Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

In order to "fix" the "Super Reliever" issue, STRAT took several steps in an attempt to fix the problem.
They actually fixed a couple of things, but also created a bunch of problems.

Here is what went right:

They priced the mid range starting pitchers lower, so now many of them actually get used, when before, they were rarely used. And they shut down the super reliever strategy.

Here is what went wrong:
unfortunately they went overboard. all they had to do was to raise of the salaries of the higher end R3 and R4 relievers (such as Murray etc.) to reflect their actual value---i.e. a pitcher that can save 30 games and win 20 was certainly worth considerably more than their ATG8 prices.
But what they did was raise the prices of all relievers, including the R1 guys,---which created the situation where almost no one uses any reliever over 2 mill unless they are in high salary leagues. Then to boot, they changed the pitcher settings so you couldn't max out the relievers.

My suggestion to resolve the current situation is two fold:
1) Decrease salaries of relievers to the point where owners would actually use them in 80 mill leagues (10%). Of course guys like Murray, Sutter, Burke and the other R3 and R4 relievers will need to be kept at a high salary level as they have a greater value and can maximize the super reliever strategy, but particularly the R1 relievers should have their salaries reduced.
2) Return to the ATG8 pitching programming in all aspects but add a requirement that all teams must maintain a pitching staff of 10 pitchers throughout the season--a minimum 5 that can start, a minimum 3 that are relief only, the rest to be starter/relievers.

thats my 2 cents.....

That is well put.

I think it was also reasonable as sjudd said to consider altering prices but keeping the v3.
I don't prefer that, but I could see it being a viable preference.

The problem I don't want repeated is that there was a belief--by whoever--SOM, a few vocal people, et al--that the problem at the time was completely understood and the proposed solution's 2d order effects known fully.
It was not the case.

So I don't want to jump to the solution--I think step one is SOM recognize there is a problem and the poll can create that impetus--if the community largely agrees this is so. But there are some options for mitigation.

How about, just like an industry standard way of implementing process change, we do some real world test cases among actual players and then capture what is learned and let the community decide from among the options.

Can we get a "Don't use before the 9th" setting so our 5m+ R1 closers can be used properly, instead of running the unnecessary risk they reach the 9th fatigued...Common sense, yes?

Common sense feature, yes. It would seem that would be a non-controversial addition.

They really should have a page where interface and gameplay enhancements like that can be suggested. They should be focused on their unequaled game engine, but let their customers make input on interface and online gameplay enhancements.

FrankieT wrote:.....They really should have a page where interface and gameplay enhancements like that can be suggested.....

That forum exists. Whether it's read by SOM or not is hard to say.

Wish List, Suggestions for SOM

FrankieT wrote:Common sense feature, yes. It would seem that would be a non-controversial addition.

They really should have a page where interface and gameplay enhancements like that can be suggested. They should be focused on their unequaled game engine, but let their customers make input on interface and online gameplay enhancements.

Yes, there are quite a few settings that are available in the Windows game that I'd love to see here. "Don't use before the 9th " is one. Don't use before the 5th is another.

Did SOM conduct a poll prior to the changes that everyone seems to dislike so much?

This seems like the beginnings of a healthy discussion. I am hopeful that we might come up with some positive improvements.

Palmtana wrote:

FrankieT wrote:.....They really should have a page where interface and gameplay enhancements like that can be suggested.....

That forum exists. Whether it's read by SOM or not is hard to say.

Wish List, Suggestions for SOM

Thanks Palmtana--yes that forum exists...but I mean an actual web interface where the inputs are collected.
Because as you said...

And there needs to be a dialogue to understand the issues. Just basic requirements management.

MaxPower wrote:Did SOM conduct a poll prior to the changes that everyone seems to dislike so much?

Yes if I recall on the main SOM site. They did a poll regarding a number of things. But some of the questions were not well posed IMO. Super reliever was a topic. But it was also things like do you use the mobile app, the replay feature, etc.

I don't have it anymore, but the bottom line I think is (1) collecting feedback continuously in order to have a prioritized improvement spiral, and in (2) testing changes with real world data in small doses. I am not sure how they came up with the v3 algo and salary solution but I am sure some in the community were involved.

I do think they have tried--realizing they can't please everyone. But it is hard for them to know whether they are responding to just the loudest voices or indeed the prevailing voices.
So I think small groups have been used to represent community interests. Problem is sometimes the rest of us don't see what's going on until after it is implemented.