Posted by ncmusician_7 on 11/17/2015 10:33:00 PM (view original):
I don't think dynamic pricing is a good idea.  I think updating the player salaries about once a year would be better.

I still stand by these statements.

Why not go back and reset the salaries before dynamic pricing then fix it and start over.

Bump for reference for adlorenz

Personally I think they should just remove all the dynamic pricing adjustments for 2 big reasons:

#1: It was executed so badly in the first place, many of the adjustments either didn't make any sense, or failed to do what was intended.

#2: Since it was discontinued, the last 3 seasons aren't affected, and that gives an unfair advantage to those seasons.

The purpose of dynamic pricing was to raise the price of some of the cookies, while bringing some new players into circulations, but it failed on both counts. Lowering a lousy player by a few thousand isn't going to entice any action on that player, meanwhile, the top players that got the max increase every time saw their prices soar out of control. So essentially all that was accomplished was taking some of the best and most interesting players out of the game unless playing in an uncapped league. I highly doubt anyone would consider that a success.

What makes WiS so great is that it is totally objective game. No one gets bonus points for being a good guy, or punished for being a jerk. Popular players don't play great just because they are popular, and unknowns can be great if their numbers warrant it. Putting in dynamic prices changes this concept and makes the prices more subjective. The most popular players will naturally be drafted more, ergo their prices will inflate due to subjectivity, which goes against what makes WiS what it is, an objective simulation based on statistics.

If they want to redo the prices, then redo the formula, maybe make some micro adjustments every couple months based on feedback from the most experienced and active managers, and the overall performance of the players. With another online sports game I used to play, the devs formed a committee of some of the most active players who were willing to donate some time to suggest new ideas and give feed back on idea that the devs were working on. I myself was a part of this until real life took over and I could no longer do it.
This is something maybe WiS could do as well, as there are quite a lot of very smart and very knowledgeable people who play on this site.

From our admin last night...

Yeah, the reintroduction (properly) of Dynamic Pricing is on my list of things to design shortly. I was actually looking at it tonight, its just not a simple solution, especially after from what I heard it was not done properly last time.

So you can see he understands our concerns...he's working on it.

strongly oppose removing dynamic pricing, it was certainly executed poorly but removing the open league mega-cookies was undoubtedly a good thing, before that was fully implemented I'd be in TOCs with progressive teams against open league teams and every open league team had the same five or six guys

imo even a poorly implemented attempt at dynamic pricing is better than nothing. if the salaries for everyone stay the same, over a long enough period the game will become stagnant because there are a lot of owners here who are really good at the game and will figure out who the cookies are. consistently changing salaries will make the game more interesting and better identify who the best owners are.

Agree completely with 06gsp. The game needs dynamic pricing, hopefully done well and not poorly. But I'll even take poorly in a pinch.

Posted by DoctorKz on 12/23/2020 5:17:00 AM (view original):
From our admin last night...

Yeah, the reintroduction (properly) of Dynamic Pricing is on my list of things to design shortly. I was actually looking at it tonight, its just not a simple solution, especially after from what I heard it was not done properly last time.

So you can see he understands our concerns...he's working on it.

I did say that.

To clarify my earlier statement: I wasn't saying eliminate it permanently, I was suggesting roll back what was done before due to the fact it was executed so poorly.

Obviously it can be improved upon (what wouldn't be an improvement?), and when that time comes we'll have something better.

Another possible temporary solution is put a max increase of say, 15% on any player. That should be enough to adjust the mega cookies, while not making guys like 2000 Pedro unusable.

Honestly, a rollback and fresh start with what we already had that didn't factor theme leagues (open and champ leagues only) would probably be sufficient. I don't see guys like 2000 Pedro escalating to that level of un-usability from just OL/CL usage.

Posted by just4me on 12/23/2020 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, a rollback and fresh start with what we already had that didn't factor theme leagues (open and champ leagues only) would probably be sufficient. I don't see guys like 2000 Pedro escalating to that level of un-usability from just OL/CL usage.

It has been awhile since it was used. We could try it, use it as a beta test to see what works, and what needs fixing. The new guys can judge for themselves, having not seen it before...

Posted by crimsonblue on 12/17/2015 3:26:00 AM (view original):
"When the moon is in the 7th house and Jupiter aligns with Mars".........  Aquarius......The Fifth Dimension

What happens when Jupiter aligns with Saturn? That just happened. I love that song by the way. I miss music like that. And optimism about the future like that.

The salary cap for dynamic pricing must be consistent across the board, but it needs to be looked at as well to check to make sure it's doing what it's intended to do.

There are unfortunately a few inherent flaws in the idea which I will give some examples of.

In an OL, more or less every player is usable, and can be successful. You will see a very wide range of players that will taken. However, there will be some players which appear more than others, which is to be expected. Let's say for arguments sake, 1921 Babe Ruth is the most commonly picked player for open leagues. It would still need to be determined if A: 1921 Babe Ruth is being picked the most because he is under priced, in which case this needs to be adjusted or B: He is just a very popular player because of his name, and is priced correctly.
If we see lots of naturally popular players, especially modern players, on a lot of open league teams, it's quite likely options B. If we see swaths of guys no one has ever heard of, or guys that played before any of us were born, then it could be option A. It would take more data analysis to determine which.

1921 Babe Ruth's price didn't need to go through the roof simply because he was a very popular player (more on that in a minute). The purpose of dynamic prices should be to raise the prices of UNDERVALUED players, not popular players. This cannot be determined simply by looking at who is on the most teams, otherwise you risk bringing massive subjectivity into player pricing.

The second problem, which has been addressed multiple times, is that if you included theme leagues, particularly high cap leagues, it's going to grossly skew the data. In an open league, I can use a very wide range of players that I can expect to be successful. However in higher cap leagues, that pool of players who can compete at that level gets smaller and smaller, thus creating more duplication. In a $255M league, you're probably going to see 24 Ruths, maybe even more if clones are allowed. You'll also see just as many Eckersleys, Gagnes etc. because there are only so many closers that you can expect to compete at that level. In the open league, it would be extremely unlikely to see that much duplication at a position such as the closer since there are countless options. Sure you will probably see more Riveras than anything, but that's likely because of the name on his jersey, not because of his numbers.

Bottom line is: Seeing the exact 3 million dollar pitcher no one has ever heard of from the deadball era on a high number of OL teams suggests something should be adjusted. Seeing lots of Ruths or Riveras does not carry nearly the same meaning. Seeing 2000 Pedro and 1995 Maddux on every 255M league means almost nothing. Which in lies the problem with dynamic prices, even if it's only for $80M caps, the name on the jersey is going to play a significant role in which players gets prices raised, which is not what this is designed to do.

The third issue is, in my opinion, there will always be too small a sample size to make any meaningful conclusions based on number of times drafted.
Think of it this way: If you owned a restaurant with a million different options, if you had 1000 customers a day, even if everyone ordered something different, it would be nearly 3 years before every item was ordered once. Many players are never going to get picked for an OL, not necessarily because they aren't good, but there are just so many players to choose from and not enough managers to ever cover them all. This also factors in to why the high caps skew it so badly, because there are so few options at each position that make sense for high caps.

This is why I suggested that we need experienced managers to have some input here. If we can determined WHY certain players are being drafted so much (undervalued vs popular) we can figure out why certain players or types of players are undervalued, adjust accordingly, and create a more level playing field for everyone without collateral damage, such as taking guys like 2000 Pedro out of play.

I hope WiS can find some usefulness in that.