Just throwing this out for comments... - Page 4

old timer · 05-02-2019, 12:54 PM

Then again, I'm not sure I really like the idea of increased movement. Every time a team has a lucky season or an unlucky one, they'll potentially be moved to a different level. I guess I wish there was a bit more stability. Unless a team is clearly better or worse than the majority of others at the same level, it would be nice if they could just stay put.

Just tossing out ideas... I wonder if we should use two successive seasons instead of performance in just one season to help reduce the role of luck? But then what if a team wins 140 games? Maybe if a team's record is so dominate, they get promoted after one such season, but below a certain WPct, they have to have two straight seasons where they were at or near the top in WPct?

Cheesehead1964 · 05-02-2019, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

Two of my teams have diamonds and golds on my reserve roster while I continue to train up iron and bronze players for potential use in tournaments. I contend that this is legal, as I am not doing it to minimize my ability to win games, though I also recognize that it is definitely questionable behavior. It also helps my case that I am doing in in leagues at Silver or lower.

This is also why we need a better definition of what constitutes cheating.

Totally agree. My three teams are all in Silver Leagues, and I'm just trying to win and get promoted. I'm slowly acquiring a few diamonds and definitely use them, but if I had a better performing high gold on reserve I'd definitely swap out the diamond for it. And I'm definitely seeing a lot of very good teams who are relying on many silver and bronze players at this level. So it's hard to look at a reserve roster and judge if someone is deliberately sandbagging. Even if they have a bad record, maybe they are trying to build a high defense, extreme groundball team or whatever with a variety of players. How can you judge?

HRBaker · 05-02-2019, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old timer

Then again, I'm not sure I really like the idea of increased movement. Every time a team has a lucky season or an unlucky one, they'll potentially be moved to a different level. I guess I wish there was a bit more stability. Unless a team is clearly better or worse than the majority of others at the same level, it would be nice if they could just stay put.

Just tossing out ideas... I wonder if we should use two successive seasons instead of performance in just one season to help reduce the role of luck? But then what if a team wins 140 games? Maybe if a team's record is so dominate, they get promoted after one such season, but below a certain WPct, they have to have two straight seasons where they were at or near the top in WPct?

There's always going to be some exceptions which will cause someone to question whether the current method is the best or not - but pushing playoff winners to the top has one major flaw. A wild card team can easily find itself promoted to a level it simply isn't ready for, unless they are also willing to open their wallet.

One thing is clear; if you enter Perfect level without the resources to win against the whales, your pretty much entombed in Perfect as an "also-ran" for the rest of the year. The only way out is to lose and get relegated.

The system would run much better (and be more fun) if you rose to your level of competence, and managed to stay there until you were ready to go further - IF that day came.

There's no perfect system, but that's no reason not to try and make the current one better.

Orcin · 05-02-2019, 01:12 PM

Assuming every league were perfectly balanced, what would the result be? Would you have all of the teams bunched around a .500 record, or would some teams win 90+ and some teams lose 90+? Why would either of these outcomes be better than what we have now?

dkgo · 05-02-2019, 01:22 PM

if they are perfectly balanced around team quality (PP value, rating, however it is determined) then manager skill in terms of matching players to ballpark and team strategy would actually make the difference

that sounds better to me

old timer · 05-02-2019, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Assuming every league were perfectly balanced, what would the result be? Would you have all of the teams bunched around a .500 record, or would some teams win 90+ and some teams lose 90+? Why would either of these outcomes be better than what we have now?

Even if a league were "perfectly balanced", I'd expect variation in performance to make some teams win/lose 90+.

The main problem, as I see it, is simply with promoting teams to a higher level when they're not clearly better than the competition. Why promote someone who won barely more than 1/2 their games? Why not just let them stay where they're at? Wait until they're clearly better, then promote them.

As to how we can know if they're "clearly" better... A dominant W-L record (for example, 120+ wins) or successive high WPcts could be used. But promoting just because someone went far in the playoffs doesn't make since, because this doesn't indicate that they belong at a higher level.

mcdog512 · 05-02-2019, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old timer

Even if a league were "perfectly balanced", I'd expect variation in performance to make some teams win/lose 90+.

The main problem, as I see it, is simply with promoting teams to a higher level when they're not clearly better than the competition. Why promote someone who won barely more than 1/2 their games? Why not just let them stay where they're at? Wait until they're clearly better, then promote them.

As to how we can know if they're "clearly" better... A dominant W-L record (for example, 120+ wins) or successive high WPcts could be used. But promoting just because someone went far in the playoffs doesn't make since, because this doesn't indicate that they belong at a higher level.

That sounds like an absolute pain to track and likely code. I think if I were the game producer I'd take a pass on that one.

old timer · 05-02-2019, 01:40 PM

One more thing...

Promotion/relegation is used (as I see it) to help keep the difference from the top teams in a league and the bottom teams from being too great. I doubt that many people would find it fun to win 130+ games every season and so promotion will help make this much likely. Also, most people don't want to lose 120+ games every season (duh!), so relegation should help them to end up at a level we're they're not going to be completely overwhelmed. In other words, I see promotion/relegation as a way of minimizing extremes in performance.

old timer · 05-02-2019, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdog512

That sounds like an absolute pain to track and likely code. I think if I were the game producer I'd take a pass on that one.

Well, that's for them to determine so if they think so too, then so be it. But at the very least, I wish they'd stop using playoff performance to promote teams. Even just using WPct for the current season would better determine who's needing to be moved up or down.

Orcin · 05-02-2019, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkgo

if they are perfectly balanced around team quality (PP value, rating, however it is determined) then manager skill in terms of matching players to ballpark and team strategy would actually make the difference

that sounds better to me

I don't disagree, but you really didn't answer my question.

Orcin · 05-02-2019, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old timer

Even if a league were "perfectly balanced", I'd expect variation in performance to make some teams win/lose 90+.

The team owners that lose 90+ will still be unhappy, and they will want a system that puts them in a league where they can compete.

dkgo · 05-02-2019, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old timer

I doubt that many people would find it fun to win 130+ games every season

I think you are very, very wrong here

dkgo · 05-02-2019, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

The team owners that lose 90+ will still be unhappy, and they will want a system that puts them in a league where they can compete.

maybe at first, but when you look around and see the 90 win teams have similar cards to you that makes you think "there must be something I can do here."

when you lose 90 games and see the playoff teams have a rotation worth 750K PP you think "well I'm never going to have that so what's the point"

old timer · 05-02-2019, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

The team owners that lose 90+ will still be unhappy, and they will want a system that puts them in a league where they can compete.

But losing 90+ games in a season doesn't mean they can't compete. In PT19 (diamond), my team lost 90+ games one season and then they bounced back the next season and won nearly 90.

I don't think the point of promotion/relegation is to make everyone happy. It's to keep from having extreme imbalances, right? So if you're team is losing 120+ games, then you'll probably get relegated (I certainly hope so!) and that's the kind of imbalance that it's for.

The problem is (I know, I'm probably being too repetitious here) that some teams get promoted even though they're not better than the other teams at their level just because they got "lucky".

old timer · 05-02-2019, 01:58 PM

...

dkgo · 05-02-2019, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

I don't disagree, but you really didn't answer my question.

Well, the answer is that through variance and difference in manager ability there will still be some teams with 90 wins and some teams with 90 losses. It should get rid of the extreme 120+ win/loss outliers.

However when you see you are competing against "fair" teams then a losing record is more palatable.

dkgo · 05-02-2019, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old timer

Very well expressed! This is mostly just a problem for the perfect level, I think (but correct me if I'm wrong).

with those numbers specifically yes, but there is a bar like that for every engagement level. a player struggling in silver who kinda got stuck there when there were massive promotions early might just see a rotation of all diamond live cards and think that is a huge gap

dkgo · 05-02-2019, 02:04 PM

All this being said I am still very happy with PT overall. I probably play a 90/10 split between PT and traditional ootp these days, if it wasn't fun then I would have given it up. Just think there is opportunity for it to be even better.

old timer · 05-02-2019, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkgo

All this being said I am still very happy with PT overall. I probably play a 90/10 split between PT and traditional ootp these days, if it wasn't fun then I would have given it up. Just think there is opportunity for it to be even better.

I feel the same way. I'm loving PT, but I'm hoping for some improvements including in how promotions/relegations are handled.

<Pion> · 05-02-2019, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daves

Tournaments may help add to the game. Love to be able to upload teams into my game.

I'm not really referring to your thoughts directly, but rather using it as a potential springboard into a conversation about Tourney's and whether they help the F2P guy or just end up making prices hard and thus things harder for F2P.

That being said, in regards to F2P I've yet to see a good explanation as to how tournaments might help. I remember conversations in PT19 where people thought Tournaments would give them a chance. But if whales are hoarding cards and others either can't get them, or have to pay the premium other players may price them at once tourney's start, then it's still the PP and/or money that will dominate tourneys (except for those that might be making their purchases early. Once you add in Collections, it seems that all the new features have hurt the AH rather than help. Prices have come down in the AH, but still remain quite high especially at the higher levels. Hopefully I'm wrong and prices eventually get down to PT19 levels, but I'm becoming less confident of that.

05-02-2019, 12:54 PM	#61
old timer Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,278	Then again, I'm not sure I really like the idea of increased movement. Every time a team has a lucky season or an unlucky one, they'll potentially be moved to a different level. I guess I wish there was a bit more stability. Unless a team is clearly better or worse than the majority of others at the same level, it would be nice if they could just stay put. Just tossing out ideas... I wonder if we should use two successive seasons instead of performance in just one season to help reduce the role of luck? But then what if a team wins 140 games? Maybe if a team's record is so dominate, they get promoted after one such season, but below a certain WPct, they have to have two straight seasons where they were at or near the top in WPct? __________________

05-02-2019, 01:40 PM	#68
old timer Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,278	One more thing... Promotion/relegation is used (as I see it) to help keep the difference from the top teams in a league and the bottom teams from being too great. I doubt that many people would find it fun to win 130+ games every season and so promotion will help make this much likely. Also, most people don't want to lose 120+ games every season (duh!), so relegation should help them to end up at a level we're they're not going to be completely overwhelmed. In other words, I see promotion/relegation as a way of minimizing extremes in performance. __________________

05-02-2019, 01:58 PM	#75
old timer Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,278	... __________________ Last edited by old timer; 05-02-2019 at 01:59 PM.

05-02-2019, 01:12 PM	#64
Orcin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Indiana Posts: 9,798	Assuming every league were perfectly balanced, what would the result be? Would you have all of the teams bunched around a .500 record, or would some teams win 90+ and some teams lose 90+? Why would either of these outcomes be better than what we have now?

05-02-2019, 01:22 PM	#65
dkgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,152	if they are perfectly balanced around team quality (PP value, rating, however it is determined) then manager skill in terms of matching players to ballpark and team strategy would actually make the difference that sounds better to me

05-02-2019, 02:04 PM	#78
dkgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,152	All this being said I am still very happy with PT overall. I probably play a 90/10 split between PT and traditional ootp these days, if it wasn't fun then I would have given it up. Just think there is opportunity for it to be even better.