Maybe, just maybe...

[HRBaker]

...our original belief that we had to have a pyramid was wrong.


I'm sure this subject has been discussed among the founders ad nauseam, but one has to admit that the limited number of teams at the top of the pyramid feeds into the problem that all top rosters are almost the same.


If each of the eight levels had 50-60 leagues, that's about 1,500 teams per level (based on 14,000+ teams) - - - more than enough to insure variance of rosters across the game. In addition, it would result in more teams making it to the top, and would result in members sticking with the game longer into the year.


If the concern is it would be harder to differentiate the absolute "best" team for the year, simply give it to the team with the best TOTAL win/loss record.



Note: I'm not trying to start an argument here - just throwing out an idea for discussion.

[AdequateRandomGaming]

If different lineups is the end goal here, changing the structure would change nothing about that.
What would would be the abolition of only one meta to rule them all. Different playstyles should feel as rewarding for everyone, instead of funneling everyone down one path. With more viable options (not more cards), the lineups would end up having different variations developing naturally over the course of the game.

Of course the balancing of it all would probably be a nightmare.

If we are talking strictly about seeding, I'm of the belief the pro/rel system is not optimal, but the development team has reiterated on more than one occasion that this system is very fond to them.

[TwanLX2000]

I’m not sure if there’s a good solution. If the goal is to have a league where a handful of whales dominate their divisions while the “diverse” teams scrap for a wildcard, then it could be attainable through these measures. But creating more leagues at a particular level will lead to the same outcome in terms of roster construction, just in a more watered down setting — i.e. the teams currently competing against each other with the same rosters for 90 wins at diamond level will be separated into various leagues where they accrue 120 wins. It’s the same outcome, and maybe there’s some pride and incentive in being the diverse team with 95 wins that finished 25 games out of first, but it wouldn’t incentivize roster diversity to those that can afford the meta, unless we force them to modify their strategy.

I don’t poo poo on the question or investigation of a solution, because as a F2P player, I want to maintain my level of engagement. I just haven’t been presented with a solution that will prevent players from duplicating what’s working most effectively.

[Ty Cobb]

I actually enjoy the pyramid. I'm a freeloader, and don't know or care who's winning at the Perfect level. I care about putting the best squads out I can. This year, that's resulted in two Gold Level WS wins, and numerous silver and below. Not too shabby.

Just as in real life with teams like the Padres...I can't step to the next level, and probably the only difference is money. Who cares?

A. I'm having tons of fun.
B. I'm winning far more than I'm losing.
C. Let the whales have their fun. Why not? I'm having mine!

Want to repair what's really wrong?

1. Stop the hoarding and gouging. I'm sorry to **** on the parade of those who would turn PT into a commodities brokerage, but hoarding only serves to strangle the small players out of the peak of the pyramid.
2. Even out the Perfect cards. A 100 card issued in week one should be just as playable in week 50. It isn't. Example? Tim Salmon B-A-L or Sam Crawford is a good one. Sam can be had for less than Salmon many days, but is eminently more playable.
3. Start being realistic about the Perfect cards. YIt very often seems as though some are made Perfects to appease the fan base—I'm looking at you, Yasmani Grandal. Learn how to use a bat. They might be better off using the DH for Grandal and not the pitcher. Maybe we have to accept that there is not a player worthy of being a Perfect at each position.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Ty Cobb

Want to repair what's really wrong?

1. Stop the hoarding and gouging. I'm sorry to **** on the parade of those who would turn PT into a commodities brokerage, but hoarding only serves to strangle the small players out of the peak of the pyramid.
2. Even out the Perfect cards. A 100 card issued in week one should be just as playable in week 50. It isn't. Example? Tim Salmon B-A-L or Sam Crawford is a good one. Sam can be had for less than Salmon many days, but is eminently more playable.
3. Start being realistic about the Perfect cards. YIt very often seems as though some are made Perfects to appease the fan base—I'm looking at you, Yasmani Grandal. Learn how to use a bat. They might be better off using the DH for Grandal and not the pitcher. Maybe we have to accept that there is not a player worthy of being a Perfect at each position.

I can't disagree with these comments. My original post was intended to suggest that pushing more teams into the top levels will dilute the average of best cards. One way or another, "best cards" have to be hard to get. I think this year they simply over-saturated the Perfect and Diamond cards.

In my "perfect world" Diamond leagues would be mostly Diamond cards, Gold Leagues - Gold cards, Silver Leagues Silver, etc.,etc.,etc. That would result in more roster variation.

[professor ape]

Part of the balancing act is that you need to make success in the game attainable for dedicated F2P players at the same time that you incentivize the whales to drop their cash. At the same time you also need to keep the game approachable for new players. Limiting the number of top cards would concentrate those cards onto the teams owned by the whales who are willing to spend tons of money on the game. If that were to become too extreme then the population of players who aim to win by investing time into the game would dry up and the game economy would suffer.

My two suggestions would be to put a bit more weight on having top cards in packs and tournaments. The missions dominated the game a bit too much in this cycle. I would have also liked to have seen some stronger cards in the final missions. The last two sets of missions were a disappointment for those of us who have stuck around.

I could go on for many paragraphs here but my point boils down to “be careful what you wish for”. Many of the suggestions that I have seen would pull on strings which have more connections than are obvious. I personally felt that the balance and card progression was pretty good in PT22. I’m a F2P who focused on my Bronze tourney team to drive my progress. I felt challenged throughout the year but I have been at the Diamond level without interruption since early June and have had two appearances at Perfect. Neither of those weeks went well, but I was always wanting to get another shot.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by professor ape

Part of the balancing act is that you need to make success in the game attainable for dedicated F2P players at the same time that you incentivize the whales to drop their cash. At the same time you also need to keep the game approachable for new players. Limiting the number of top cards would concentrate those cards onto the teams owned by the whales who are willing to spend tons of money on the game. If that were to become too extreme then the population of players who aim to win by investing time into the game would dry up and the game economy would suffer.

There seems to be a belief that the whales will spend less money if there are fewer high-end cards. I'm not convinced that would be true. An exaggerated example; If the best card available 2 months into the season was a Gold(89) I suspect the Whales (and anyone else) would pay dearly for it - even knowing Diamonds were going to be released in the following weeks. Especially if that card was rare and hard to find. If you also (as you suggest) drop a few into packs or missions, obtaining one by those means would be like winning the lottery.

[Ty Cobb]

Originally Posted by professor ape

Part of the balancing act is that you need to make success in the game attainable for dedicated F2P players at the same time that you incentivize the whales to drop their cash. At the same time you also need to keep the game approachable for new players. Limiting the number of top cards would concentrate those cards onto the teams owned by the whales who are willing to spend tons of money on the game. If that were to become too extreme then the population of players who aim to win by investing time into the game would dry up and the game economy would suffer.

My two suggestions would be to put a bit more weight on having top cards in packs and tournaments. The missions dominated the game a bit too much in this cycle. I would have also liked to have seen some stronger cards in the final missions. The last two sets of missions were a disappointment for those of us who have stuck around.

I could go on for many paragraphs here but my point boils down to “be careful what you wish for”. Many of the suggestions that I have seen would pull on strings which have more connections than are obvious. I personally felt that the balance and card progression was pretty good in PT22. I’m a F2P who focused on my Bronze tourney team to drive my progress. I felt challenged throughout the year but I have been at the Diamond level without interruption since early June and have had two appearances at Perfect. Neither of those weeks went well, but I was always wanting to get another shot.

I'm a freeper as well. I won 2 gold WS, and got my backside handed to me in Diamond. Didn't have the time this year as I was moving, so many of the critical early missions were lost for me. I truly enjoyed the layering of missions, as it IMHFO reflected the real way of life in an organization...not just grabbing 26 FA's and running, but in essence having to build from the ground up. I also really, really like the Perfect Draft concept, as it offers us FTP guys a look at how some of the high-end cards perform. The live missions were actually a bit overpowered. I'd still like to see the live mission rewards offer you a random draw of say 1 out of 4 or 5 comparable cards. I did suggest this, but was told #learntocode with a smile...I don't think it'll ever happen. I do think it would go a long way towards eliminating the "same-old same-old" rosters at the lower levels. Whales tend to forget that everyone at the low levels clings to Cy Young and Alan Trammell like tiberian bats. We need to keep in mind that the whole mission thing is still a developing work, and I think each year has improved vastly. I see know reason not to forecast the same thing next year. This is a learning process for the Team as well, and while not perfect, it's been handled rather adeptly so far.

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by HRBaker

There seems to be a belief that the whales will spend less money if there are fewer high-end cards. I'm not convinced that would be true. An exaggerated example; If the best card available 2 months into the season was a Gold(89) I suspect the Whales (and anyone else) would pay dearly for it - even knowing Diamonds were going to be released in the following weeks. Especially if that card was rare and hard to find. If you also (as you suggest) drop a few into packs or missions, obtaining one by those means would be like winning the lottery.

Just remember that if top performing cards are significantly limited then that means that their cost will be inflated and makes it more likely that they will congregate on the small number of teams which are the biggest whales. The mission progression and the strength of the card rewards from them was a way for dedicated F2P players to be able to compete at the highest levels and stay engaged.