ATG VII is here.

I have suggested before, and will suggest again, that the salaries should be adjusted based on usage.

A simple scheme is to give each card one point for each usage in a capped league, one point for each playoff appearance in any league, and one point for each title in any league. Periodically (I suggest quarterly), add up all the points earned by all the cards, divide by the number of cards, and you have the average usage.

For each card, subtract the average usage from the average usage, multiply by .01, and add the resulting number to the card's salary (in millions). The card prices will drift slowly into "equilibrium."

$140 million and $200 million leagues are common enough that the high-priced cards will stay up there, and counting placing points for all leagues will also make the uncapped live draft leagues relevant to the card prices.

You missed the boat on that one from a few years ago when we created ATG III-R. Adrian was the big champion of usage, Janssen and I favored a more comprehensive model. But in any event it would seem to be far too much trouble for SOM to do this when they farm out the current pricing to an occasional ATG tourist named Bbrool.

I've only been here since the very end of ATG V. A relative rookie.

From my point of view, it's just silly to refuse to lower the prices on the cards that never get used, or raise the prices on the cheapo cards that get used all the time. The objective of the pricing model should be to give people alternative ways to structure teams rather than scheme about what order to put all the bargain cards on your AD card.

When the AD order becomes significant, then newbies get shafted and they won't come back. The newbies don't realize that a lot of the cards are team killers, so they put some of their favorite players on their draft cards, go 65-97, and go find another sim site with hopefully more user-friendly pricing.

I seriously doubt that TSN or SOM realize that the large number of absurdly priced cards discourages new users in this fashion.

Yes, we gripe about HAL's in-game decisions, but it's damned hard to write an AI manager routine that can make sensible decisions about substitutions during the game, Just try to write a flow chart to balance the use of a LOOGY against Andy vanSlyke with Scott Brosius on the bench just salivating for a chance to pinch-hit. It gets hard, not because it's an easy decision to bring in Brosius, but because if it's the middle of the 7th and the guy's going to have to replace vanSlyke in CF with a 3(+2) that can't hit.

But really, that stuff with in-game decisions mostly evens out over time. But when some $5 million cards are worth $7 million and some $7 million cards are worth $5 million, it takes time (and money) to figure it all out. If all the cards were priced more equitably, then the game would turn into one where the strategy of deciding whether to spend big on SP, or defense up the middle, or big bats, would become more of the issue and the tactics of grabbing the underpriced cards and avoiding the overpriced ones would pretty much go away. That would be a much better game, with newbies getting much more of a fair shake (and having to face a much shorter learning curve).

Agree, static pricing makes little to no sense. We never missed a step in the previous
transitions that involved price change.

And repricing made some of the all-time favorites "playable." Killebrew, if I remember
right (and thats not always a given), was virtually unuseable until he was repriced.

I agree thoroughly with rburgh.

How will you treat guys with multiple cards?

I think changing prices based on use alone will create way more mispriced cards than we have now. It will become more about knowing the value guys not less.

I disagree that static pricing is a bad idea. I think that the prices should be locked in and not change. However, they shouldn't be locked in at their current levels. Since it appears SOM cannot or choses not (don't know which) to run thousands upon thousands of simulations with all of the cards to determine usage levels and resultant performances, they should at the very least use the real data already generated by us, the clients, to determine an optimal price structure. I understand it is more difficult to achieve a stable price structure across a now infinite number of salary caps, but "if it were easy, everyone would do it".

I wholeheartedly agree with all of the posters expressing that adding more cards and adding the "Shuffle the Deck" feature should be a lot lower on the SOM priority lists than many of the other features previously requested. Perhaps there are other additions in ATG VII yet to be revealed, but I also concur that there has been a very poor effort so far by SOM to respond to the "Wish List & Suggestions" forum. Better customer service is needed, and that starts by more regular, and hopefully helpful, communication!!

My question about pricing based on usage concerns what constitutes usage. A player being drafted? (even if he comes as compensation for not getting your original draft pick) A player picked up in waivers, even if immediately dropped? A player who is on the roster at any point during the season even if he has no at-bats? A player who is on the roster at the end of the regular season even if he was added in game 140? Usage points based on games played during the season?

Bill

I like the idea of players values changing based on usage. One of the great things about playing here is that there are so many great names to choose from, yet many of them are never selected (because they are priced too high to select), at some point these cards become selectable, before they drift lower into bargain. Conversely, some names are used too frequently because they perform beyond their cost. Usage turns the player pool into a more efficient marketplace.

The biggest problem in the game for me are the bad choices that HAL makes.

There is no clear display of what rules are in play (does anyone really want to see "Home-Field Advantage" turned on? or any other non-dice manipulator, like "correct board game excess"?)

Bullpen strategy engine needs to be published so we know how to better try to get a desired result.

I badly want to turn off bunting for a base-hit, which happens all of the time.

Also, would like to see another Roger Maris card

I would be in favor of Repricing, but not so much of Dynamic pricing based on usage. Despite the players who get used, I truly believe there are several players with hidden value that even now do not get used because of the huge player pool and the fact that many of the most active managers have not discovered their value yet.

A huge pitfall of dynamic pricing is that the most active managers would have the greatest impact on pricing. These "top 1 %" will fall victim of their own habits simply because they play more teams and would see their favorite draft picks climb in price.

I would actually like to see the "secret formula" for pricing cards. It makes little sense to me that pricing is a 1 man job. It seems that a team of gentlemen could look at all card factors and give them a value, then apply that structure to a computer script that would spit out a price. The team could look at that pricing and then tweak the system, then implement it for all cards (thus adding new cards later would give you instant pricing). The team should also review the process on a timely and regular basis.

All factors of the card would merit consideration:
Card is a hitter = a certain value
Card plays a position = a certain value for each fielding position based on fielding rating
Card plays multiple positions = + or - value depending on specific position (I down value several players with ratings at catcher because they can get thrown behind the plate when I don't want them there)
injury rating of 1,2,3,4.... = different value for each
PA (for those not rated 0) rearding length of potential injury = different value for each
T rating for catchers = value varies 1-20
PB rating for catchers
OBP of rolls on card = variable value
natural HR on cards = variable value
BPHR on cards = variable value
doubles and triples on card = variable value
Card SP = base value
Card is a SP and RP = increase in value
RP innings rating = variable value
Pure RP = different base value
* or no star for starter = value
SP innings rating = different values for SP 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 AND SP*6,*7,*8,*9
variable value for pitchers with enough innings to avoid long injury
WP rating for SP, RP
Hold rating for SP, RP
Balk rating for SP, RP
variable value for pitcher's e rating
variable rating for pitcher's hitting card
variable rating for Bunt (A,B,C,D)
variable rating for H&R (B,C,D)
variable rating for speed of runner
variable rating for stealing range/pickoff range
variable rating for clutch value (+/-) on card
variable rating for BP singles on card
arm rating for OF
arm rating for Catcher
GBAs
K's
Lineout max
......I'm sure there are some I am missing, and I am equally sure that if one person is doing the calculations there is a lot that is missing.


It seems obvious to me also that the actual value will diverge from the price depending on the type of league being played (examples - the hitting value of Babe Ruth's pitching card would be nullified in a DH league, the value of Narleski's zero BP singles would be negated in a Polo '41 league, ...).


Oh, and I wholeheartedly agree with Mike that I would love to be able to have a checkbox to turn off bunting for a hit for individual players

(I would also like similar buttons for squeeze play, stealing 3rd, stealing home.....)