Tournaments General Discussion

[waittilnextyear]

Originally Posted by steamrollers

I'm sure some disagree and almost all whales (not calling you a whale) won't want changes for obvious reasons but cap tourneys are simply not in a healthy spot right now. That is just the fact of the matter. In previous posts I have said you don't need to get rid of the current cap tourneys, let whales run wild if they want but additional restrictions on some new cap tourneys can open things up to lower level players.



Personally I don't understand how it can even be fun for some of the top whale rotations that are continually winning. There is just no drama and no doubt that they will have success. Then again everyone is different. I think competition is lots of fun but I know others want easy wins are like that kid we all knew growing up where if things don't go right or when picking teams they get picked last they get mad and tell everyone they are taking their ball and going home.

I think it would be fair to call me a whale at this point. My team is a bit of a tweener. For example, I tend to roll out 100 Walsh, 98 Coveleski, and 99 Brecheen as my top 3 SPs in cap tourneys.

I would argue that what you're claiming is fact is actually your opinion. There is no "fact" that tourneys are not in a healthy spot right now. The only fact is that some people are winning and some aren't, and those that aren't tend to not enjoy that very much. So we get a bunch of ideas geared toward making it more likely for them to win.

I think if the devs were to lower the caps more severely, then we'd basically just have more de facto bronze only tourneys.

There is plenty of drama when you get a field full of strong teams and only one of them can win. For example, the 128-team tourney that spawned this whole conversation was won by a F2P team against a field of the top whales. While that F2P team is managed by an active owner that has completed a lot of missions, poured over the AH, and spent a ton of time researching, it was still an example of an underdog winning a major tournament.

[dkgo]

I think "whale" is just used to mean strong team, not that they actually spent money.

At this point in the game anyone could look like a whale if they put time in.

[Morgans Magic]

Originally Posted by Barmy Fungy-Phipps

I agree that adjustments can and will be made. I'm hoping useful discussion about it will help Marcus and co. to find some good options that will help bring balance.
My recommendation at this point would lower the caps in general (65 or 70 average seems just too generous), and put the work in for more sophisticated adjustments next year. In the meantime, silver and bronze have become the butter to my mashed potatoes. I'm pretty happy sticking with that and refining my teams at that level. My one request would be more iron only tournaments - a slate of those at the same frequency as silver or bronze and I'd have three levels to tinker with.

The obvious solution - though there was an inference it was beyond the capability of current system - would be to make these cap tourneys not always "OPEN". How about a cap tourney with Diamonds and Below? And a cap tourney in the Gold and below corridor? Below there I think it becomes less persuasive that it's not just a Silver & Below tourney - but if you made the cap restrictive enough, that could even work!

[Pine Tar]

Originally Posted by dkgo

I think "whale" is just used to mean strong team, not that they actually spent money.

At this point in the game anyone could look like a whale if they put time in.

In most cases a 'whale' is defined as a person who is capable of spending a lot of cash in the effort either in a winning or losing capacity. Casinos treat whales very well as they tend to lose more than the average player. In a situation here it would seem to tip the player in favor of winning.

I have not spent a cent and my best card is a gold 89 I won in a tourney that gave me 2 free packs. I have a gold 81 and 82 I also, 1 I bought at auction and 1 I got with my original 6 pack when I joined.

I have no problem with players who have the funds to purchase better teams as i believe in the free market. Besides it feels extra sweet to best a whale even if it doesn't happen all that often.

Pine

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Pine Tar

In most cases a 'whale' is defined as a person who is capable of spending a lot of cash in the effort either in a winning or losing capacity. Casinos treat whales very well as they tend to lose more than the average player. In a situation here it would seem to tip the player in favor of winning.

I have not spent a cent and my best card is a gold 89 I won in a tourney that gave me 2 free packs. I have a gold 81 and 82 I also, 1 I bought at auction and 1 I got with my original 6 pack when I joined.

I have no problem with players who have the funds to purchase better teams as i believe in the free market. Besides it feels extra sweet to best a whale even if it doesn't happen all that often.

Pine

Yes that is the real definition of a "whale," but given that no one actually knows what any other user spent on this game people just use the term to describe a team with mostly good perfects. But many users have teams at that level by now with nominal or no money investment.

[Renfro]

Originally Posted by Barmy Fungy-Phipps

My one request would be more iron only tournaments - a slate of those at the same frequency as silver or bronze and I'd have three levels to tinker with.

Here, here. I miss the Iron Only tourneys from beta, the source of one of my only successes. Paid out 2K, too! It's crazy that there's only one Iron Only tourney offered so far, and a weekly one at that.

[StatMan22]

The 1625 (and obviously 1875) All/Non-Live tournaments have become a bit of a whale's playground, which is a shame. But there's still plenty of room to put together strong Bronze/Silver-and-below and even Gold-and-below teams without any monetary investment. The Capped Live tournaments are also up for the taking, as there aren't the same incredibly dominant 100 players in the pool.

All that said, I'd also be interested in capped tournaments for Gold and below, just to avoid the aforementioned dominant historical players that have an impact that far outpaces their ratings.

[One Great Matrix]

Stop with this for a month at least, a few weeks? You can use all your cards you can join 10 kinds of tournies 10 times a day.

One team wins.
One team loses.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Renfro

Here, here. I miss the Iron Only tourneys from beta, the source of one of my only successes. Paid out 2K, too! It's crazy that there's only one Iron Only tourney offered so far, and a weekly one at that.

I agree. There should be quick iron tourneys that pay out a pack or two depending upon size.

[Lemandria]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I agree. There should be quick iron tourneys that pay out a pack or two depending upon size.

Bronze and Silver are a crazy lot of fun, just having a ceiling makes it feel possible to win a few, even as a 'little guy.'

I've honestly spent far more time researching the iron and bronze players than I ever should.

Gold, diamond, open--guess I don't have the roster depth to feel like a contender. :shrug:

I'd likely feel very different about 'Open' if i'd played in the 2019 season from opening day.

Roster depth makes such an enormous difference at any level tourney.

[dbqs]

Finding that mostly historical batters and mostly live pitchers seems to be the way to go in Bronze.

[dkgo]

Live pitchers seem to have an edge in the current low tier meta since they generally have very high stuff with low movement, and a lot of people use higher contact low power batters like gwynn, carew, ichiro, aparicio etc. who aren't taking them deep enough to punish.

[waittilnextyear]

I feel like I have a pretty good LIVE gold team. I mean, there's only so many of them out there...

...but this team just got eliminated from a round robin/DoD format in 31-2 fashion. lol

LIVE Mike Soroka has been a disappointment in these tourneys.

[Morgans Magic]

The newest thing, is apparently starting only 3 guys - all lefties natch - and about 8-9 relievers.

It sure violates the spirit of the game, and attempting to win relatively meaningless tourney games by gaming the logic is kinda lame. Like it's not enough being a whale, you need to push the rules. You - and I'm sure you know who you are as well as I do - kinda suck. FULL STOP

[Lemandria]

Originally Posted by Morgans Magic

The newest thing, is apparently starting only 3 guys - all lefties natch - and about 8-9 relievers.

It sure violates the spirit of the game, and attempting to win relatively meaningless tourney games by gaming the logic is kinda lame. Like it's not enough being a whale, you need to push the rules. You - and I'm sure you know who you are as well as I do - kinda suck. FULL STOP

Ahem

"There are other records involving left-handed starters, including the three teams (2013 White Sox, 2015 White Sox, 1954 Washington Senators) who had four left-handers start at least 20 games in a season. The 1951 Red Sox had five lefties each pitch in 18 games in a single season, setting yet another record.:

Starting 3 guys is pretty normal in DoDs, or even Bo3. Depends on the tourney types you favor, I suppose. For historical precedent, simply look around before 1900.

This fellow would haaaate the 23 lefties and 2 switch hitters roster that I trot out in bronze twice in a blue moon...heh. But it exists specifically as the 'world revolves around right handers' counter, in it's surprisingly successful. (Look, they just won a tourney a half hour ago.)

If only LH-hitter SS weren't as rare as snow in August!

[QuantaCondor]

Originally Posted by Morgans Magic

The newest thing, is apparently starting only 3 guys - all lefties natch - and about 8-9 relievers.

It sure violates the spirit of the game, and attempting to win relatively meaningless tourney games by gaming the logic is kinda lame. Like it's not enough being a whale, you need to push the rules. You - and I'm sure you know who you are as well as I do - kinda suck. FULL STOP

Who says it's only whales doing this?

[Lemandria]

Originally Posted by QuantaCondor

Who says it's only whales doing this?

The lefty team mentioned above is 100% FTP.

I'm really not understanding what the problem is, loading a team with RH thumpers and punishing a LH rotation is simplicity.

[CrazyWR]

Originally Posted by Morgans Magic

The newest thing, is apparently starting only 3 guys - all lefties natch - and about 8-9 relievers.

It sure violates the spirit of the game, and attempting to win relatively meaningless tourney games by gaming the logic is kinda lame. Like it's not enough being a whale, you need to push the rules. You - and I'm sure you know who you are as well as I do - kinda suck. FULL STOP

I'm sorry, what? Where in the rulebook does it say you have to use a full rotation or throw people X amount of innings? All it takes is 1 extra inning game or 1 game where you score a lot of runs and push them deep into fatigue and that team is done...like a lot of these strats, the solution is both obvious and also can be solved by L2P

[dkgo]

teams have been doing that since the start of PT, its just cheese to abuse the barely functional depth chart settings

[Morgans Magic]

Just FYI it was a 32 game Silver NOT DOD