ATG 9 Too Flawed?

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.

I was using the 4 studs strategy all the way back in ATG 2, so for sure it's been around forever.

And years ago, I suggested a usage based pricing model, it is a very logical solution, the more a guy gets used the higher his price goes until it reaches it's equilibrium point. Much the same as the betting line in sports. The "bargain" players will go up in price and the overpriced players will go down in price until they start getting used.

Backfire … I have an idea that could help you out. I was considering doing this a while back when I thought similarly about platoons…… and you could do this for the cards that are un useable too, create a player set with whatever the default balance would be and just remove a lot of the bad cards or badly priced ones.

I fell into the other side wheee I gave in and use a lot more platoons now. I also have no shame with having 14 lefty or righty batters or a bullpen worth 2 million total I do get why people dislike these strategies though. If you’re looking to play a no platoon league or something like that let me know I’m in.

Bullpen v3 caused all of this. Be careful what you wish for!

Backfire … I have an idea that could help you out. I was considering doing this a while back when I thought similarly about platoons…… and you could do this for the cards that are un useable too, create a player set with whatever the default balance would be and just remove a lot of the bad cards or badly priced ones.

Good idea. What do you propose for the cut-off? 5R/L? 4R/L? Different levels for R’s and L’s?
Apply to pitchers too or just hitters?

Backfire … I have an idea that could help you out. I was considering doing this a while back when I thought similarly about platoons…… and you could do this for the cards that are un useable too, create a player set with whatever the default balance would be and just remove a lot of the bad cards or badly priced ones.

Good idea. What do you propose for the cut-off? 5R/L? 4R/L? Different levels for R’s and L’s?
Apply to pitchers too or just hitters?

If you applied it to both, you might eliminate some of the cheap bullpen stuff too.

A lot of the L-balance platoons seem underpriced. Regardless, my lefty pitchers often have higher win rates overall, but worse win rates against the team with the best platoons. Games are rarely perfectly balanced, but that can have some charm in itself. Strong players like Koufax, Sisler, and Suzuki are easier to get with high draft picks.

Great points everyone! Don't get me wrong - I like to hunt for bargain players/hidden gems and use them to my advantage. That is part of the fun and a big part of the skill of the game. However, as has been mentioned many times, player salaries are a major component of the balance of the game. It is what levels the playing field to an extent by attempting to achieve a state of relative parity. In theory this is good, we can choose from a large selection of players and adapt to league dynamics and manager tendencies, etc to gain an edge. The problem is ATG 9 has reached an a level extreme disparity. Instead of attempting to balance the set we just get hundreds of new cards and it exacerbates the problem.

One card that I find particularly broken is Mariano Duncan. I can say with 100% certainty that certain elite managers are 1st picking him. Why is that? It's because he costs 1.15M but has the power of a significantly strong card. He is not that much different from prominent 8M hitters who may or may not have similar defense and injuries etc. He does not get as many AB (facing lefties) so he costs less (makes sense). But when certain cards are played in 100% of leagues (possible exaggeration) it should be worth re-checking the cost of the card. Most online games have balance patches - especially competitive ones. Otherwise meta strategies dominate the game and detract from the experience for many. A small percentage will be vocal and a larger portion will accept it or quit. That's just one problem card I'll name for now. There are a LOT of them and many are platoon cards.

It's not that I dislike platoons inherently or am critical of players using them (by all means, optimize and have fun), but what bothers me is that Strat makes no effort to balance the cards. And the batches of cards we get are 90% unplayable garbage unless someone just wants to use them for fun. That said, I'd argue they'd be more fun if they were improved. Playing terrible cards - especially EXPENSIVE ones is not that fun.

Next let's look at the 500k cards. Finding little gems can be great and there are a bunch. But there is also a lot that are stupidly underpriced. What is the point of having a 800k card that is worse than a 500k card and brings nothing special to the table? We're talking about large disaparities. Some of the cards are just out-of-this-wolrd absurdly underpriced. To the point where I have strong doubts that the people making these cards knows how to price them properly. That's some very honest feedback.

The other part I dislike is having a massive card set full of horrendous cards makes it so highly competitive managers will find and use the strongest cards and destroy the casual players fairly consistently. This creates an unhealthy environment which causes managers to quit. Some of the cards people use are abyssmal and they clearly don't have a methodology of evaluating the merits of the cards. And having thousands and thousands of cards just makes things worse.

Again - do what makes the game fun for you. But I wish Start put more effort into rebalancing. Lots of games do this and it's a very common and normal thing to do. ATG 9 is getting more and more out of control. I don't expect everyone to agree or care but I do very strongly believe the game would be more enjoyable for most managers if the cards were better balanced. Taking a bunch of 1M platoon cards over Ruth and Mantle is very strange IMO. I play to win and will use whatever will get me the best results as long as I find it fun - but platoons are so optimal it's very hard to ignore them and I do find them to be pretty cheesy. 0-2 platoons is my sweet spot and I can do fairly well, but I know I could do better if I sold my soul and ran big platoons teams. But the bottom line is this - when most of the strong players are scrambling for all the same card and strategies - the meta is largely solved and it's going to be a bad time for the little guys. I also think it makes the game look silly seeing this much prevalence of platoons but that's just me.

I do like the idea of dynamic pricing where popular cards get more expensive and unpopular cards get less expensive. That would definitely keep things fresher than they currently are. It seems like a longshot for a company as inept as Strat, but hope springs eternal.

In the meantime the game you're wishing for with 1-2 platoons exists at $140. No one is putting Duncan at the top of their $140 draft card. And all the greats are viable, whereas Ruth's hitting cards for example are rarely viable below $140. S'why it's my favorite cap.

Backfire … I have an idea that could help you out. I was considering doing this a while back when I thought similarly about platoons…… and you could do this for the cards that are un useable too, create a player set with whatever the default balance would be and just remove a lot of the bad cards or badly priced ones.

Good idea. What do you propose for the cut-off? 5R/L? 4R/L? Different levels for R’s and L’s?
Apply to pitchers too or just hitters?

If you applied it to both, you might eliminate some of the cheap bullpen stuff too.

I would say from 3r-3L or 4r-4L & would do pitchers too. But maybe consider that for all cards under a certain price….. if the goals to eliminate platoons there are cards over 6-7m that are strong sided but can be used to start vs lefty and righties . Kaline , Nomar , & Bagwell stick out off the top of my head that are lefty dominant that way and Thome and Cash both have one for righties.

@Matt: Are you suggesting a gentleman's agreement custom league or is there a way to actually create a custom set from existing cards? I might consider that once I've had some time to reflect on the game more. Thanks for the idea.

@MaxPower: Maybe I should try 140M sometime. How is the competition there? I do like a challenge and I saw you have a very high win rate so it would intrigue me to play against you. Having said that I am not 100% if I'm going to continue with the game. Dynamic pricing sounds exactly what I want but I have grown frustrated with the style of updates - just bombarding hundreds of cards and not fixing old ones up chief among them. I did see the 2023 leagues have some new dynamic performance cards but I'm not sure I'd be into that as it seems like it could be extremely volatile and in an odd way almost like gambling. Plus I know nothing about real baseball - except that having 7 platoons is probably not a "real thing" lol.