End of Super Relievers in sight???

I believe the game went sideways with the introduction of ballpark effects and clutch in the 1985 set. Don't get me wrong, I still love the game , but the results were much more realistic before the ballpark effects

I agree. I think ballpark effects would work much better if there were a maximum of say 5 or 6 per card, rather than 8.

I believe the game went sideways with the introduction of ballpark effects and clutch in the 1985 set. Don't get me wrong, I still love the game , but the results were much more realistic before the ballpark effects

I agree. I think ballpark effects would work much better if there were a maximum of say 5 or 6 per card, rather than 8.

I've wondered that myself, except maybe instead of the ballpark effects, cut the Park Single and HR Ratings in half, or at least by a third. (At least for ATG)

Look I don't like the super reliever strategy but it is because it isn't my jam. It is boring to me because it doesn't even vaguely resemble any recognizable baseball strategy. But that's a personal gameplay choice, not dogma.

Rules are the same for everyone. If someone isn't analytic enough to figure out how to maximize reliever usage, then that speaks for itself. It is not hard.

There is no right way to play the game, except the way that wins given the rules we all play by. After all, the entire ATG construct is already a strange environment to stake a claim on "realism."

Overall, as I think others mentioned in one way or another:

1. First--before committing to a solution--define and understand the problem. Is this part of a grand strategy to correct the unrealistic aspects of ATG?

2. SOM is statistically normed to recreate the statistics posted in real life over the long run if you replayed enough seasons.
Problem is there is a caveat: it only works given the play conditions match as well. So what does "unrealistic" mean in terms of results? The whole thing is already a farsical game anyway--Gates Brown getting 450 ABs against the likes of Mark Clear and Kevin Brown? Deadball cards playing in Coors against Edgar Martinez and Randy Johnson? There are too many unrealistic aspects to name. It is a silly and vacuous argument.

3. Most important is that we know how the rules will work in the game. I'm the paying customer but I have to hope my settings inspire the computer manager to switch to a hard lefty at a key point, or subs a PH, or whatever. It's the crapshoot that is annoying, because in the "real" SOM game H2H, it is within my control. If you want innings control, limit the innings. Why the black box tweak that only adds more uncertainty?

4. Give me the rules, and let us play. The idea of playing is to find exploits. That's what games are. An 81-81 goal of uniformity for every league is not fun. A game is about competing.

5. Changes should be tested and not blindly rolled out en masse without an understanding of downstream 2nd order effects. Why are there not tests in the environment they will be implemented? Why are the customers not asked about it? Or given a choice?