Political jokes and serious Sociology of Work aside, I like this idea and even called for it in forums a while back (two years ago maybe, maybe 3?). 

But I agree with skunk206, crazystengel and others who suggest that every two months is a better time frame, coinciding with the length of the WIS season - many founders may even time their league starts to coordinate with it. 

This is the only thing I support leaving to "market forces". And many of us may start playing more OLs again now that it is less predictable who will be at every single position and which pitcher will be cloned a zillion times in a league.

Posted by italyprof on 11/17/2015 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ArlenWilliam on 11/17/2015 4:15:00 PM (view original):
If I recall correctly, this used to be called "the Stockholm effect," before Stockholm Syndrome took over the use of the city's name.

There, in a workplace, lighting was made brighter and it improved employee production. Then they got used to it. Then lighting was made dimmer and it improved employee production again.

Improvements in SLB have a history of generating business, especially when they are positive, and even when they go sideways.

You are thinking of "Hawthorne Effect" Arlen, from the GE Hawthorne plant near Chicago back in the 1920s-30s. 

The experiments did go as you say, though. 

Stockholm Syndrome is when kidnapped people and hostages start to identify with their kidnappers. That is now called "American Democracy". 

Hawthorne, okay. Pretty sure I recall being told of such an experiment done in Stockholm.

As to "American Democracy," that's why the founders of America's natural law-based constitutional republic warned against democracy and the socialism/collectivism/Jacobinsm it breeds.

Posted by ArlenWilliam on 11/17/2015 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dilligafdbp on 11/17/2015 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Stockholm Syndrome is when kidnapped people and hostages start to identify with their kidnappers. That is now called "American Democracy".

Now that's funny!!! Sad, but funny...


DBP

That's why our founders warned against democracy, colectivism, socialsm....

As well as religion... and please include Ike's speech on the military complex.

The religion predominant in America, especially at the time of our founding is what most informed the founders' choice of a natural law based, free society. "It is for freedom that Christ set us free, therefore do not return to a yoke of slavery." - Paul. "Freely you have received; freely give." - Jesus Christ.  Note, he didn't say extort money from those you can, give some to the poor, and live off the extravagance of the rest. That is sort of what Judas Iscariot (John 12), the Pharisees, and those condemned in Amos chapter 2 were doing. As for the military (and the oft criticized straw man of "corporations") they will do as proper governance affords them, or as power-hungry government and its greedy financiers corrupt them.

But, back to SLB....

The cookie problem is largely based on the extreme length of time the stagnant prices have been allow to languish.  Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like the last player pricing change was in October of 2009.  Going from not changing prices for 6 years to every 2 weeks seems silly, and could cause micromanagers to bounce in and out of leagues.  Changing prices every 6 months should be often enough.

As a programmer for over 30 years, my experience tells me that if you did not include a locking mechanism in the original design you are asking for trouble by incorporating it into the design after the fact.  It can be done but unintended consequences most likely will occur.  The problem as I see it is that theme leagues take a long time to fill.  Even the best of commissioners (which there are many) seldom fill, if ever fill, within a two week period.  

I suggest that WIS administration does a study of theme leagues which calculates the time from original posting to the actual go live date.  I am sure you can gather the data from your data base.  Then based on that information set a recalculation period which will be based on an appropriate time frame.  My guess is that it will be closer to a month.   By extending that time period the need to "resubmit" your teams because of salary changes will lessen. 

99.9% of users I play against or with are honorable game players.  Unfortunately there will be a couple that will play games to beat the system.  Especially in leagues where players are exclusive to your own team.  I had to drop out of a league once because some of that was going on. 

Posted by Bribar on 11/17/2015 5:55:00 PM (view original):
The cookie problem is largely based on the extreme length of time the stagnant prices have been allow to languish.  Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like the last player pricing change was in October of 2009.  Going from not changing prices for 6 years to every 2 weeks seems silly, and could cause micromanagers to bounce in and out of leagues.  Changing prices every 6 months should be often enough.

I agree with this statement 100%

I don't want my progressive league player salaries changing. Some leagues have caps. We all know what the salaries are and what they are going to be.

For open leagues, I think it makes sense, but I never play them.

I do not at all approve of forcing teams to return to their league center every price change. Some leagues take time to fill.
I do not at all approve of capped leagues playing with different salary databases. No, all teams need to be on the same playing field. I would be absolutely ticked if I paid more for the same player than someone else did, in the same league.

I do like the solution of locking in prices at league creation. Perhaps generating a number at league creation, rather than at commissioner's entry into league, would help with this -- because commissioners often "pick 12th" or similar in many themes and thus half of the teams can be built before his/hers. A league should be locked into a price structure as soon as possible.

The above, to be applied to open leagues, would likely require them to be treated more similarly to theme leagues, in that people would have to see a league number and thus the database for that number. This might also provide an opportunity to provide open leagues at multiple caps.

Progressive leagues sometimes use salaries to set draft order. Locking in salaries would help with this as well, the actual salary would be included. It would still cause a problem for many owners, however. For instance, I have an excel spreadsheet with the entire remaining careers of each player on my progressive team, including their salaries, so I can make determinations on whether to cut them or not as things progress. Dynamic salaries could really screw with this. For this reason, I like the idea of allowing themes to use the current salary database as well, avoiding dynamic pricing, and would encourage progressives to do so.

I don't care as much as far as how often the salaries are updated, as long as you provide leagues with the controls necessary to avoid the issues I mention.

I am concerned, in the short run, about the poor quality of bench players that may be seen in the first few update cycles. Often teams run the same sets of bench players. Their salaries would skyrocket and leave even worse players available to warm benches. Of course many don't use their bench anyway in open leagues, using AAA instead and possibly waiving some 200K players, so maybe this isn't a huge issue, especially with the +/- % limit.

How will the waiver wire affect this pricing? For that matter, how will the waiver wire interact with dynamic salaries when you "load" players onto it? Maybe you should do away with the waiver wire, I'm not sure you'll get too many complaints -- experienced users generally only use it as a dump for 200K players in leagues with AAA, and it serves as a trap for newer owners to waste money on.

It has been mentioned in here, but beware of how progressive leagues and theme leagues where everyone takes the same players can skew results. For instance, if there are 10 progressive leagues running in 1975, in full or in part, next update there's a good chance that all/most 1975 players are way overpriced.

Consider $/IP and $/PA floors to prevent short term Dupee Shaw Effects. As much as we loved Dupee, it did make aspects of the SIM too easy if you knew how to use him. (Perhaps this isn't necessary, as the limitation on +/- %age will take care of this)

Guys, it was pretty clear from the description post that themes CAN use the current price structure instead of the dynamic price structure.  I think we'll just see a lot of that, particularly in progs.

Depending on whether uses under the old salary structure count in the usage rate, however, this is likely only going to exacerbate the problem I pointed out on page 2: namely, that expensive players will all see substantial and unreasonable price drops in the dynamic pricing scheme, not because they are misvalued for some reason, but because they're just too expensive to own in the OLs that should be dominating the statistics governing the dynamic pricing system.  The reality is, top versions of Ruth, Williams, Mantle, etc. should NOT be in OLs.  But that means they aren't, so then they get cheaper?  Does anybody really think '20 Ruth is too expensive at under $15 million?  I don't.

OTOH, if you do count leagues run under the static pricing system, you'll see guys like Joss (the current cookies) have their prices driven up TOO far, since once they approach what should be a correct equilibrium price they will still appear to be overused due to uses at the discount static price.  So that's not a good solution either.

Allowing fresh batches of player-seasons to be under and overvalued every few weeks/months would bring a sense of constant variety to what has become a very static game, and create the need for veteran users to adapt and know how to build all kinds of teams in order to win. I think we'd see a lot more instances where established owners have more mediocre teams than they do now.

Oh now you're just being mean, ozomatli... or maybe deviant... to the mean.

And WIS, don't relent, make it two weeks and let's see what happens. But my prior in this thread stands.

Being an older person, I naturally don't like change. I'll be an active participant on WIS regardless of the rules, but this plan worries me. I hope that the people advocating for this change are right, and this doesn't end up hurting the business rather than helping.

I definitely agree with the consensus that the proposed adjustments are too large and too frequent. Assuming that I understand correctly, a player's salary could double within a period of less than 5 months, which just seems crazy to me. That will make drafting teams like searching for airfares--frustrating at best, or a nightmare at worst. I strongly believe that the adjustments should be much more gradual, both in time frames and percentages.

Assuming that this change is made, I'm hoping that you incorporate a way for users to see the history of changes in a player's salary, or at least a trending indicator of some sort.

I do not remember see this in your explanation so I need to ask: Will you increase the $80 million proportionate to the players increase or do you think this would negate the value of the change.

Posted by toysboys on 11/17/2015 6:05:00 PM (view original):
I don't want my progressive league player salaries changing. Some leagues have caps. We all know what the salaries are and what they are going to be.

For open leagues, I think it makes sense, but I never play them.

Agreed.