Sun Mar 20, 2022 10:42 am
The data from multiple owners on "home run normalization" was extensive and went way beyond one league, just as many of the other "modifiers" being discussed here are not isolated examples, they are based on recurring patterns that owners have notated.
The fact that STRAT has acknowledged that "modifiers" have been used, and Bernie has told some of us that modifiers were being used, certainly does not give us confidence that some of these are not still in place.
Which gets us back to the question of intention...i.e. why would STRAT use modifiers to begin with?
The STRAT community will grow, more new owners will get attracted to the game and buy more teams, if they feel that they have a chance, and if they get to win a championship without having to buy 20 or 30 teams to do it, then that will keep them involved.
So what happens when a new customer joins and buys some teams?
They can get discouraged as they discover their baseball knowledge and even their STRAT board game knowledge, does not necessarily translate successfully to the on-line version of STRAT---i.e. its a very different animal.
So after spending a couple hundred dollars without success, some owners drop out.
So my sense is that STRAT was looking at this, and decided to implement some strategies to keep newer owners interested.
In the earlier days the experienced pro owners figured out how to maximize homeruns, how to maximize extreme ballparks and players, how to use super relievers, how to use 4 stud starters and three .5 mill player bullpen etc.---and the complaints poured in from the neophytes...
If you don't think so, look what STRAT did.... they put in the homerun normalization modifier, they pulled the rug out from under the super-reliever strategy, they increased the bullpen requirement to 4 "relief only" relievers etc. --each of these changes was designed to thwart strategies that the pro owners had developed in order to gain an advantage.
If you don't think so, then consider this---remember when STRAT introduced the "ROOKIE LEAGUES" where only rookie owners could enter?..--that gave new owners a chance to win a championship early on. Of course that got subverted when some of the pro owners figured out by using a different username, they could enter rookie leagues which made for easy pickings to get credits.
And look at one of the thing that pops up on your team home page on the upper right. There is a list of owners that have won their first championship. Great incentive to newbies. As with many businesses, attracting and keeping new customers is vital.
So all these modifiers being discussed here (homerun normalization, playoff drama, streaks, clutch, run differential etc.)--have in common? They are designed to benefit and encourage new customers....
And to those that insist that this is all conspiracy stuff....
consider this example.
Nevdully's record with 100+ win teams in the playoffs is 1-25. That is just a glaring stat.
Now by itself, you could arguable say...well that is an anomaly....
but when it is happening to other owners as well, it is no long a conspiracy theory, it is a patterned reality.
And then of course, there are those that chime in and state that their record with 100+ win teams is 7-2 and so forth, which they then state that that nullifies the idea that there is any kind of modifier.
But what if the modifier is not applied universally? For example, What if it is applied to owners who purchase hundreds and hundreds of teams? (and thereby less at risk for discontinued participation)
And what if you do the research and find out that there is an abnormal percentage of teams with low number of wins that end up winning championships? STRAT has stated that playoffs have been "enhanced" for dramatic purposes....well I guess they weren't kidding....I mean I know several owners that as their teams approach 100 wins, they purposely try to lose games....
Now I don't blame STRAT for trying things to make this a profitable business, as otherwise they wouldn't be in business, but as we do pay for teams, some straight forward transparency would go a long way.
Transparency meaning clarifying which (if any) modifiers are being used, and if so, how do these modifiers specifically function so we get to know what rules we are actually dealing with, and giving full visibility to pitcher clutch and ballpark/doubles/triples info.
I started playing the board version of STRAT in 1965, I have played countless games/series/seasons using the cards, when the on-line game appearing on TSN, I was in right away, and since then, I have played thousands and thousands of games.
I do love this game, and enjoy it immensely. But I am at the point where I am considering ending my participation, as my own data, and data shared with me by other owners, has raised some serious questions as to the validity of results.