ATG 9 Too Flawed?

Someone in this thread mentioned the “set it and forget it” aspect of ATG leagues, which resonates with me. That’s why I stopped organizing ATG leagues several years ago. I know many like it a lot, perhaps even the majority of users, but the nature of the game, which is exploiting the inefficiencies of a static pricing system and adjusting for parks and opposing lineups, all before the sim starts, is not at all interesting to me, and doesn’t feel much like baseball.

The 20XX sets are more pliable, most so with keeper leagues that ignore Strat salary caps. The Daily Game is even more dynamic. Allowing “out of sample” data into the construct of a league creates a much more interesting challenge, at least for this player.

MaxPower,
I am interested in your view that platoons don't work well at 140M. Given your success rate, I figure you know what you are talking about. Could you expand on that a bit? It seems that that higher cap would give you more flexibility to use platoons, especially in DH leagues where the SPs tend to pitch more innings, giving more opportunity to exploit a platoon edge.

I never could undersatnd this either, to be Frank, which I am.
They are viable somewhere up to 140, then they aren't, and then they are standard fare again above 140.
Makes no logical sense. Even if it is a data-driven assertion, there is certainly some artifact of peculiarity driving it--not the fact that 140M is some magical governor of platoon effectiveness while caps above and below have (profligate(?)) platoons.

The diversity in the cards and new card additions is what keeps it interesting for many ATG players. Mountain Goat Spencer was part of a Negro League Great Team added to the set, that's the only reason he is in. Bengie Molina was part of an expansion-era addition of over 100 cheap bench players that many had been clamoring for, to use in franchise leagues, etc.

Agree, Bill. The cool thing about new player cards is it almost creates a whole new game because the game is about value creation.

Separately, ggyuppie makes a good point on the playability of the infinitely expanding ATG card model versus a restricted card model. It isn't for everyone.

The only way to counteract "set it and forget it" is online F2F or something like that the way some of us used to play. Real-time competition. I admit the SOM365 removes a lot of the connection with the strategic part of game play.

In SOM365, the act of playing is greatly minimized to an act of planning.

The thing I like about ATG is there is less luck involved--the draft is completely de-emphasized because there are so many choices and if you have a strategy you can implement it on its merit. You can't do that in the other games. If you have a bad draft, it may be the season is gone because there just aren't enough options so there is a lot more luck involved from the start (assuming not some franchise league). But others like the limited pool and that is OK.

Thankfully, SOM keeps both model types running.

Glad to see we agree on many points Freeman. However I don't think any rebalancing will happen so it's quite discouraging. I'm finding myself getting bored as I feel I'm forced to build anti-meta teams instead of the teams I actually want to play. I'm very competitive and I feel my creativity is being artificially limited as I have to plan to face these absurdly cheap and powerful L Balance lineups. To make matters worse I know for a fact that certain top managers place all their top picks on these cards so they can crutch on them league after league. And I don't blame them as this is the game we're playing but it's just getting really stale for me. I have been doing very well but I am tired of the same problems never getting fixed.

I went to make a 2022 team but OMG the cards are much weaker than I expected. I had no idea what I was getting into as I've only played ATG. Even most of the expensive cards pale in comparison to ATG. I don't know if I even want to play with such weak cards. I realize they're of course stronger in that card set but they just look pretty boring? I don't know... I am getting tempted to quit just because the enjoyment is going down. Lack of balance updates (next to zero effort spent here) and the platoon problem (my opinion) are the key factors. I don't see how Mariano Duncan has not had a price increase yet. He is 1.15M for an extremely effective player. What's worse is his increased injury risk (and this goes for many L balance platooners) is deceptively less relevant as they get to rest often vs Righty pitchers.

And maybe some people do like completely atrocious cards being added for various reasons but I wish there was a "Turn off all useless cards" button for people like me that will never play these cards and just get our time wasted clicking on them. Or a "Hide this card" button. But again - these will never happen because there is zero updates beyond bombardments of new cards. And I don't care what anyone says - That Bengie Molina card is ridiculous at .5M. Salaries are supposed to be a balancing point. Given the age of the game there is no excuse pricing him at .5M when he is vastly superior to all alternatives. I appreciate the new cards but more thought needs to go into the pricing in general. There are droves and droves are terrible values and unknowing managers use them all the time and get destroyed. Anyway I'm sorry to complain so much but I see a lot of great managers leaving for various reasons and didn't expect to be potentially on my way out also. When NOTHING gets done to address the problems the players have of course they will leave.

Whew now Backfire--you are simultaneously saying X and not-X. You can dislike the model all you want but you aren't making any sense.

I'm finding myself getting bored as I feel I'm forced to build anti-meta teams instead of the teams I actually want to play.

?? You have all the players at your disposal to play exactly the team style you want to play.

I'm very competitive and I feel my creativity is being artificially limited as I have to plan to face these absurdly cheap and powerful L Balance lineups.

Again, uhhh...you are creative but can't find a way to mitigate your opponent's use of Mike Blowers?

To make matters worse I know for a fact that certain top managers place all their top picks on these cards so they can crutch on them league after league.

Wow what a discovery! To think everyone was putting them at the bottom of their draft card those noobs! YET...then why would only "certain" top managers need to place them first if this is such an exclusive strategy? That makes no sense.

I went to make a 2022 team but OMG the cards are much weaker than I expected. I had no idea what I was getting into as I've only played ATG. Even most of the expensive cards pale in comparison to ATG.

Again, what? So the cards are too strong in ATG but too weak in 20xx. But I thought you said you were creative and wanted more balance?

I don't see how Mariano Duncan has not had a price increase yet. He is 1.15M for an extremely effective player. What's worse is his increased injury risk (and this goes for many L balance platooners) is deceptively less relevant as they get to rest often vs Righty pitchers.

So now we are saying player injury pricing and rates should be governed by how a manger might use the card, or the strength of the card?

I think that's enough out of me. You do realize this is exactly the kind of commentary that got us BPv3 and the reliever pricing we have today. Irrational and shortsighted complaints abouyt one aspect of the game without considering second order effects.

Your comments don't jive with my experiences--I am beating teams in the ATG BS Finals without using those "overpowered" cards you say are out there...and it is against teams that are using exactly the cards you are saying are overpowered and it isn't the first time have had success like that. I probably just jinxed myself, but que sera sera.
Think first.

Frankie - I'm not going to bother explaining myself or clarifying as you disagree with everything I say by default in every thread. I'm very confident you're misunderstanding what I said to an extreme degree due to your own biases. But that's okay - keep defending the game against every criticism from all the managers that are quitting. You're doing a great job!

I think I laid out exactly what the dissonance is in your prior post--no need for bias. Simply questions as to how you can say P and not P in the same sentence.

After all, I am not the one starting these threads moaning and looking for an audience to agree with me. If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to make the case and not just ramble. That is my bias for rationality versus emotional pleas.

But you want us to take your long streams of consciousness at face value while when someone actually reads it in depth and challenges the statements, you disengage.

Sounds like it isn't a serious position.

BTW--"all the managers that are quitting" doesn't match with the data--so again...think first. Most players aren't on these boards.

Backfire, I think those “weak” cards make for a better game. My take is not strictly scientific, but here’s how I am thinking about it. If every team is loaded with pitchers with sub .8 WHIPS and hitters with .900+ OPS, winning or losing at the game level is largely about landing more rolls on your cards. I guess this only applies at the higher caps in ATG leagues, but still, if you’re playing 2022 and the talent is at a realistic overall level, Paul Goldschmidt’s card is a scarce commodity, and a “weak” hitter can still make some hay off opposing pitcher’s cards. If you play within a league construct that minimizes the card-salary factor, and introduce and emphasize other factors, including usage limits, it’s a different game. Again, not saying one is better than the other, but when one gets bored with one structure, it’s good to know that there are still many others to be discovered.

Backfire, I think those “weak” cards make for a better game. ... If you play within a league construct that minimizes the card-salary factor, and introduce and emphasize other factors, including usage limits, it’s a different game.

Exactly...I think what is missing for me is what we used to enforce in the leagues I was in, which was usage limits. And of course the physical act of playing--choosing the strategy, rolling, etc.

For those that didn't grow up playing the CnD version, they are likely not aware of what is lost with the 365 model.

This goes back to prior points about the fact you can play the traditional CnD game using the software on a windows box, which is different than 365 of course, but the software is so blasted outdated it just seems like a drag to anyone used to modern software applications.

If one thinks about this over the long duree, I would say that ATG 9 is the best version so far. I can't think of any flaws in ATG 9 that didn't pre-date it, or were in many ways worse. That does not mean that it does not have flaws, but my point is that it is all relative.

Because it's a salary cap game (and always has been), it is about squeezing value. Every version of ATG that I can remember ends up in a similar debate, where certain players and strategies seem to end up being dominant over others. The thing I like about 9 is that there is a larger pool of usable players and at least some variation in viable strategies whereas in previous versions, I felt that was less so. Believe it or not, I remember earlier versions where platoons were impossible and the only way to win was putting forth bulltetproof lineups. Is that more interesting? I dunno. The 4 studs and the rest duds strategy? Been around a long time, not just a product of 9.

But there are still many of the issues as described by the initial poster. The biggest thing I agree with is that I don't see a lot of point in adding cards to game where there are about 7000 cards most of which are largely unusable due to their price. Adding more unusable cards does not make things better. This is and always has been a pricing issue. Price and value are not the same and the object is to exploit the first to get the latter.

I would much prefer devising pricing that makes a larger pool of the exisiting cards more usable than adding more cards. The only solution that I can think of is to to introduce some sort of dynamic pricing where peridiocally the prices are adjusted, not based on some formula, but actual usage. Thus the 300 cards that routinely appear in all leagues will rise in price vis a vis the 3000 that hardly ever get used.

In the end, no pricing formula is going to be perfect but at least we may be able to create a larger pool of usable players.