There's GOT to be a way to keep uber-whales out of iron-silver, right?

[Findest2001]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

I think I’d prefer teams be seeded by some strength algorithm as opposed to promotion/relegation. I’d base it on maybe the top 30 cards and I’d count inactive cards so teams couldn’t hide players. Then a tanker would need to actually sell his players to get seeded in Iron. In addition, if a team comes out of the entry pool and buys a bunch of historical perfects they’d spend 1 season in Iron pounding the heck out of everyone and then the following week they’d find themselves in perfect league.

This is a question born out of my own ignorance to how the system works, so please don't attack me for wanting to understand.

Within a single-season framework, if it's okay for someone to have a team so good the #2 team has a 50-game deficit then why is it not okay to have a team so BAD that almost every other team benefits from the pp you serve up?


They seem to be extremes on the exact same spectrum, and yes I understand a whale can purchase players and the game is designed to make money. My question is involving the fairness of why one is inherently worse than the other if money was removed from the situation. Because using my limited knowledge of the process, being a whale makes the company money and tanking does not. So is that all it really comes down to? If profits for the company weren't an issue then both would either be fine or both would be against the rules? I would imagine if money weren't an issue then competitive balance would be the main goal of someone attempting to program a sports/online game experience.


I'm sorry if I'm not wording it properly, but is my question making sense? Maybe I could word it like this, "if an environment free of money existed, what, if any, is the fundamental difference between A) tanking - which essentially gives free points to several other teams in the league, and B) Being a whale - roflstomping other players which essentially takes away other players' ability to earn points?"
Is there one? My gut tells me there's zero difference between the two, but again, I'm saying this in full ignorance, I assure you. I'm sure you guys can clear up my misunderstanding.

And yes I apologize my question possibly brings up promotion/relegation discussion for the 9 millionth time. That is why I asked within the framework of a non-profit, single-season system as opposed to the current one we use.

Thanks for any clarification for my understanding.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Findest2001

Within a single-season framework, if it's okay for someone to have a team so good the #2 team has a 50-game deficit then why is it not okay to have a team so BAD that almost every other team benefits from the pp you serve up?

Because the Terms of Service prohibit losing intentionally. They do not prohibit winning like a USA women's soccer team.

[Goliathus]

Originally Posted by matingly23

"Part of being a whale is the ability to be Thanos and wipe out everyone. Many enjoy that. I do too, on some game."

Well it's nice to see someone be honest and admit it. As you can imagine though, that makes for a not so fun experience for non whales. Hence things like OL leagues coming in to existence, and people asking for whales to be auto-promoted to Perfect.

Personally I don't want that experience, I'd prefer a league push me to think and evolve in to a better player rather than buying wins.

For people who want to be Thanos I would say, try to do it with pure strategy if you want an actual challenge. A VISA card doesn't make one a good manager.

Not sure if "admitting" is the right word for me cuz I am never a whale. I am a poor sack who is F2P in all the F2P games I ever played. I did smurf for other games though, so there's that.

Just saying, you'd be having more fun if you don't think too much about others. The whales aren't trying to impress you so you think they they are good manager. They just want to have fun, like you, but through different approach.

---------------------------------------

@Findest2001
A game that is F2P(like this one) and a game that everyone needs to pay $10 to play each month are going to have very different approach when it comes to competitive balancing. If this mode were run under a monthly subscription model, then competitive balancing will be the utmost importance, but how do they balance that, and how cards and packs operate will be different for sure, it will be a whole different game.

You can't c***block buying players and winning in this mode because it's impossible and stupid and go directly against the the business model. At the same time, you want to c***block tanking because it is against the spirit of the game. Even a horrible megacorporation like EA have to do something when cheaters are ruining the fun of their playerbase, because you cannot be so blatantly obvious about you not caring about your customers. So, you(from the dev's perspective) say "thank you" to the whales who pay you money, and let the system moves them up to perfect in time, but you have to stop them from tanking to ruin other players' fun again and again. You ruin some players' fun on your way to perfect? That's fair, you have paid for and are progressing as the system intended. Tanking down and re-promoting and repeat is abusing the system and ruining other players' fun more than a whale should have(barring paying for another set of 100 OVRs on a brand new team for another Iron to Perfect conquest -- thank you again if you do that). Hence, the "we will ban you for tanking" rules. A smart dev always keep those things in check and keep their players happy to a certain extent, because without players of both F2P and whales, there will be no game. F2P games are designed like a pyramid and in order for the whales to be enjoying their fun on (and to) the top, you need a lot of corpses for them to step on.

Also, tanking is breaking the rules because it is intentionally losing. No one is giving anyone who goes 40-122 any crap as long as it's legit. You can't intentionally win so winning a lot is never a problem.

One more thing, if you are looking for "competitive balancing", sport games are not for you. Every sport game I see, from mobile to console to PC, have similar F2P setup for their main multiplayer mode.

[Goliathus]

Double posted.

[dkgo]

is there a mandate that this conversation has to happen every ****ing week?

[Findest2001]

Originally Posted by Goliathus

Not sure if "admitting" is the right word for me cuz I am never a whale. I am a poor sack who is F2P in all the F2P games I ever played. I did smurf for other games though, so there's that.

Just saying, you'd be having more fun if you don't think too much about others. The whales aren't trying to impress you so you think they they are good manager. They just want to have fun, like you, but through different approach.

---------------------------------------

@Findest2001
A game that is F2P(like this one) and a game that everyone needs to pay $10 to play each month are going to have very different approach when it comes to competitive balancing. If this mode were run under a monthly subscription model, then competitive balancing will be the utmost importance, but how do they balance that, and how cards and packs operate will be different for sure, it will be a whole different game.

You can't c***block buying players and winning in this mode because it's impossible and stupid and go directly against the the business model. At the same time, you want to c***block tanking because it is against the spirit of the game. Even a horrible megacorporation like EA have to do something when cheaters are ruining the fun of their playerbase, because you cannot be so blatantly obvious about you not caring about your customers. So, you(from the dev's perspective) say "thank you" to the whales who pay you money, and let the system moves them up to perfect in time, but you have to stop them from tanking to ruin other players' fun again and again. You ruin some players' fun on your way to perfect? That's fair, you have paid for and are progressing as the system intended. Tanking down and re-promoting and repeat is abusing the system and ruining other players' fun more than a whale should have(barring paying for another set of 100 OVRs on a brand new team for another Iron to Perfect conquest -- thank you again if you do that). Hence, the "we will ban you for tanking" rules. A smart dev always keep those things in check and keep their players happy to a certain extent, because without players of both F2P and whales, there will be no game. F2P games are designed like a pyramid and in order for the whales to be enjoying their fun on (and to) the top, you need a lot of corpses for them to step on.

Also, tanking is breaking the rules because it is intentionally losing. No one is giving anyone who goes 40-122 any crap as long as it's legit. You can't intentionally win so winning a lot is never a problem.

Well just so it is defined, my idea of fun is being in a league where every team has a shot to win the championship (maybe not equally [I understand odds]), but they at least have a system in place that rewards solid management. Granted that's ideal and I understand I'll be seeded with teams vastly better than me once in a while, nonetheless that's my definition of fun. A balanced competitive experience testing my ability, not my wallet.



In the context of this thread because that's what has been built up,I wouldn't be surprised if the poor teams in the "unnamed team"'s division don't have a 50% or more quit rate. Meaning 2 of the 4 quit PT entirely because of being seeded in such a way where they truly had no chance of even making the playoffs.


Maybe they have some way of tracking activity, but it would be foolish to not expect people's morale to go down after a season like that. Is it right? Is it smart? Is it justified? Who knows, but human nature suggests people don't play games to get their butts handed to them relentlessly with no chance to win. I'm no sociologist, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least the rate at which people quit is directly proportional to their frustration levels.


With that said, putting whales in with f2p seems like a solid way to alienate a certain percentage of your playerbase. I'd be inclined to believe there are more f2p than there are p2p players. They make the majority. Even if only 1% of those players quit due to an experience like those poor teams in his division, the loss of players would have to outweigh the gain from the money coming in from the whales, and even then some weight has to be put into the question of "how many players leaving over said issue is acceptable"?


I obviously don't know as I am not on their accounting team, but I would imagine one of the most important concerns for any capitalist company is to not alienate the majority of players.


Sorry for the long post. That's my understanding, and again, I'm sure I'm wrong as usual.

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

I think I’d prefer teams be seeded by some strength algorithm as opposed to promotion/relegation. I’d base it on maybe the top 30 cards and I’d count inactive cards so teams couldn’t hide players. Then a tanker would need to actually sell his players to get seeded in Iron. In addition, if a team comes out of the entry pool and buys a bunch of historical perfects they’d spend 1 season in Iron pounding the heck out of everyone and then the following week they’d find themselves in perfect league.

said something similar a long time ago

fixed promotion/relegation is a system where teams can have wildly different quality levels even within the same season is dumb

[atabakin]

The Indy 500 doesn't go in circles as much as this discussion.

[Goliathus]

@Findest2001
Sadly, the market seems to be disagreeing with you(or us, I guess). F2P games have been the most profitting in the past few years which is why many companies are investing in F2P games and how they are taking over the mobile landscape. In the old day, you can find monthly subscription multiplayer games, you know, where everything are as fair as they can be. You have to spend your time to get in-game stuffs, and to practice your skills. But people don't play them enough to convince the devs that it's a good model. Devs are not idiots, and the megacorps are certainly not. They make F2P games because all the financial reports tell them F2P games give them the highest profit. Market dictates devs, not the other way around. Devs are like chef, they take order and cook the food the customers wanted. More players like F2P? Okay, let's cook more of those.

One strong point of F2P is that they will always attract vastly more players than paid games by default. For example, if I can attract 50,000 players for F2P vs 10,000 for P2P, and then 20,000 of the F2P quitted after getting pissed off, that's still 30,000 vs 10,000. They don't care about people quitting, and people quitting are to be expected. I read that 90+% of people who tried a F2P game will quit, but even the 10% remained are still more than what they will get for a P2P game.

Putting whales with F2P is a way to incentivize the F2P to pay up and is by design for a F2P game. There are three results for this: (1)the F2P pay up and become whales(thank you for your money) (2)They say eh, whatever, but I will still play(thank you for staying) (3)They leave(thank you for trying). These are all fine outcomes for the devs. As I have said many time, F2P games are designed for the whales to have fun slicing up others. F2P games will not stop until the day there are not enough players willing to be fodder. From what I observe personally, many people are willing to be fodders as long as the gameplay is fun for them, hence the F2P model is working well so far.

If you want to understand more about Free to Play and how it works. Go to youtube and search "Extra Credits: Free to Play". There's an official 10 video playlist. They will explain all you want to know, probably. Maybe check out the "Monetization" playlist as well.

[old timer]

Originally Posted by atabakin

The Indy 500 doesn't go in circles as much as this discussion.

Personally, I don't mind people talking about the same things over and over again and I admit I don't understand why it bothers other people. If something bores me, I just skip it. But your comment was too funny.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by old timer

Personally, I don't mind people talking about the same things over and over again and I admit I don't understand why it bothers other people. If something bores me, I just skip it. But your comment was too funny.

I'm actually entertained, just observing. :-)

[Findest2001]

Originally Posted by Goliathus

@Findest2001
Sadly, the market seems to be disagreeing with you(or us, I guess). F2P games have been the most profitting in the past few years which is why many companies are investing in F2P games and how they are taking over the mobile landscape. In the old day, you can find monthly subscription multiplayer games, you know, where everything are as fair as they can be. You have to spend your time to get in-game stuffs, and to practice your skills. But people don't play them enough to convince the devs that it's a good model. Devs are not idiots, and the megacorps are certainly not. They make F2P games because all the financial reports tell them F2P games give them the highest profit. Market dictates devs, not the other way around. Devs are like chef, they take order and cook the food the customers wanted. More players like F2P? Okay, let's cook more of those.

One strong point of F2P is that they will always attract vastly more players than paid games by default. For example, if I can attract 50,000 players for F2P vs 10,000 for P2P, and then 20,000 of the F2P quitted after getting pissed off, that's still 30,000 vs 10,000. They don't care about people quitting, and people quitting are to be expected. I read that 90+% of people who tried a F2P game will quit, but even the 10% remained are still more than what they will get for a P2P game.

Putting whales with F2P is a way to incentivize the F2P to pay up and is by design for a F2P game. There are three results for this: (1)the F2P pay up and become whales(thank you for your money) (2)They say eh, whatever, but I will still play(thank you for staying) (3)They leave(thank you for trying). These are all fine outcomes for the devs. As I have said many time, F2P games are designed for the whales to have fun slicing up others. F2P games will not stop until the day there are not enough players willing to be fodder. From what I observe personally, many people are willing to be fodders as long as the gameplay is fun for them, hence the F2P model is working well so far.

If you want to understand more about Free to Play and how it works. Go to youtube and search "Extra Credits: Free to Play". There's an official 10 video playlist. They will explain all you want to know, probably. Maybe check out the "Monetization" playlist as well.

Wow. Fantastic post. Thank you. Some of the information surprises me because i always thought people play games ultimately to try and win. It seems so foreign to me that when playing a competitive game people are fine with little to no parity. Its hard to fathom to be frank.

[dkgo]

Let's be honest, this isn't really a competitive game. There's no professional play or anything because in PT your team strength is based almost solely on the quality of your cards and a manager can only add little edges here and there then let the variance of baseball play out. Quality doesn't exactly correlate with the rating so some people learn faster than others about which cards are actually good but eventually it's widely known. If you are actually playing the game like fifa ultimate team a highly skilled player will still crush a bad player who has much more expensive cards. Then the game can rate everyone based on the combination of their skill and cards so you get even matches whereas PTs system throws everyone together. Trading card games like hearthstone/magic are different since there's a pretty easily attained ceiling to get what you need to play any tier 1 deck and paying just gets you there faster.

[Mat]

Originally Posted by Mat

I am curious.

Why do you repeat over and over in the beginning of this thread that you have been struggling through 7 seasons of this?

Lake City (.543) 5 seasons
Kings Landing (.575) 5 seasons
Pennsylvania (.597) 4 seasons

Originally Posted by Findest2001

Kings landings all 6 seasons including the current season were like this and the last 2 of Lake City have been as well including one with 6 whales in which 3 were in my division (last week). The PPP have "only" seen this twice but that was their first 2 seasons so Im not even counting those. Im only referring to consecutive seasons of this. With this season being the most lopsided.

Originally Posted by Findest2001

I have waited 7 weeks and this is week 8 and it is still not solved.

I think you just like to exaggerate.

[Goliathus]

The competitive players usually play skill-based games(too many), or skill-based luck games(Poker, TCGs). No one come into a F2P game and expecting to win by pure skill. Granted, the pinnacle of perfect league here could be seen as "competitive" but the ceiling is pretty high(as in, the money you need to spend to hit the 90+ OVR ceiling) and you will need to pay a lot to be truly competitive.

[Findest2001]

Originally Posted by Mat

I think you just like to exaggerate.

2+5 is 7. That would make this week 8 since the Lake City team was free from it this past season. But Im glad you spent so much time trying to pick holes by scouring through probably 50 posts.

You should try to be a lawyer if you enjoy poking holes in people's arguments. Maybe polish up on the skills a bit before trying though.

Toodles.

[Mat]

Not poking holes, just pointing out you like to embellish.

Consider it pro-bono.