PT2.0 has now had 20 seasons. Time to compare to1.0!

[daves]

Originally Posted by bailey

9. Tournaments -- Most will be disappointed when they can't win at these, either.

LOL. That's funny and very true. Not all will enjoy this feature and OOTPGO, but the problem is it was promised prior to the 2.0 release and it is such a task it may not happen at all.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

If OOTP wants PT to be a long-term money maker, they are going to have to find ways to keep the "common" people engaged.

I think it's just the opposite. The need to keep the 20% who spend money engaged. I am less likely to spend heavily on 21 if it is just more of the same. To see one's investment wiped out after 1 year just to do it all over again is not an attractive option. New cars last a lot longer before you have to buy another.

[justpatrick]

Generally I´ve found the playing experience much more fun compared to 19. Part of that is from my philosophy of taking it slow, rather than jumping up to perfect as fast as I can. I much prefer slowing down and smelling the pine tar.

I like the way things run smoother and I love the no live card function in the AH, that´s really great.
I generally like the card sets, except for those potm and all star cards. They don´t really add much to the game and they clutter the AH (would be nice if the no live card function worked for them too).

The special editions are cool except I really don´t get how Paul Dean´s SE is better than his rookie sensation when they are both based on the 1934 season. Really, what gives? Did the devs just realize they screwed it up and corrected it for the SE?

As for peak, I don´t understand how a guy with a peak card can forget to bring his glove to the game. The defense on most of these cards is terrible.

What I miss are the diamonds in the rough pitchers that were around in 19. Guys like Barker, Keuchel, and Dierker, who pitched much better than their ratings. There are certainly hitters in 20k that do that, but I have yet to meet any pitchers. Of course if there are some feel free to let me know!

And for 21, please, please, please fix the historical players defensive ratings!

[daves]

Originally Posted by justpatrick

as for peak, i don´t understand how a guy with a peak card can forget to bring his glove to the game. The defense on most of these cards is terrible.

!

lol!

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by bailey

I think it's just the opposite. The need to keep the 20% who spend money engaged. I am less likely to spend heavily on 21 if it is just more of the same. To see one's investment wiped out after 1 year just to do it all over again is not an attractive option. New cars last a lot longer before you have to buy another.

It doesn't have to be an option of which customers to keep - they could certainly keep both. The real question is whether they want to put in the effort to keep both, or take the easier way out and just worry about the big spenders. Most other companies have done the later - thus you may be right in the end.

[JasonC23]

Originally Posted by daves

Attached are examples of a current 2.0 Perfect and 1.0 Perfect.

Without all the extra cards and un-human performances by peek players, the PT1.0 was actually more competitively balanced. There were 3 mega whales with 120 wins or more and 9 teams over 100. With so many wins the game was unbalanced and BORING, PT1.0 had only one team over 100 wins and that team did not make it to the World Series. Some very tight pennant races as well as there were a few tie-breaker games needed to determine the playoff standings. Meltdown won the WS last season but missed the playoffs this time. Tube Sox were in 1st place most of the season, but fell apart at the end and lost TWO tie breaker games to miss the playoffs.

PT1.0 was actually more entertaining. Less super outrageous cards.

Just for the record, in the PT2.0 season in question, daves' Doubledays wiped out the Huntley Red Raiders 3 games to 1 in the Division Series. Huntley only won the one game because we somehow scored 5 runs in the 9th inning off Gagne and Mo; daves completely dominated the series otherwise.

So, from my completely unbiased and not at all bitter perspective, I totally disagree with everything daves says.

[OMGPuppies]

Originally Posted by justpatrick

Generally I´ve found the playing experience much more fun compared to 19. Part of that is from my philosophy of taking it slow, rather than jumping up to perfect as fast as I can. I much prefer slowing down and smelling the pine tar.

I like the way things run smoother and I love the no live card function in the AH, that´s really great.
I generally like the card sets, except for those potm and all star cards. They don´t really add much to the game and they clutter the AH (would be nice if the no live card function worked for them too).

The special editions are cool except I really don´t get how Paul Dean´s SE is better than his rookie sensation when they are both based on the 1934 season. Really, what gives? Did the devs just realize they screwed it up and corrected it for the SE?

As for peak, I don´t understand how a guy with a peak card can forget to bring his glove to the game. The defense on most of these cards is terrible.

What I miss are the diamonds in the rough pitchers that were around in 19. Guys like Barker, Keuchel, and Dierker, who pitched much better than their ratings. There are certainly hitters in 20k that do that, but I have yet to meet any pitchers. Of course if there are some feel free to let me know!

And for 21, please, please, please fix the historical players defensive ratings!

And, every Monday more "DH" cards are released.

[PocketsAintFull]

Tournaments will hopefully be great fun just for building different teams, regardless of winning (though that should be ‘easier’ due to luck factor).

[Izz]

I'm still active in both PT1.0 and PT2.0.

Interestingly, while I agree that there seem to be more mega-whales in PT2.0, I actually think it's easier to get to Perfect Level than in PT1.0. The team I've got in Perfect in 2.0 isn't competitive but is treading water. It would struggle to avoid relegation in Diamond in PT1.0, imo.

[Maxfire5]

I personally like the concept of the Player of the Month (POTM) players and could even see them adding the player of the week set based on the MLB Player of the Week nominee. This could be done similar to other ultimate team/perfect team games like FIFA and Madden. The POTM, player of the week (POTW), all-star cards for current players gives players a chance to have a version of a live card without the significant risk of decreased value due to a downturn in performance. However, there’s a potential for loss of value by knowing that a newer version of the card may come out, specifically for the player of the week, or POTM cards. This is normal when compared to every other perfect/ultimate team game. Does that mean it is right? No, but I could see them headed that way. It would also keep a lot of the “common” players around who want to use the players they know currently. A lot of the live cards aren’t great when moving into the diamond and perfect level due to the current “meta” in baseball not matching up with the game-engine “meta.” Note, I don’t use those cards so I have no bias to more of those coming in the game.
Some comments were made about the number of versions of the same card being limited to three which I think is a pretty good idea, but even four may work.

I would add that the pack-weight needs to be adjusted though to assist with collection missions and removing the number of live cards relative to historic cards imo, especially if they looked at POTW cards in addition to the normal set.

I like the number and types of cards available. I also like that additional cards continue to be brought in. It gives more diversity in most leagues (up until the mega whales in perfect which is consistent with any “meta” in any game). I agree that several cards are over-priced which is due to their relative supply in packs which could be adjusted through my previous point.

The competitive balance is something that is tough to quantify though. You look at other games (Madden/Fifa) and when people spend substantial money on the game, their teams are substantially better than F2P teams. That is to be expected. The F2P teams have to spend more in-game time grinding games or the AH to make enough money to compete with the high-end teams, and even then, usually lose out. That’s normal and to be expected though. I chose to play F2P on any game like this and focus on the league where I can be competitive. I also believe the PT universe needs a reset every year, similar to other perfect/ultimate team games. It’s great to start fresh and try to build a new team.

TL;DR: I disagree with OP’s comments in most places. I know most won’t agree with comments and I’m fine with that. Just wanted to provide my two cents and comment that I think the game is headed in a good direction and perfect team is a good addition.

[daves]

When I mentioned lack of competitive balance I was not referring to FTP teams. There are some good ftp friend leagues and I understand your point of view. It is the unrealistic peek players and even some future legends. This hurts the competitive balance not only for the costs but they don’t represent a true season.

I am not sure about a POTM either. If the ratings are only for one month then they should only be in the lineup for one month of a season. Just too fabricated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dkgo]

people in fifa hated the future stars cards too under the same absurd guise of "unrealistic," but reading between the lines what they really hated was that there were finally just more options available for all those lesser plebs to close the gap on their uber teams

[Maxfire5]

Originally Posted by daves

When I mentioned lack of competitive balance I was not referring to FTP teams. There are some good ftp friend leagues and I understand your point of view. It is the unrealistic peek players and even some future legends. This hurts the competitive balance not only for the costs but they don’t represent a true season.

I am not sure about a POTM either. If the ratings are only for one month then they should only be in the lineup for one month of a season. Just too fabricated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So now competitive balance only applies to P2P? Interesting.

With the addition of the ASG and POTM cards, they've moved away from their original points about representing season stats which I agree with your concern there. I understand the marketing/business aspect of it though. Also, what do you mean "be in the lineup for one month?" Are you meaning only available in packs for 1 month, or only usable for 1 month, or what? Sorry, I'm missing your point on that.

[Maxfire5]

Originally Posted by dkgo

people in fifa hated the future stars cards too under the same absurd guise of "unrealistic," but reading between the lines what they really hated was that there were finally just more options available for all those lesser plebs to close the gap on their uber teams

This might be the most accurate post I've seen. This last year in FIFA was crazy. The number of high rated (88-94) cards "easily" obtainable for F2P that could compete with the 90-99 meta cards that were introduced to address the competitive imbalance of P2P and F2P irritated a lot of people.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Thanks for all the feedback guys! In general, we are very very happy with PT20. We learned a lot of lessons from PT19 and successfully tweaked PT20 to make it better all around. And the same will apply to PT 21, of course. We have already planned many cool tweaks and features for the mode, so stay tuned.

Regarding tournaments, we are making progress and they will definitely happen this year.

[One Great Matrix]

Originally Posted by daves

When I mentioned lack of competitive balance I was not referring to FTP teams. There are some good ftp friend leagues and I understand your point of view. It is the unrealistic peek players and even some future legends. This hurts the competitive balance not only for the costs but they don’t represent a true season.

I am not sure about a POTM either. If the ratings are only for one month then they should only be in the lineup for one month of a season. Just too fabricated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They aren't just from the month. They're weighted with the POTM in mind but a player doesn't just go from their norm to whatever they did for the month. It's a combination. The card is specially marked; & it's part of the game and business.

[One Great Matrix]

I'm new in XX. I had 18 and skipped 19, and found PT 2.0 when I bought XX not even knowing about PT 1.0...

My least favorite thing first: The PEAK cards that are akin to the player on steroids offensively almost from my modest point of view.

My favorite thing: Just about everything else about it. I have really enjoyed playing & am impressed both a little bit by my ability to compete & by teams that are winning 110+ games in their sleep in Perfects. After all, these teams are the best teams people can possibly imagine...of course there are some limitations but some very good players look awfully bad in most Perfects leagues. But anyway, it is generally just both interesting & fun to see seasons unfold with online competition and an alternative to fantasy baseball including all of today's players and many historical all-time greats.

I hope people haven't spent so much on the game as to discourage development. Animation improvements seem the most logical thing to me, as the other parts of the format seem mostly---complete.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by One Great Matrix

I'm new in XX. I had 18 and skipped 19, and found PT 2.0 when I bought XX not even knowing about PT 1.0...

My least favorite thing first: The PEAK cards that are akin to the player on steroids offensively almost from my modest point of view.

My favorite thing: Just about everything else about it. I have really enjoyed playing & am impressed both a little bit by my ability to compete & by teams that are winning 110+ games in their sleep in Perfects. After all, these teams are the best teams people can possibly imagine...of course there are some limitations but some very good players look awfully bad in most Perfects leagues. But anyway, it is generally just both interesting & fun to see seasons unfold with online competition and an alternative to fantasy baseball including all of today's players and many historical all-time greats.

I hope people haven't spent so much on the game as to discourage development.

The more people spend, the more we can invest into development. For example, we are now hiring another full-time developer for PT (te help Chris and me), which would not be possible if people would not support it financially

[old timer]

Originally Posted by bailey

I think it's just the opposite. The need to keep the 20% who spend money engaged. I am less likely to spend heavily on 21 if it is just more of the same. To see one's investment wiped out after 1 year just to do it all over again is not an attractive option. New cars last a lot longer before you have to buy another.

While I agree that the top spenders are the most important, imagine if most of the people playing were big spenders. Then who would they get to beat up on? Would these people really like being in more competitive leagues? If so, then why aren't more people joining the whale league and forming even more leagues like that? There are plenty of whales that could fill that league and then some.

The ftp people and near-ftp people are important too and need to be kept interested as well, in my opinion, partly in order to keep the bigger spenders interested.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by old timer

While I agree that the top spenders are the most important, imagine if most of the people playing were big spenders. Then who would they get to beat up on? Would these people really like being in more competitive leagues? If so, then why aren't more people joining the whale league and forming even more leagues like that? There are plenty of whales that could fill that league and then some.

The ftp people and near-ftp people are important too and need to be kept interested as well, in my opinion, partly in order to keep the bigger spenders interested.

The whole thing is a HUGELY complex system. Tweaking one area (i.e. drop rates, or price of packs, or achievement payouts etc) can have lots of unintendes consequences elsewhere, it is impossible to predict. The balance we have right now is almost perfect, somehow we managed to hit the sweetspot right out of the gate. Hence we only do very very minor tweaks in the future to the important parts I just mentioned.