ATG 8 vs ATG 9 - After 2 years playing experience

And put me in the camp of those who have also scaled back the bullpen settings. I did a fair bit of testing on this in various scenarios and environments and came to the conclusion that HAL performs best when he has a mostly free hand or said another way--lots of options.

I think you and I are of the same mind on that--there are very few that don't subscribe to the 4 studs, rest duds strategy and I am one of them and you are another. I routinely use non-star pitching staffs with full bullpens and don't suffer for it. There are some good deals there that most managers overlook. But I hear people when they feel that the lack of control and predictability makes it difficult.

Said from jump the changes to usage were awful...protested long and loud...oh well.

22-13 scores, but hey, no more super reliever right.

if they take out the F9-F0 switch, maybe use the simple “point of weakness” rules from the advanced rules - and see pitchers removed when they reach it- we might see fewer exploits. Maybe.

But, honestly, the biggest exploit is the ballparks. Cards are not normalized for era, and you can get anything you want from the large player pool. Want to exploit power? Lots of cheap power, put the team in a bandbox. Want to hit .300+ as a team, keep traffic on the bases? Get slappers from the 19th century and stick them in Forbes. In any case, be prepared to see Jordy Mercer a LOT.

The #1 factor in roster construction is ballpark. Bomber ball is still a thing. And so is Forbes play. Not really any way to change that, other than create theme leagues, or make more use of the shuffle tool, which includes shuffling stadiums. But I don’t think we can expect players to consistently drop $20 to create a team under randomized conditions.

the variety of ballparks are a wonderful part of the game, and a huge part of the strategy.
It benefits your team greatly to tailor make your team for your stadium, your division and per the average ballparks of the league. If you fail to take all three of those into consideration, it might be tough going.
I used to not pay any attention to other team's stadiums when putting my team together after the draft and before the season started. Learned the hard way, that regardless of how well you tailor your team to your ballpark, if you do not adjust for the other stadiums you will be playing in, it could get ugly.

It is a natural tendency to want STRAT to mirror real life baseball, but as most of us have learned, the on-line game is a different animal, and what works in real life, may not work in the 365 world.

The trick for STRAT, is how to make needed adjustments without causing unanticipated, and unwanted results.
For example:
The super-reliever. The real issue, which I think STRAT misunderstood, was that players like Murray, who could win 20 games and save 30 games in the same season---created a large value gap. The ATG8 pricing of Murray, given the super-reliever strategy, was way out of whack. All they had to do, to fix the problem, was to increase Murray's salary to reflect his value. Instead, they did that, and then changed all the bullpen settings and requirements, which in turn, caused a whole bunch of unwanted consequences.
But lets look at the other side as well---with ATG9, STRAT lowered the prices of the mid-range starters (which were almost never used in ATG8 because they were priced above their value)--so now we see mid-range starters being used regularly.
I think it would behoove (love that word) STRAT, to reduce the salary of top 20-30% of the relievers, that were priced out of the market with ATG9--so those relievers would be used once again, but leave the prices for those relievers (such as Murray) that are worth 6-7 mill. And then return the bullpen settings and requirements to ATG8---I think the bulk of owners would far prefer that.

Lots of varied opinions and plenty of good and positive discussion here.

Would it be worth while to do some sort of a POLL? If so, what would be a positive approach to question the ATG 9 community concerning this matter?

the variety of ballparks are a wonderful part of the game, and a huge part of the strategy.
[...]
The super-reliever. The real issue, which I think STRAT misunderstood, was that players like Murray, who could win 20 games and save 30 games in the same season---created a large value gap. The ATG8 pricing of Murray, given the super-reliever strategy, was way out of whack. All they had to do, to fix the problem, was to increase Murray's salary to reflect his value. Instead, they did that, and then changed all the bullpen settings and requirements, which in turn, caused a whole bunch of unwanted consequences.

Precisely this. SOM365 is entirely and exclusively a game of maximizing value. Optimizing roster value given situations and matchups and usage, is the game. It isn't whether a card does well or not--it is whether a card was the best option per penny spent, both in the bulk macro stats and the invisible ones--types of outs, etc.

What I wish is whenever a bright idea comes up to "fix" something, just look at the pricing as a way to tune the game without changing the entire game engine which brings many unintended consequences. In fact, pricing changes are fun--it basically creates a whole new game due to the aforementioned reason of value.

Like blineimages said, the frustration is in the unpredictable variation of applied strategy that doesn't conform to the statistical expectations.

For instance, forget bullpen for a moment...the options they have for "statistical realism" and "Home field advantage" both result in changing rolled/random outcomes. Ask yourself how they add approx 10 points of BA to home teams? By flipping the dice.

For me, everything that forces us to play with loaded dice is wrong.

Lots of varied opinions and plenty of good and positive discussion here.

Would it be worth while to do some sort of a POLL? If so, what would be a positive approach to question the ATG 9 community concerning this matter?

Maybe so. But the questions have to be carefully selected and the results understood through a chat or online meeting or something before any changes are proposed. Then when changes are proposed, allow for a comment period. Basic problem solving--understand the issue first.

We have seen prior polls result in heavy or hamhanded (though well intentioned) changes that were the result of listening to emotional appeals.

If nothing else, resolving to do no further harm would be a good start, with an understanding there should be a continual cycle of slow adjustment and assessment of impact and customer satisfaction.

Ballparks are part of the strategy, but we primarily see the extreme ones. And I can’t recall a league - in a long time - where I didn’t see at least one Forbes, outside the random stadium leagues I run. There’s a lot of choices, but my guess is we see various versions of the same number set. The most annoying one? Extreme lefty park, roster of all LH pitchers and batters.

Yeah…talk about not real life…

I agree (and have said it many times in the past) that pricing alone probably would have corrected the Super Reliever issue.
Instead they went nuts and changed everything.

Extreme parks are just that, extreme. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they just eliminated some of the true Extreme parks.

Ballparks are part of the strategy, but we primarily see the extreme ones. And I can’t recall a league - in a long time - where I didn’t see at least one Forbes, outside the random stadium leagues I run. There’s a lot of choices, but my guess is we see various versions of the same number set. The most annoying one? Extreme lefty park, roster of all LH pitchers and batters.

Yeah…talk about not real life…

The Yankees basically did this for about 30 years. Enough to wear Charlie Finley tried to copy the formula in Kansas City