What's going on with sign-ups?

While were at it, fixing a stale model that is, how about introducing a time limited new card set every 3 - 6 months. For example 1973 could be available for new leagues from Jan-March, then April 1st, no new leagues could start with the 73 cards set, instead 1961 would then be available from April-June, 19xx from July to September.... Talk about generating new credit buys, give us new card sets for a limited amount of time and a lot more credits would be purchased!!!

I have always thought that a loyalty rate would be great. every 30 teams or so throw me a free thanks a lot...heres a free credit

I would like them to do rotating older leagues, maybe start with 1961 for 3 months, then drop 61 go to 62 for 3 months, drop 62--go to 63 and so-on, you could have standard one off draft leagues, and also retro keeper leagues.

Strat would have to figure the average number of teams a Manager plays in a year and then charge some amount above that .
For example-say the average manager does 5 teams a year($100). Then Strat would need to charge say $150 for unlimited. Now S trat picks up an extra $50 per signer and the signees get unlimited teams--win win!

Still say lose-lose. Once the subscription rate is available there would be no reason limit teams. If the average person does 5 teams a year it is probably budget related. The subscription would solve the budget issue and that person playing an average of 5 a year would suddenly play 5 a week. Trust me, I would do exactly that if not 5 a day.

I would like them to do rotating older leagues, maybe start with 1961 for 3 months, then drop 61 go to 62 for 3 months, drop 62--go to 63 and so-on, you could have standard one off draft leagues, and also retro keeper leagues.

On the surface a good idea. But there would be logistical and cost prohibitive issues. Launch a 1961 game for example and put it out there for 3 months and then factor in it takes 2 months for a season to play out would mean that server/database/cardset would have about a 5 month life. Now consider that after that 5 month period you would not be able to repurpose that hardware for a 1962 game because everyone who ran a 1961 team would expect to be able to go back and view their 1961 teams. So the database would be a permanent cost even after that game/set was retired and replaced with the 1962 season game/set. So this represents a limited temporary revenue stream and in infinite never ending expense. Bad business model.

HD storage has never been cheaper than now, I just don't see archiving teams or whole league databases as an issue. All I really want from an archive is my final record and teams stats anyway--I don't need to replay the games. Archive them quickly. Six months and done.

The issue is the number of active leagues (seasons) simultaneously I would think--why keep ATG7 leagues active when everyone uses ATG8 and 1986 could be replaced with 1969---69 probably has been the most requested year since I joined on-line, and it makes since being the first year of league playoffs, the lone Seattle Pilots team, and just an all around nicely balanced season with both great pitchers and hitters.

On the surface a good idea. But there would be logistical and cost prohibitive issues. Launch a 1961 game for example and put it out there for 3 months and then factor in it takes 2 months for a season to play out would mean that server/database/cardset would have about a 5 month life. Now consider that after that 5 month period you would not be able to repurpose that hardware for a 1962 game because everyone who ran a 1961 team would expect to be able to go back and view their 1961 teams. So the database would be a permanent cost even after that game/set was retired and replaced with the 1962 season game/set. So this represents a limited temporary revenue stream and in infinite never ending expense. Bad business model.

My DBA's do this type of things all the time, very straightforward and simple for the most junior IT shops. SQL and ORACLE DB servers can host multiple databases in the same server environment for no additional licensing costs. All it takes is some smart programming so the application to knows what DB to look for and when. The concept of 1 DB per physical (or virtual) server is no longer an active db architecture model. No need to re-purpose any hardware or incur additional costs. Plus the data footprint for a league in minuscule, so storage costs wouldn't even be in the equation.

Even at the most basic, the PC game can manage as many different card set seasons as you could possibly load. You don't need a new PC for every season, or for every card set, or for every version. You would expect that server version that Glen Head is implementing is flexible enough to handle these things.

So from what folks are saying(Robert) storage is virtually infinite. But to the idea of infinite teams at a certain cost-does this incur additional cost for Strat? Does it cost them more to run a thousand leagues as opposed to 100?

By the way, it seems that people eyes are glazing over at the thought of infinite teams

So from what folks are saying(Robert) storage is virtually infinite. But to the idea of infinite teams at a certain cost-does this incur additional cost for Strat? Does it cost them more to run a thousand leagues as opposed to 100?

By the way, it seems that people eyes are glazing over at the thought of infinite teams

I would glaze over and probably be contacted by a divorce attorney shortly after an unlimited option started. My wife barely has patience now for what I am paying for !!!

Tony, you are right, unlimited leagues would have a cost factor if it was truly unlimited, so I am incorrect there. In my head and "unlimited" subscription would need to have some limits, the last thing anyone would want are people building teams and abandoning them if their AD card goes bad. The competitiveness would suffer for sure. A limit of "active" teams would need to be part of the subscription. But the ability to offer a variety of card sets wouldn't affect the cost model. The biggest challenge, if the application is designed well, would be processing time to run the leagues without buying more servers, not storage.

In my real world job, we scale servers pretty easily leveraging cloud providers. I know from hands on the cost of scaling server farms, what SOM would need wouldn't be a deal breaker from a cost side.

I could build an SOM cloud server today that could handle 50 managers/unlimited leagues/unlimited card sets for <$40/month.

Another idea is to have subscriptions per set. I enjoy playing a lot of leagues with Mystery sets so I'd probably purchase the BTT80's set for unlimited usage. I think leagues would fill up a little quicker with subscriptions.

Another idea is to have subscriptions per set. I enjoy playing a lot of leagues with Mystery sets so I'd probably purchase the BTT80's set for unlimited usage. I think leagues would fill up a little quicker with subscriptions.