With current salaries, an $80M Open league team is more talented than an average MLB team. A good number of players underachieve. Either lower the cap number, or adjust salaries up a notch to correct.

The rewrite is necessary. Unavoidable, period. It is technologically outdated.

The new brain trust has a good handle on the current state of affairs, and of the pulse of the community that supports their product. We are in good hands here, folks. They are taking the suggestions to heart, and will give us a platform going forward that will be worthy of our loyalty.

He is correct, meaningful change will take time and a lot of work, but it looks like they are taking this seriously.

I used to play another sports simulator game, similar to WiS, but quit years ago after playing it very loyally for years. The game kept getting worse and worse with every update, the main problem centered around one major issue: The developers were convinced they knew what was best, and instead of giving us what we wanted, they would tell us what we wanted. Players would ask for A B and C, and instead get D E and F, which no one asked for and by majority opinion made the game worse. It was incredible how every update some new "feature" would come totally out of left field and added nothing meaningful to the game, while legitimate ideas and improvements suggested by long time players were ignored over and over.

The fact that Adam and his team seem to understand this trap and are trying to avoid it is encouraging.

Yes I understand what the crowd wants and what makes money aren't always the same, but this would be the conversation (translated into WiS Baseball):

Entire community for years and years: We would like it if you would fix dynamic pricing, fix the strikeout outcome issue, and improve fielding logic

Devs: Here is our awesome new update! Now we will post a score for the all star game, add distances traveled to home runs in box scores, and you can tell your players whether to slide head first or feet first into second base! We are sure this will be the best update ever!

You can certainly see why this would turn people off :-P

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.

This is clearly from someone who doesn't play OL's.

This wouldn't do anything but frustrate your most committed owners by forcing them to only play against other HF owners. We have champs leagues (we've started a few, try joining one before you suggest that's how everyone should play). Having HF status doesn't mean you're better at building teams - just that you've had more experience.

Separating new owners won't benefit them. It will only prolong the time it takes for them to succeed (if they stick around).

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.

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.

Idk if it’d work/how it’d work, but I don’t hate the premise behind this.

my questions would be in how it was installed, can the individual cap be increased as well as lowered due to poor play? is it a score that can be gamed? Could I intentionally lose in order to increase my future cap space? If it can only be lowered, I could see owners hitting a certain threshold and then stop playing or simply using some of their alt accounts (we all know they’re out there).

I love the concept though!

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.

I give credit for the creativity of this suggestion and many other ideas, as it is important to keep this game approachable for newer team owners.

But, to play devil's advocate, there is also a large portion of emerging owners, who have paid for many teams and put in the time to learn the nuts and bolts of the game through trial and error, and taken to their lumps by losing in OLs to more experienced owners who have 100+ championships. It's been my experience that competing against those elite owners, examining their stats vs. the league, reading the forums, and gradually improving teams over time, is part of the process that makes this game so fun and fulfilling.

Change to grow the user base is good, but keep in mind that any change that goes too far in penalizing the large percentage of owners that have been grinding it out for years can be detrimental.

I equate these proposals to taxation. Tax increases are often enacted on the wealthiest in the name of helping out the poorest. However, the wealthy are usually smart enough to find a way to use the new rules to their advantage while the poorest experience very little change in their own standing, and it seems the middle class always pays the largest penalty.

Again, I am all in favor of change, but let's also be careful about considering unintended consequences.

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."
-G.K. Chesterton

Posted by chargingryno on 1/20/2021 10:09:00 PM (view original):

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.

This is clearly from someone who doesn't play OL's.

This wouldn't do anything but frustrate your most committed owners by forcing them to only play against other HF owners. We have champs leagues (we've started a few, try joining one before you suggest that's how everyone should play). Having HF status doesn't mean you're better at building teams - just that you've had more experience.

Separating new owners won't benefit them. It will only prolong the time it takes for them to succeed (if they stick around).

Your last 4 words say it all......... "(if they stick around)"
If you think your committed owners would get frustrated by only playing against other HOF owners then how do the newbies feel? Frustrated or Ecstatic?
Leveling the competition when they start so they aren't getting a beat down by HOFer's each time they play will entice them to stick around. It's all about building your customer base.
Maybe it would be possible to give them a choice. Play in a Level 1 open league that only allows other owners with the same amount of experience or play in a Level 2 open league where you will play against anyone.

Here's a crazy idea that might help freshen things up a little bit while we figure everything else out long term.

We could mute the impact of the deadball players and freshen up OLs a bit if we just changed the years that they use. Make a default OL run from 1920-2020 (nice round numbers) or 1947-2020 (to honor Jackie). The older players would still be available in theme leagues, and you could even make separate "legacy" OLs for people who want to play with deadball pitchers if you think it's necessary.

I guess my thinking is that new owners want to see their players perform a bit more realistically, and that might include not losing to guys like Frank Owen and Ed Siever and Elton Chamberlain.

And yes, there are still "modern" cookies, even in terms of HR supression. But it might make an interesting way to switch things up a bit.

If most newbies do not win right away it’s because they don’t know how to play ‘the game’ we play. It has very little to do with experienced players victimizing them. The tutorials have to be emphasized more prominently. Many of us learned to play the game by learning from the top players who beat us and reading the FAQ or as I’ve heard several times “the University of Contrarian23”. Those pinned posts will give anyone that’s interested a lot of info. I refer to them quite often. BTW most open leagues have no more that two or three newbies participating so laying the blame on HOF’ers is misplaced.

Posted by dn8779 on 1/21/2021 7:52:00 AM (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.

I give credit for the creativity of this suggestion and many other ideas, as it is important to keep this game approachable for newer team owners.

But, to play devil's advocate, there is also a large portion of emerging owners, who have paid for many teams and put in the time to learn the nuts and bolts of the game through trial and error, and taken to their lumps by losing in OLs to more experienced owners who have 100+ championships. It's been my experience that competing against those elite owners, examining their stats vs. the league, reading the forums, and gradually improving teams over time, is part of the process that makes this game so fun and fulfilling.

Change to grow the user base is good, but keep in mind that any change that goes too far in penalizing the large percentage of owners that have been grinding it out for years can be detrimental.

I equate these proposals to taxation. Tax increases are often enacted on the wealthiest in the name of helping out the poorest. However, the wealthy are usually smart enough to find a way to use the new rules to their advantage while the poorest experience very little change in their own standing, and it seems the middle class always pays the largest penalty.

Again, I am all in favor of change, but let's also be careful about considering unintended consequences.

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."
-G.K. Chesterton

As a follow-up on my last post, I should at least offer up a suggestion, for whatever the input is worth.

My thought is there is a lot more to like about SLB than to dislike about it, as it is currently designed. There is a concern about freshening things up, but IMHO things already are freshened up every year, when the previous year's real life players are inserted into the draft pool. I see the likes of 2019 Ketel Marte, etc. all over the place in OLs, and that is not a bad thing, but a good thing. Owners are constantly testing the strengths and weaknesses of modern players, and we all learn from how those newly created players perform in the sim. Fads come and go, and eventually the 2019/2020 real life players get replaced by the newer and shinier 2021 players, and team owners figure out how to best employ the new MLB crop effectively. That, in my opinion, is what helps keep the game fresh and exciting.

In OLs I compete against several successful/interesting teams that include real life MLB players from 2018-2020, who break the mold by throwing high rates of strikeouts, hitting high rates of HRs, etc. These teams, by the way, are often fielded by veteran and pro level owners, who have impressively won championships within their first 10 seasons.

The creativity and vibrancy already exists with the constant introduction of real life MLB players every year, and new team owners every day.

Instead of threatening the stability of a game that is already very beautiful as is, why not make it easier for new owners to learn it's inner workings more quickly? The best way to learn is to create a team and run it through an OL, see what more seasoned and successful teams do, and make alterations on the next attempt. Over time, newer owners that apply themselves see steady improvements.

I respectfully suggest that this game's developers save all the R & D funding that would be spent on re-writing the algorithm's code, altering salary caps, revamping dynamic pricing, etc., efforts that will make some customers temporarily happy but many more unhappy ultimately, and make a simple change to ease the new user's learning curve.

For the early seasons in which all new user's struggle, why not reduce the entry fee, to say, $6.50? Perhaps only the first season, or 3, or 5? I'm just spit-balling here. That way, new users could have more opportunities to learn, at a lower cost and risk level.

Or, to get around the issue of experienced users starting dummy accounts to benefit from discounted teams, could the free exhibition season's length be extended beyond 10 games (maybe to 54 or 81 games)? Personally, I found early on that exhibition teams were helpful in gaining a general understanding of how the engine works, but the sample size of games was very small. Perhaps a larger sample size of risk-free games, without the all the full-/post-season entertainment provided, would give new users the chance to experiment in a workshop environment, so they can then bring their partially tested prototypes into a more competitive OL setting.

This may be a simple way to make to the whole game more approachable to new customers, without angering the current base. Just my 2 cents.

Posted by bheid408 on 1/21/2021 8:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by chargingryno on 1/20/2021 10:09:00 PM (view original):

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.

This is clearly from someone who doesn't play OL's.

This wouldn't do anything but frustrate your most committed owners by forcing them to only play against other HF owners. We have champs leagues (we've started a few, try joining one before you suggest that's how everyone should play). Having HF status doesn't mean you're better at building teams - just that you've had more experience.

Separating new owners won't benefit them. It will only prolong the time it takes for them to succeed (if they stick around).

Your last 4 words say it all......... "(if they stick around)"
If you think your committed owners would get frustrated by only playing against other HOF owners then how do the newbies feel? Frustrated or Ecstatic?
Leveling the competition when they start so they aren't getting a beat down by HOFer's each time they play will entice them to stick around. It's all about building your customer base.
Maybe it would be possible to give them a choice. Play in a Level 1 open league that only allows other owners with the same amount of experience or play in a Level 2 open league where you will play against anyone.

In a current OL I’m in through 117 games, of the 6 division leaders, 3 are HOFers, 3 are rookie-veteran. The idea that HOFers continually dominate OL’s is misguided. Most OL’s have lots of chatter as well that gives good information that newer owners can use or at least be pointed in the right direction.

The forums are a great help. The addition the the pinned articles in the draft center is phenomenal and will hopefully bridge some of the gap, but a majority of growth and development actually comes inside OL’s through looking at successful teams and seeing what worked and asking why.

Posted by milest on 1/20/2021 6:34:00 PM (view original):
Why would there be a need for an entire rewrite? It seems to me that the actual game engine works well. The only thing about it that I'd say needs changing is how/when strikeouts are determined & fielding% being linked to the pitcher on the mound.

Also, reverting back to the original salaries would be a huge change, especially for us who never experienced the original salaries. I 1st played SLB right after the prices changed.

I also agree with Adam's assumption that new players want to build an all-star roster with names like Mantle & Mays & Ruth....

I’m fine with fielding % being linked to pitchers. If you wanna prevent homers at the cost of a few more errors, then that’s an even trade off. But what I hate is the batter’s league fielding % being tied into it. I shouldn’t get punished because someone ELSE drafted Pete Browing