Posted by 06gsp on 1/21/2021 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Mwett you gotta chill out man, this is supposed to be a fun way to pass the time, you sound like you want to lead the proles to seize the means of Open League production. I agree with your general points but you're taking it way too far.

Fine, and thanx. I've made my points, and they've been percolating for months and took a fake to come forward to be fully unleashed. I'll shut up now.

Posted by chargingryno on 1/21/2021 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Don’t pay him any mind area51man.

even though he can sometimes have good ideas or make good points, his inability to craft his opinions without attacking or belittling others around him are why he’s forever blocked for me. If not for the re-quotes, I wouldn’t even know there was more vitriol being posted.

Yeah, I'm done. I haven't had any experience with him, but it seems like he needs a big hug.

Posted by DoctorKz on 1/21/2021 1:37:00 PM (view original):
I set up a $75M Open League.

The only rule changes are real name AAA, and all ballparks are available, not just those in Open Leagues

MLB130559

I’ll be joining this soon. I did a similar theme a couple months back, and it honestly feels like OL should be

Posted by bheid408 on 1/20/2021 8:41:00 PM (view original):
Best and biggest fix for open leagues is:
Put the HOFer's in different open leagues than the Newbies, All-Stars, Pros, and Veterans.

Why? There's no logical reason for this. I & several other owners have been successful right out of the gate... There's literally no reason for this

Posted by dannyjoe on 1/20/2021 11:25:00 PM (view original):
This might be a crazy idea from someone who can't remember his last open league, but... if the goals are to freshen things up for established players, and make it more interesting (and winnable) for new players, maybe give the newer players a little more cap room than the more established players they are facing in the same open league. Make it an 80M cap for absolute newbies, but decrease the cap proportionately to a user's experience. Maybe build that in as a manager+GM salary that counts against the cap. Chargingryno has a manager/GM who has won 27,838 games on this sim, so he should be expensive... count him as taking up $2,783,800 out of the $80 M cap. TulsaG has won 7223, so his experience would cost him $722,300 of cap space. There would probably have to be a limit on how much you penalize any user, and it might be better to count only Open League experience. It's only a rough idea, would definitely need some work... But it could be a fresh, interesting challenge if you have to build toward a lower salary cap every time you join a new open league.

Please do not consider this suggestion... would be my suggestion

Posted by milest on 1/21/2021 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dannyjoe on 1/20/2021 11:25:00 PM (view original):
This might be a crazy idea from someone who can't remember his last open league, but... if the goals are to freshen things up for established players, and make it more interesting (and winnable) for new players, maybe give the newer players a little more cap room than the more established players they are facing in the same open league. Make it an 80M cap for absolute newbies, but decrease the cap proportionately to a user's experience. Maybe build that in as a manager+GM salary that counts against the cap. Chargingryno has a manager/GM who has won 27,838 games on this sim, so he should be expensive... count him as taking up $2,783,800 out of the $80 M cap. TulsaG has won 7223, so his experience would cost him $722,300 of cap space. There would probably have to be a limit on how much you penalize any user, and it might be better to count only Open League experience. It's only a rough idea, would definitely need some work... But it could be a fresh, interesting challenge if you have to build toward a lower salary cap every time you join a new open league.

Please do not consider this suggestion... would be my suggestion

Maybe not for general OL’s, but the idea intrigues me as an option for something different

Posted by just4me on 1/21/2021 11:27:00 AM (view original):
I think people forget what makes OL great. It's how fast they fill. You can draft a team and have it start the next day. This is why people play OLs more than anything else. Tiered OLs won't work because even a relatively low-threshold entirely changes this dynamic. For example, the threshold for Champs Leagues is just 5 WS appearances, not titles. An owner with 0 titles can play in Champs leagues, plus they have increased rewards, but even at their fastest it takes 3-4 weeks to fill a champs league, and there was a gap of 8 years between champs leagues filling at one point. Making a multi-tiered OL system would only compound this problem. People want their teams to play, not sit in leagues waiting weeks, months, or years to fill, as would be the case if this already existing tiering is expanded on in any fashion.

Next, we all want new owners to stick around, and I think it's somewhat unfair to attack owners (especially people like dn8779) as being predatory. There's a lot that goes into each OL and they're all unique. An identical team could win 120 in one league and 85 in the next. The biggest advantage over new owners is knowledge of sim workings, not IDing "cookie" players. There's a bunch of ways to win. I had a team with a winning record with an $8m pitching staff, made the playoffs with a 2003 Mariners twist team but only using other Mariner seasons, and won ~90 games with single season teams from 2019 and 2020. This has nothing to do with cookies or preying on new owners, but strictly from understanding how the sim works better than new owners do.

Sure, some players, like '02 Bernhard or '19 Marte, show up on a bunch of teams, but this just means you have an idea of what your opponents are using and gives you an advantage in trying to beat them. These guys aren't invincible or unbeatable. Drafting them doesn't guarantee a 100 win season and a WS title. Even if a new owner drafted them, they still aren't as likely to succeed.

Dynamic pricing doesn't change this balance either, owners who understand the sim better will be able to find "bargains" or "value" and still build teams that succeed just as frequently, but it keeps things fresh. New owners will still have the knowledge gap issue with dynamic pricing in place. That knowledge gap would increase if new owners were limited to leagues only with other new owners. Most OLs I'm in have frequent dialogues in the league boards from veteran owners offering tips and advice to newer owners. This feedback is way more valuable to newer owners than them waiting a week or more for the league to fill and then winning 85-90 games (and there will still be owners in there that lose 100+).

The change to recommended IP/PA and the addition of links to the FAQ/Advice for Newbies will go much further than any of the above proposed changes.

The only proposed change that might have an impact on retaining new owners, or at least helping close the knowledge gap faster, would be removing fake names for AAA (and the normalization to current season). Everything else proposed here doesn't even address the root issue, just a perception problem, or would create bigger problems (leagues never filling and owners dropping because they never get to see their teams play) than the ones we already have.

To Adam:
This comment makes more sense than any other comment........
Except I'm still in favor of eliminating AAA from OLs entirely....

Milest, I do think if AAA were real names, and normalized to their season, a lot of the complaints would be negated.

Id even be in favor of lowering the tiers in OL to Below avg. But the point of AAA is to help new owners who may not have drafted enough IP/PA, or mismanaged their team and need some assistance. The current rating system for AAA leaves new owners clueless as to what they have and how helpful they actually are.

I also understand we may just disagree on this issue and I’m ok with that ha

Another thing, to those saying the entire game engine needs a re-write, why?

What specifically needs changing or fixing?

As, I've said, I think the gameplay is fine- or else i wouldn't be playing.

I do think the pitcher & the hitter need to be removed from the fielding algorithm.

I think when/how strikeouts are determined needs to be fixed...

Other than that, I'm pretty well satisfied with how the games play, so I think rewriting the whole sim engine is extreme and could be detrimental (worse than what we have now)

Oh, another change I would Implement is pitches allotted per game for each pitcher.

As it is, pitchers can only throw a number of pitches that correlates to the AVERAGE number of IPs pitches per appearance. So, If a pitcher averaged 1IP/G, he can throw approximately 15 pitchers per game. 7IP/G can throw approximately 105 pitches per game (I KNOW it varies per pitcher and know there is a thread that explains that- I'd recommend reading it).... But, let say the pitcher that averages 7IP/G had a few relief appearances & in his starts he actually averaged about 8IP/G & has several complete games (this stat line is typical for deadballers).... That pitcher should be able to throw more than 105 pitches before being penalized by extreme in-game fatigue. That particular pitcher should be able to throw 9 innings without penalty, as he did several times in real life.

ALL pitchers should be able to throw more pitches/ IP/G before fatigue sets in. The total pitches they get for a season should remain the same, but if a dude has 10 complete games in RL, his stamina shouldn't be hindered bc he had 10 relief appearances as well....

Your post itself argues for a system re-write. The needed changes require a rewrite.
Where's the beef?

I think you hear re-write and think undo everything and start over. My assumption based on what’s been said, is that re-write means exactly what you’re asking for. Sometimes things just need to be updated too, and there are certain things that can be improved on until a re-write occurs because they current coding doesn’t allow for it

The definition of 're-write' IS undo everything and start over. That's what the word actually means. Sorry for expecting a word to mean what it means.

I'm pretty much IT illiterate, I'll admit that. My assumption is that the changes I suggest can be made independently from starting over from scratch, but I guess i dont know.

My point is, I wouldn't change how the outcome of a plate appearance is determined other than the Ks & errors linked to the batter & pitcher. To me, that's not a re-write by what consider a re-write.

if you're 'rebuilding' a house or a website- you completely demo it and rebuild it. If you just fix things and make additions, it's a renovation, not a re-build...
I dont want to agrue the definition of words anymore than I just did, I'm just making my point clear

I read the re-write to specifically refer to the salary formula, not the gameplay formula. In that the base salary would line up more with actual sim performance than the current structure does.

I think the implementation of K’s in the decision tree makes sense for a replay purpose to align well with RL or RL+normalization, but it does appear certain seasons are bugged in how normalized Ks play in sim and this seems to have a large impact. This also has a secondary impact in the error/+/- portion of the tree, though for replay purposes, I don’t know it’s out of sync, but it doesn’t always match expectations and I think this is tied into the bugged seasons. I’d need to see more data to be sure one way or the other.

As for AAA in OLs, I’d be fine if it were removed. I understand it’s purpose, but I feel it creates a larger knowledge gap, even if switched to real names/normalization. Keep it for theme leagues, but for OLs, AAA in any fashion gives an advantage to experienced users, even if all teams were given identical AAA.

If keeping AAA in OL, then it should be real name/normalization.

My understanding about the re-write is that it is as much a technical issue as it is a functionality issue. The last couple people running this site talked about making changes, but it sounds like they found it exceedingly difficult because of the ancient coding architecture it was built upon. It's a bit like patching up an old building. Sure, it seems easier to patch an old building than to build a new one, but eventually, it gets harder and harder to find a way to make it stable, and you spend more time and money repairing the building than is practical, so it makes more sense to rebuild from scratch.

Eventually, once the code for this site is re-written with a modern system under the hood, it will be much easier for the coders to work with and work on. I don't get the idea that a rebuild would necessarily be all that noticeable to the end user, but while they're rebuilding, they may as well rebuild with a few tweaks that the community wants.

It's completely possible I'm misunderstanding the situation, and if that's the case, I hope someone who really knows will explain it better.