Last edited by Scoman; 01-01-2019 at 05:04 AM.

01-01-2019, 11:11 AM	#897
Ty Cobb Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Grayling, MI Posts: 3,952 Blog Entries: 67	Ooooooooooooh! "I got an unpleasant outcome in a game of chance!" Last pack I picked up had a Machado and a couple of silvers. One before that had a bronze & five losers. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Your pack met the minimum expectation. What's the problem? Take yer lumps, kid. Attached Images __________________ “What’s the most you ever lost on a coin toss?” “Everyone is an atheist until Templars begin marching in the rain.” Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder. It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.—Thomas Sowell "Alinsky works for me now."

01-01-2019, 11:34 AM	#899
BMW Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Location: New Jersey Posts: 2,030	This is pretty much every pack I've ever gotten. I'm lucky to pull a silver. I'm switching back to the Auction House. __________________

12-31-2018, 11:23 PM	#881
zrog2000 All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2018 Posts: 1,335	Imagine a game where everyone won.

12-31-2018, 11:43 PM	#882
Thalion Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 413	That's because you haven't sacrificed a mascot to the Random Number Gods yet, Maddox

01-01-2019, 11:35 AM	#900
Weaseltail Minors (Double A) Join Date: Nov 2018 Posts: 127	Packs are a good strategy if you have an unlimited budget. The AH is much better if you have a small budget or are trying to get by without spending money. The OP has a point in that if you don't have a lot of money, it really hurts when you open several packs and get garbage. It could take days to save up enough points to open another pack, all the while your team is getting creamed and there's not much you can do to fix it. That's not the case if you're opening 50 packs. Odds are you'll get something valuable. At the end of the day it's a pay-to-win model. Nothing wrong with that, and the devs have created league levels that allow small budget teams to eventually compete, but the pack odds make it tough for low-budget teams to improve much over time.