| 0 |
Subject: Basic vs Ultimate -why less rostervalues?
Posted by: Linda
- [558222519] Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 08:58
Since someone questioned how 56.2 mil could be among the higher rostervalues on ultimate, when he had 38 mil on Basics, it has puzzled me. Are we really that incompetent at Ultimate? So I decided to compare the pricemoving. Today (13th Nov updated), this is the situation:
(To not make this a marathon mail I short it to top 5)
Top gainers season Basic:
St. Louis, Martin + 1,870,000
Weekes, Kevin + 1,610,000
Boguniecki, Eric + 1,520,000
Tarnstrom, Dick + 1,420,000
Lemieux, Mario + 1,090,000
Top gainers season Ultimate:
Boguniecki, Eric + 1,000,000
Weekes, Kevin + 920,000
St. Louis, Martin + 640,000
Tarnstrom, Dick + 560,000
Gaborik, Marian + 540,000
Top gainers last 7 days Basic:
Weekes, Kevin + 810,000
Boguniecki, Eric + 620,000
St. Louis, Martin + 390,000
Gaborik, Marian + 380,000
Lecavalier, Vincent + 290,000
Top gainers last 7 days Ultimate:
Modano, Mike + 440,000
Turco, Marty + 420,000
Weekes, Kevin + 320,000
Gaborik, Marian + 310,000
Thornton, Joe + 220,000
As everyone can see, there's lots more money per player to make in Basic. Personally I think this prooves my lemming theory, there are more, and bigger, lemming moves in Basic. It's also interesting to see the differences in playermoves between them, for intance, in Basic Mario Lemieux has gained over 1 million this season, in Ultimate, he doesn't even break top ten. (And why oh why has everyone in Ultimate decided to drop Martin St.Louis like a hot stone??? Have I missed something? He isn't injured and got a great schedule soon. I refuse to follow this madness, even if I lose on it. Oh well.) In Basic, top ten players is a combined (headcounting, 'scue me if I'm wrong) 11+ million. In Ultimate top ten players is a 5+ million. A big difference. It seems that the loss moves in Ultimate are more violent, so it could be it's easier to lose cash there too.
Obviously, it's easier to make money in Basics. Otoh there's only 7 players on the roster, and far less trades. Make your moves right though, and be lucky in your starting choices, you can make pretty good cash.
There, that's my scientifical explanation that explains the phenomenon at least partly, you're all welcome to tear it apart : )
Linda |
| 1 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 327481911
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 09:18
|
You've forgotten one thing: shorter season. Since the Basic game only runs to the ASB, it's entirely possible that TSN has a different pricing algorithm for Basic than for Ultimate to actually allow money to be easier to make to make it quicker to get to an All-Star roster. Also, you're not taking into account fewer trades. With fewer trades to use, moves in the Basic game are mostly made when necessary. For instance, during his 4 game break, Mario lost $380k in the Ultimate game, while only losing $140k in the Basic game. The difference is likely due to a smaller percentage of managers willing to sacrifice all 2 trades for their team for the week moving Mario to someone else, then back to Mario, or even using 1 trade from 1 week and 1 trade from this week. That's still 50% of your trades for 2 weeks used to move a guy because of a 4 day break, something I'm sure even the lemmings can see puts them in a very tight situation.
|
| 2 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 15:08
|
That was me who made the initial comment.
Anyways, I'm still surprised at the low roster values in ultimate. I remember the days when everybody cracked $100M by the end of the season. At the current rate, you guys could barely crack $80M. But then again, back then there were a ton of players who were priced over $9M, so I guess that balanced it.
KKB is right. The number of trades per roster spot is too low in the free game. I might be tempted to get 3 games with 2 trades during Mario's break if we were given 3 trades per week. But as it stands right now, it wasn't even an option.
|
| 3 | noobie
ID: 4510391416
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 17:42
|
doesnt the fact that more ppl are probably playing the free game. So there is more trade movement into a player and thus so is their price movement.
|
| 4 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 19:01
|
Price changes are based on percentage of trades completed. Thus, assuming the algorithms and all other aspects considered in repricing were the same, if a player were bought by 5% of the people in Ultimate and 5% of the people in Basic, their price would go up the same amount.
|
| 5 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Feb 11, 2003, 14:47
|
In the process of deleting some older threads, I ran across this one.
The most obvious answer was not mentioned. Basic prices have much greater upward sustainability because there are constantly new teams added, and therefore, refreshed buying potential.
In the Ultimate game, the universe of potential buyers is essentially fixed. Thus, once a player's ownership reaches virtual saturation, he can no longer be bought, and his price plateaus (or even starts to leak).
In the Basic game, new teams are being created every day. This provides a means for fundamentally cheap players to continue to be bought and appreciate in price.
I've suggested to TSN in the past that the best way to combat this is to introduce an "anti-gravity" component to price changes in Ultimate games. This would work to push up prices if/when a player is very heavily owned, presumably with a small, consistent, daily price uptick. The opposite of gravity.
While the folks at TSN have expressed interest in this concept from time to time, they have never chosen to implement it. And as a result, Ultimate player prices for fundamentally cheap players just never get much chance to reach a "fairer" price.
The downside is that these cheap players tend to become fixtures on most competitive rosters, thereby reducing the opportunity to intelligently differentiate. The benefit is that by dampening upward price appreciation, general roster inflation is reduced, and teams can never afford "All-Stud" rosters, as was the case years back.
This same disparity between Ultimate and Basic price changes occurs in all TSN games. While it is also possible that the price algorithm uses a different sensitivity factor, I think the "continual new team" explanation is the dominant reason for greater Basic price inflation.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|