Is Strat Online Dying???

I will point out fantasy football season just got underway...

Don't think it is the Barnstormers or fantasy football. The Barnstormers has been running for years and seems to run pretty much non-stop anyway. I definitely think that public leagues have become much slower to fill, despite there being an apparent influx of many names that I don't recognize in leagues. That may simply be an artifact of many people coming up with new names after the site migration, just don't know. Might be nice if SOM bothered to come up with a roster of the name changes but that will never happen. More than a few appear to have died of or stopped playing. I currently run around 20 teams at once, down from the 40+ teams I used to run five or ten years ago. I don't feel as though I could possibly even have 30 teams going at once if I wanted to anymore, leagues just fill very slowly, if at all, and there just aren't that many leagues getting off the ground.

SOM's pure vanilla policy has killed the forums and their failure to keep even the most basic of their promises to the community and the game sure hasn't helped either. To quote a colorful former patient, SOM's approach to customer service is about "as useful as tits on a bull." I still like the game but can't stand SOM's management. Garcia's last two blogs being a perfect example of us being served empty vanilla fluff. That's all I have this week folks, talk at you again next week suckers.

I think the relative paucity of responses to this question speaks volumes about the Strat situation. In previous years this kind of question would have engendered considerable attention resulting in pages of comments.

I concur with Bruce's points; so many requests and suggestions seem to have just drifted away into space. We've all got our list of things that we'd like to see or moves made that have angered us (Fantasim memories, anyone?) so no need to repeat them here. Not too long ago this situation triggered a great deal of passionate frustration, but now, more ominously, in my view, there seems just widespread indifference.

I used to play around 10-20 teams all the time and am now playing ONE. I have been playing only one team for a few months now. Part of the reason for this was frustration at losing several Semi series with 100 win teams including a particularly devastating loss that sealed the deal for me. I let all my teams run out except one in a league that I've been a long-time member of and I've taken a sabbatical from online SOM. It just became increasingly hard to invest 54 days in something and see it go down in flames repeatedly. I still think that SOM charges too much for a season. It should be around $10 with no discounts - make that 9.95 Also, bring back the manager ratings - I think it made things more competitive. And yes, the boards have become completely boring. A post like this SHOULD created a spirited discussion. And one more thought: is it possible that we now have TOO much diversity of leagues? In some ways I liked it better when all we had were 80 Mil Auto-leagues!!!!

-The Sheik

Lot's of good thoughts there ...

#1 - Frustration - I too used to play 10-15 teams at a time, but every 12 months or so, I would get royally pi**ed at HAL for much the same reasons as Sheik stated (great teams getting beat by crap teams over and over again) and quit playing, then I'd get the bug after a while and start playing again. Every time I'd come back it would be a new version of ATG.

Right now I'm at one team a week and have kind of been on a hot streak, so I'm playing with house money. But if my 112 win team loses tonight in the semis after going up 3-1, I could easily go back on an extended break from ATG ...

#2 - Number of leagues - The huge number and variety of leagues ($ caps, games, variations) may well be the biggest reason, it would be nice if they got back to the basics.

#3 - Manager ratings - Sheik and MANY others have been asking about the ratings for a long time, it was fun, sure it was B.S. but it was something to shoot for and it also gave you an idea of who you were up against in a league.

#4 - Responsiveness/Transparency - Who hasn't squawked about this general issue? Tell us what we're actually playing and address the communities concerns when it's warranted.

The bottom line to me is that it is clearly not the same game as in years past.

A best of seven series is always going to be a crap shoot, not just online. Just this year alone, an 83 win team beat a 103 win team in the first round in a CDROM league I'm in. Two years ago, in a 20 team league, the 8th seed in the playoffs won the championship. I could cite many more such examples.

A best of seven series is always going to be a crap shoot, not just online.

Absolutely Steve, but for my money, it happens too often in this game. Which is why I along with many others believe there are things within the game engine that we are not aware of.

Case in point ... When you have a 104 win team with a +375 run differential that never lost more than 3 games in a row in the 162 regular game season GET SWEPT swept by a team with a 79-83 record and a negative run differential (and you had beaten 9 out of 12 times in the regular season) in the semis ... Well, that's simply not normal and to me not within the realm of reasonably acceptable random variation. (and yes, that exact scenario did happen to me)

Now, I'm sure the statistical whizzes can point out the folly in my theory, but that won't change my thoughts on the matter.

And I can't prove that there isn't. Until the game company comes forward and tells us EXACTLY how the game works, I fear more and more disenchanted managers are going to continue to leave.

I, too, regret the paucity of debate on this forum, but I don't think it's due to censorship on Strat's part. I'd chalk it up more to us growing too used to finding little of interest here. If anything, I suspect that Strat has greatly relaxed its original effort to muzzle criticism of the game. Certainly, a number of the previous posts on this thread cannot be regarded as giving the game a pat on the back--and nothing remotely close to eliminating them or punishing their authors has occurred. IMO, if we keep our comments civil and impersonal, anything pertaining to Strat is fair game here.

I've been playing for some time--started online with FantaSim and graduated to ATG--and will continue to do so, and at about the same rate (currently 20+ teams) for more years than I care to remember. I'm not terribly successful, but I've won a fair share of rings and formed a fair number of virtual friends, which to me is one of the true values of Strat. Like Andy, ALL of the leagues I'm now in are long-term, multi-year commitments (franchise, era, dream and the like). Granted, this doesn't help the one-time auto-draft leagues that seem to be having trouble filling. But it doesn't mean the game is dying.

I've followed baseball all my life, and the opportunity to actually fill a roster with players I watched as a kid (or those I had only read about) is worth every penny I've invested in the game.

To hear people say they've given up on Strat because 100-win teams lose in the playoffs, or because there are no manager ratings or because we really can't speak our feelings in the forums is nothing more than nonsense.

To hear people say they've given up on Strat because 100-win teams lose in the playoffs, or because there are no manager ratings or because we really can't speak our feelings in the forums is nothing more than nonsense.

I totally concur with this! I've lost my share of playoffs due to silly moves by HAL or to what seemed to be lesser teams. I have not been playing as long as lots of you guys, and although I regularly read the boards, I only occasionally contribute. My guess too, is that variety within the league offerings, and very little change within the online game (other than adding cards) are the major reason for leagues being hard to fill or players leaving the game. I really enjoy playing in spite of this, and enjoy playing against those names I know and whose abilities I respect.

Mike