Tournaments General Discussion

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by daves

Right. Pujols should have stayed at third or OF he has no business at 1st! Arod should have stayed at short! What was the Brewers thinking by putting Yount in CF? Don’t they know players should only be designed to play certain positions only like the tournament PT version! MLB needs to know the OOTP position only! Major League Baseball has it all wrong!

In MLB, history has not yet been written. In PT, it has. If PT wants to offer a fictional mode, that would be different.

[daves]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

You can play players anywhere you want in tournaments. Nothing stopping you!

That was not the point. The question was, will my defense suffer in tournaments because I put a capable SS at 2b or 3b even though he didn’t play there according to my default card?

Of course, I believe the answer is, this is a card game, not a baseball game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by daves

That was not the point. The question was, will my defense suffer in tournaments because I put a capable SS at 2b or 3b even though he didn’t play there according to my default card?

Of course, I believe the answer is, this is a card game, not a baseball game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a game and this forces hard decisions. I'd prefer that over easy mode, you are free to like whatever you want.

[daves]

Originally Posted by Orcin

In MLB, history has not yet been written. In PT, it has. If PT wants to offer a fictional mode, that would be different.

MLB history is apparently fictional since some players can play multiple positions but 83 Ripken played 162 games at short, so don’t put him anywhere else!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daves]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

It's a game and this forces hard decisions. I'd prefer that over easy mode, you are free to like whatever you want.

Actually it forces me to spend more points for tournament players since I trained players to cover other positions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by daves

MLB history is apparently fictional since some players can play multiple positions but 83 Ripken played 162 games at short, so don’t put him anywhere else!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A single-season card is based on history. He could have played somewhere else, but he didn't, therefore he is rated based on where he did play.

Maybe he could have hit more homeruns or for a better average, should you be able to boost his other ratings over time too? Start 200 games in the lead-off spot, gain a point of contact rating!

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by dkgo

A single-season card is based on history. He could have played somewhere else, but he didn't, therefore he is rated based on where he did play.

Maybe he could have hit more homeruns or for a better average, should you be able to boost his other ratings over time too? Start 200 games in the lead-off spot, gain a point of contact rating!

And dead ball era players would have hit more home runs if they had played with the 2019 regular season version of the baseball!

What? Dead ball era hitters already get ridiculously high power ratings simply because their 5 home runs lead their league? Never mind...

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by daves

Actually it forces me to spend more points for tournament players since I trained players to cover other positions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it does, hard decisions instead training Honus Wagner to play everywhere and cover everything.

By the way, not trying to fight about this, just discussing it. I can see why some people would like it but to me it doesn't add anything positive to the game.

[Morgans Magic]

One idea I have about incentivizing the better players to limit their participation in the lower stakes tourneys they can more easily win -- enact a limit on the number of tourneys one can win/pace/show in a given day. Not going to guess at a formula, but if you knew the number of positive outcomes were hard-bracketed, common-sense would dictate limiting participation in lower-return-but-more-frequent games.

Incidentally, it's in some sense why poker players migrate from low-stakes-but-consistent-"table"-play to tournaments with lower chance of win, but better ROI so far as time/effort.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Orcin

In MLB, history has not yet been written. In PT, it has. If PT wants to offer a fictional mode, that would be different.

Future Legends cards aside?

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Morgans Magic

One idea I have about incentivizing the better players to limit their participation in the lower stakes tourneys they can more easily win -- enact a limit on the number of tourneys one can win/pace/show in a given day. Not going to guess at a formula, but if you knew the number of positive outcomes were hard-bracketed, common-sense would dictate limiting participation in lower-return-but-more-frequent games.

Incidentally, it's in some sense why poker players migrate from low-stakes-but-consistent-"table"-play to tournaments with lower chance of win, but better ROI so far as time/effort.

A restriction on winning tournaments might be the dumbest idea yet.

No one is playing bronze or silver tournaments for the ROI because they really want to win a few packs or 1000 PP. It's just fun to use some different players.

[Morgans Magic]

Originally Posted by dkgo

A restriction on winning tournaments might be the dumbest idea yet.

No one is playing bronze or silver tournaments for the ROI because they really want to win a few packs or 1000 PP. It's just fun to use some different players.

OK Whale. Maybe they could use different players in Gold and 1700 Cap and Diamond instead.

[Renfro]

I'm really digging the different eras.

In the current 1930's Silver Historical tourney, my 79 Eckersley struck out 19 in 8 innings. And he doesn't lead the league. 75 Jack Morris struck out 21 in a complete game loss! That would be a new MLB record. Bill Lee and Denny McLain both pitched 20k games. And we're only in the 1st round.

[bailey]

I voted for training, but I'm fine with non-training. The pro-trainers have the regular season and the anti-trainers have tournaments. Like DH in AL and no-DH in NL. Perfect.

It's forced me to look at cards deep in my inventory which was a good thing because I found quite a few nuggets hiding there.

[diamond3017]

I voted for training.

My rationale was that cards I spent a bunch of time training in lower levels of PT (e.g. Live Mondesi/Albies at all non-C positions, or Live Donaldson at C) that had stopped being useful to me in Perfect League would become great versatile cards for tournament play.

Just my $.02, I'm fine with the result if that's what the majority of users wanted.

[Jackgoboom]

Originally Posted by Westheim

That result baffles me...

It's a terrible result. Do I now need to track down all the cards' vanilla version to see what their defensive ratings used to be? Do I need another excel sheet?

Sometimes this playerbase indeed *baffles* me.

The poll only represented a proportion of the player base. With a higher percentage of those who are a bit more hardcore and invested in the game.

That subset of the player base are also more likely to have more cards, thus the need for training is less, and a few players have cards they don't normally use that they can now experiment with.

So we end up with no training. I would have preferred training in, but it is what it is. My main point being, the general player base is probably innocent your honour

[steamrollers]

Got going on the tourneys a bit late in the week but after having entered several now it is very clear it is basically a total crapshoot for the most part. There have been some absolutely dreadful teams that have went on to win quite a few of the tourneys I have been in. I don't know why anyone would be complaining about whales entering low end tourneys just to grab some PP when the best team almost never wins. I imagine some great teams are winning in lots of the open/no restrictions tourneys which are a bit out of my range.

[QuantaCondor]

Originally Posted by steamrollers

Got going on the tourneys a bit late in the week but after having entered several now it is very clear it is basically a total crapshoot for the most part. There have been some absolutely dreadful teams that have went on to win quite a few of the tourneys I have been in. I don't know why anyone would be complaining about whales entering low end tourneys just to grab some PP when the best team almost never wins. I imagine some great teams are winning in lots of the open/no restrictions tourneys which are a bit out of my range.

In fairness, having entered tournaments starting on Tuesday, I have 12 wins in the silver 16s in maybe 40ish entries. I know another guy who has 15 wins in 50 or so tries in the same format. A good team wins regularly.

[Jackgoboom]

I gotta say Im not totally convinced by the total realism argument. Especially when you consider for example, that we have had rookie live cards coming into the game as perfects, and live pitchers suck at the higher levels of play.

We are using guys that generally never played together. Do we really think that if you have two elite shortstops that can hit, one plays and the other goes to the bench? No you move one to 2b or 3b.

If the card has the stats to play a certain position I don't see the problem with them being able to train to do so.

[The_Savage_1]

The no training decision is a real kick in the teeth to those that have now wasted all that time, PP and performance inefficiencies preparing for tournaments. The fact that tournaments were delayed so long only exacerbates this.

Further, for a poll that was non-binding and for "research purposes" to be so close on such a small sample and short time (and frankly subject to manipulation by just one person) to be used as justification to completely change the training structure only adds salt to the wounds.

I have no issue with no training in general, although I'd probably prefer it be allowed, but IMO that change shoud have happened for PT21 and should be consistent between PT and tournaments.