Chompsky wrote:My first take was that the set was overall more expensive. Fellow players who were involved in the repricing assure us that that is not the case. I believe them.
What I know for sure is that about 90% of my 200 most frequently used players became more expensive (but not Sutton, the cheap Carew, Collins...). That makes me FEEL as if the whole set is more expensive, but it is a trick the mind plays on us.
Chompsky, that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
Technically, overall salaries are the same - i.e., some went up, some went down, but
average salary was unchanged. As a practical matter, however, the ATG9 "plays" more expensive.
One of the big problems with ATG8, however, was a "sub-set" of ludicrously under-priced players. Experienced managers would cherry-pick these "salary mistakes" to build super-high-value teams. You can't really do that in ATG9. The payoff is a
much broader range of usable players and a game that is
fairer to newer managers who are just learning the salary/value dynamics that drive the game.