Something I like About The Game

backfire, as I am a newbie, but already (ask my leagues) a strong contender for complainer of the year, it is refreshing as a few GMs already replied, to see a fresh take, positive spin.....most of what i've read about HAL isn't complimentary

sweet swingers, i love your idea, that would be like veritable stock market, with usage dictating pricing, and I see nothing wrong with that....there would still be the "getting most value out of whoever you draft" mindset and practice

I cant remember the name above, but one GM said trying to figure out HAL is challenging and fun

for me, maybe challenging, I've yet to find it fun ;- /

really appreciate the overall and cumulative vibe here (not only on forum, but in leagues).....when I was a kid, "trash talk" was greatly looked down upon, i'm from the little league "2-4-6-8 who do we appreciate ?" sportsmanship era

somehow, perhaps in the 80's or past, trash talking became all the rage, and though it could be fun at times, it's actually more respectful and diplomatic playing with others that have more restraint and decorum

winning should be its own reward, no need to rub crap in before during or after any games/season, etc

lastly, i wish to commend the group mindset of helping others, rather than rat-holing and protecting every trade secret, like it was fort knox

not only from forum archives, other's posts, my own posts, but a lot in leagues Ive been in (and only a handful so far), the outpouring of generosity from fellow GMs is not only surprising, but more so benevolent

as I learn more, and get more experience, I don't expect my "accepting" of HAL's weird ways will improve, but I hope to better contain my grief, as i see and know most others do

thank you Palmtana for effectively moderating this forum, and any others

and thanks all SOM community for fun, freedom, and competition

BFW ('65 indians 1b)

Your comment about trash talking made me laugh. I'm 61 and when I played catcher in little league 50 years ago, I'd sit behind the plate and say all kinds of stuff to the batter. No one cared, no one's feelings got hurt, no one's undies got in a bundle. And I'd say crazy stuff to try to get in the batter's head.

Nowadays, you can't say anything.

Ill be 64 in October, and I do remember "hey batter, swing !"

but my leagues weren't ever heavy trash talking otherwise.....

i don't mind it in fantasy or non-real life leagues, or even from my fav teams rival fans, cause I can dish it out as well as take it.....

but they eliminated even hey batter swing from what i've been told (never had kids of my own, still trying to grow up lol)

good thread though, lots of people can say what they like

and here's mine (compliment to HAL)

he seems to do an excellent job with lineup juggling when replacement players are inserted instead of injured starters

moving better OBP or OPS (still havent figured out any formula) players higher, and moving a lower skilled guy in those areas down the order.....not perfect, but pretty close

(i'm a bit less antagonistic right now after watching a game 7 semifinal and somehow he let me win lol)

Speaking of 100 wins…is there still a feeling of a curse if you win 100+? In the last Druid Memorial all the big guns have been eliminated and the under 90 win teams are advancing. I’ve had a couple 100 win teams that never won. Granted I’m still probably considered a newbie having only played 80 some teams, but it sure seems like your chances of a championship are better if you have under 90 or so wins. Regardless, it’s still challenging and fun trying to figure out HAL.

Honestly, I don't believe there is a 100 win curse or anything of that nature. The game is the most fun for me when I accept 100% of the blame for my losses. It hurts to win big during the regular season and go down in the playoffs but the regular season results are only somewhat relevant then. The 12 team league shrinks into a 4 team league. The division you exploited is gone, as are those of your opponents. Team vs team dynamics, ballparks, homefield advantage, and roster health are the key factors.

As for card pricing, I believe the methodology was refined over a long period and thus many old cards are outdated. It would take less effort to rebalance cards than to create new ones, so I am an advocate of doing some house cleaning. How many times have you look at the same card over and over and thought "Oh yeah, this is why I never play this card."

LBalance is very often too inexpensive IMO. Duncan, Collins, Blowers, Mercer, etc. It's just too much firepower and the shortcomings are not detrimental enough vs the low prices. The X factor that nobody seems to talk about, at least not that I've seen, is that since righty pitchers are more common, your LBalance guys often wouldn't be playing anyway, so the injuries are less impactful than intended, it would seem.

There is also staleness to consider. The top tier picks mostly stay the same and occasionally get knocked down the ladder slightly by new cards. Price adjustments is a prudent strategy for the health and fun of the game. Many cards would become considerations, or suddenly popular, or suddenly unpopular. This is a good thing, we can rediscover the players.

It's like odds in Vegas. There is an opening line and as the bets flow in to one team or the other the line moves to even out the betting.

That's what I'd love to see with the cards. If a certain card doesn't get used a single time in 500 leagues, then clearly it's overpriced. And if another card (Mercer) is used in 99% of those same 500 leagues, then clearly it is underpriced.

My favorite things about the game are the deep player pool, the large number of park options, the high complexity, and the high level of competition. I learn something new every league and remember more of the cards on the transaction list. This game has given me something to look forward to and satisfies my Baseball needs.

when I want to mix it up with new players, i opt for non-80M leagues, especially on the lower side. but then you do fine more platoons with the usual suspects. i find the 50-60M leagues more interesting though.

would like to see Gates Brown banned from ATG!

I'm 100% winning the championship with 100 win teams. 1-0.

my favorite leagues though are when there are active discussion boards within the leagues.

this is supposed to be fun.

LMAO! I nominated Ole Gates years ago B4 Strat had AB/IP/etc. requirements. I still occasionally use him but his DP's, fielding, and no clutch hitting can kill you if HAL decides. not to mention his injuries come playoff time.

I agree that the game is fun, even despite some flaws. That's one reason I'm still playing it. It may not be a perfect representation of MLB, but it's the best I've seen, and that streak of excellence goes back to the 1960s.
To pick up on one point that has been discussed, I'm not a big fan of usage based pricing. I mean, a lot of the fun of the game is finding players who are good value and using them in the most effective way. Some of these player become known, and they get used a lot, but where's the harm in that? Anyway, I think a big reason some cards rarely or never get used is that they just don't have any notable strengths. Even if you lowered their costs by a LOT, they still wouldn't be used much. And if their cost was lowered to the point where they did get used, we'd have a vast pool of mediocre players all costing 1.75M.
Let's look at just one example--though hundreds more could be found. I decided to look for a player costing about 3.6M and almost randomly hit on Mike Hargrove, 1974. Hargrove is a 1B whose hitting is unimpressive for a 1B. He is an OK defender at 1b-2e13, but that's his main virtue. His usage level is 1, the lowest historical stats level. His mediocrity is the main reason nobody uses or even notices this 3.65M card. How much would you have to lower his price to get the card to be used? To 2.5M? I don't think we see his usage budge, or maybe only a tiny bit. 1.75M?...Well, maybe then folks would start using him, but with a usage based salary system, he'd be surrounded by hundreds of similar players and would again be lost, I think, in that large sea of mediocrity. So I don't think we'd see his usage level rise by much at all.
Hargrove does have a better 1977 card at 4.77M that does get used more--a usage level of 8. But if that card got pushed up in price, my guess is that folks might stop using it. Do we really want thousands of cards, all locked at the same usage level of 3? That's not what I want.
The present pricing system may not be perfect, but for me that's part of the fun of the game--finding cards that provide maximum value in a particular park in a particular league at a specific price. If the pricing gets changed every few years, that's fine, because it provides a new occasion for bargain-hunting.

Valid points, Outta Leftfield. My argument is that the game can feel stale when the same players are used nearly all the time. It is boring to know that if you want to dominate a league you should, from an optimization standpoint, nearly always pick certain players that are underpriced and effective. I would prefer to see a power shift at the top level to spice things up. There is also the matter of the game quite frankly not looking as polished as it could be. Duncan is a world killer for 1M, that doesn't even come close to making sense.

At the bottom of the barrel, there are MANY strategically useless and inferior players. My issue with that I think is very relevant and true: It is a waste of time to look at the card. It is also nothing more than a trap for less experienced players. There is an argument that someone might enjoy the players or the cards despite this, for various reasons, but a cost reduction would be ideal. There are also a lot of cards that have no strategic potential whatsoever and should be culled from the game IMO. Having so many junk cards dilutes the experience, again, IMO. There is very little fun to be had with a 500k catcher with zero redeeming qualities. Literally zero. I have seen them and off the top of my head, I think there may be more than a few.