You are wrong.

No chance new owners would prefer 40M over 255M. There is a reason why low cap leagues take a long time to fill and high cap leagues fill quickly. Low caps may lead to more realistic results when comparing to actual stats, but who wants to draft a bunch of .255 hitters? Most new owners will want to build a team of great players. Yes - the shock of players underperforming will be a thing at the start, but like many of us, those who want to, will figure it out and adjust.

It's not just about who you draft, but how they perform. New owners would absolutely love drafting their $255m teams, but would absolutely hate the experience of their players completely and utterly underperforming. While they may not enjoy the drafting of .255 hitters, they would enjoy much more their .275 performance over Babe Ruth's .255 performance.

The length it takes for theme leagues to fill has no indication of what new owners would or wouldn't enjoy in an OL setting. Considering that the #1 complaint we hear from new owners is lack of realism, I'm confident that a $40m OL would be better (and more widely enjoyed) than a $255m OL.

Don't get me wrong I'm not petitioning for a $40m OL, but at $70-$75m you can still draft "all stars"/"hall of gamers" but just maybe not their best seasons, and seeing them perform as expected will create a better foundation and enjoyment of this game

I'm sorry, but this is bad logic and I have to call it out.

WIS wants to expand to more types of new users. Currently, a large portion of new users leave after only a few teams. This is not because of a lack of realism. This is because WINNING IS HARD. New people who have no attachment to the game need to feel there is a path to winning.

The more complicated choices a new user has to make, the wider the gap in performance will be between them and experienced users. Reducing the relevant player pool is the way to simplify the game the most. Increasing the player pool (by keeping the cap at 80M or, worse, lowering it) increases the complexity of those decisions.

Additionally, the feedback you hear "the most" is:

• anecdotal, not quantitative
• not a representative sample (i.e. the type of people who post in the forums do not necessarily represent all types of new users)
• not including new types of users that don't currently come to WIS but may in the future
• most of the complaints about realism seem to actually be from experienced users who are jaded over years anyway

There is a vocal minority of players who staunchly defend this "realism" concept because it's why they love the game, but this is not the way to grow the game. Ironically, the same minority uses "explanation" as a reason to keep the cap low, but it's a lot easier to explain the shock that happens Babe Ruth hits .250 after batting against Kershaw and Pedro every day, rather than "here are the intricate mechanics of how to pick players".

New users don't want to have read a manual and WIS doesn't want them to have to either — attention spans are low and there are plenty of other places on the internet that people could spend their time and money. The game takes a long time to master, so simplifying it at the beginning is the way to reduce churn.

Posted by schwarze on 3/3/2021 11:31:00 AM (view original):
No chance new owners would prefer 40M over 255M. There is a reason why low cap leagues take a long time to fill and high cap leagues fill quickly. Low caps may lead to more realistic results when comparing to actual stats, but who wants to draft a bunch of .255 hitters? Most new owners will want to build a team of great players. Yes - the shock of players underperforming will be a thing at the start, but like many of us, those who want to, will figure it out and adjust.

When I started I simultaneously ran a $40m and a $255m as my first full season teams. I’ve played a few more high caps here and there, but if it wasn’t for the low caps, I likely wouldn’t have stuck around. Yeah, they’re slower filling, at the $40m level, but at $65-75m leagues fill almost instantly.

In March of last year I posted up a $255m OL style with no AAA and a $40m OL style with no AAA. Filled the $40m after about 2 weeks, and scrapped the $255m after about 5 weeks and only having a couple of signups stick while a single owner entered and left repeatedly every couple days.

I think both extremes have their place, but I think it’s very wrong to assume because the $160m cap range is a popular tourney level cap (that results in a significant number of leagues and others at that cap level so owners familiarize themselves with the players at that level) that new owners would gravitate or enjoy them more.

I firmly believe entry leagues should be realistic with room to add a HoF season or a couple of stars ($70-80m range). Wide player pool is a plus to show and allow new owners the range of options in team and player styles.

Yes, high caps feature more stars and a limited player pool, but aside from the less realistic first take, it also increases the luck factor and randomness of the outcome. Having owners start towards an extreme side of the cap and outcome range limits their introduction to the site to only that limited and more extreme scope.

Starting them realistic (upper low cap or low mid cap) with an opportunity to see how those extremes can play out within that starting range allow them to decide if they prefer to explore the more limited starstruck player pools and luck driven high cap leagues (above $120m) or the limited relatively unknown player pools and sim knowledge driven low cap leagues (below $80m), or if they prefer to stay in the middle ranges ($80-120m).

Retention is the key here, and a good introduction to the sim and user experience is the ideal and best way to retain owners.

(And on the .255 hitter point, I see a bunch of new owners drafting guys like Dave Kingman and Jay Buhner. People like drafting players they enjoyed watching play)

The luck factor is GOOD for new users, not bad. It increases the chances they will do well. They are operating at a disadvantage because they have limited knowledge of this complex simulation. Experienced users will do better at lower caps because the team composition decisions are more complex.

(Also, the true "middle" cap is 150M, not 80-120M. This is simple math. 255M (upper bound) minus 40M (lower bound) equals a range of 215M. Divide that by two and you get 107.5M. Add that onto the lower bound and you get 147.5M as the true middle. It doesn't PLAY that way right now, but with dynamic pricing coming back it would be the ideal "anchor").

The luck factor is also incredibly frustrating for new users. We already see posts in the forums for them asking for weighting divisional alignments to reduce luck because they view it as unfair.

Notice that my posts here are 100% focused on new user experience and GROWTH of the site, while Arlen, just4me, and chargingryno all make references to their own preferences.

Posted by just4me on 3/3/2021 12:04:00 PM (view original):
The luck factor is also incredibly frustrating for new users. We already see posts in the forums for them asking for weighting divisional alignments to reduce luck because they view it as unfair.

Anecdotal, again. I have been on this site for almost 20 years and have seen that request under 10 times.

Meanwhile, each year, hundreds of users are churning after losing 100 games with their first team because they had to choose between unknown player x and unknown player y and made the wrong choices without even understanding them.

Posted by ozomatli on 3/3/2021 12:06:00 PM (view original):
Notice that my posts here are 100% focused on new user experience and GROWTH of the site, while Arlen, just4me, and chargingryno all make references to their own preferences.

What is my preference? Why do I play WIS? What leagues do I like? Players do I prefer? Why/how has WIS retained my business for all these years?

Posted by ozomatli on 3/3/2021 12:06:00 PM (view original):
Notice that my posts here are 100% focused on new user experience and GROWTH of the site, while Arlen, just4me, and chargingryno all make references to their own preferences.

That's a completely unfair and ridiculous assessment.

How many OL's have you played in over the last year? I haven't seen you in a single one. So how can you claim to understand what new owners want/need?

I've probably played in 40+ over the last 12 months since I returned and have heard first hand the frustrations of the newer owners and no one is complaining that they have too many options to choose from or that they can't have more superstars. Most aren't even complaining that theyre doing poorly, but that they don't understand why they're doing poorly due to luck/unrealistic outcomes.

(Also, the true "middle" cap is 150M, not 80-120M. This is simple math. 255M (upper bound) minus 40M (lower bound) equals a range of 215M. Divide that by two and you get 107.5M. Add that onto the lower bound and you get 147.5M as the true middle. It doesn't PLAY that way right now, but with dynamic pricing coming back it would be the ideal "anchor").

I've covered this before, but that's not how it works... it's based on salary distribution and player pool, not by setting a midpoint on the salary bounds. In which case, it would also be lower as $40M isn't the lower bound. Dynamic pricing also won't change the distribution if done properly, so it won't affect the distinction between low/mid/high caps.

The talent bound is close to $170m on the max side. There is very little distinction between a lineup at $160m and $255m, other than depth.

I don't play OLs due to AAA, which are the actual negative "luck" element since they ironically also add complexity. I also feel bad about the idea of beating up on new players.

They don't complain about it because their experience is singular — i.e. current state. Real user research, rather than anecdotal notes, would walk them through other scenarios after getting their initial pain points, and collect feedback on those. Your experience is anecdotal.