| 0 |
Subject: How pay2play killed the fascination
Posted by: Santa
- [2800921] Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 19:36
I think pay to play have drained the fascination from this game. Primarily because TSN have failed to take into account how the day-to-day gameplay would be affected compared to the former free game.
What intrigued me earlier was the my ability to gain tons og money and as the season went on I could field a star-studded roster with all my money.
However, for this season TSN have failed to take into account what it means when the number of rosters only accounts to five percent or less of what they're used to. Furthermore, they've failed to take into consideration that virtually no new teams will enter the game once the season starts.
This means that the repricing formula is waaaay off. It's no longer the price gains that creates the fascination. The lack of new entrants means that gravity and price losses rule the game. Today the price movers netted MINUS 3,65M when you add up all players. Only 25 players can register an increased value.
I never cared to make a similar calculation last season but my guess is that these numbers in no way compares to last year.
However, I will be able to enter a starstudded roster as the season moves on. Because the heavy gravity will sooner or later make most players affordable.
It's sad checking the sartibles just to see that only FOUR players are priced at their season high while 350!!!! are at their all season LOW!
If you want people to pay to play a fantasy game like this I find it of outmost importance that you realize what sensation your contestants are seeking. And TSN surely isn't feeding my lust for another season.
PS: I know that some of the subjects I mention in this post have been touched upon in various other topics. I just couldn't find one thread where I felt this post would fit. Hope some of the veteran gurupies feel like sharing their thoughts on this matter. |
| 1 | Bethesda Panthers
Leader
ID: 451037267
Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 19:55
|
Here is a thread that discussed this issue at length. While some like the more rapid price gains, past games were criticized for allowing price gains so large that, by this time of year, one could afford any roster and trading skill did not matter. I doubt the dampening was accidental - however, it may have gone further than was intended.
Thread on smaller price changes
|
| 2 | jedman
Sustainer
ID: 40746414
Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 20:03
|
I am enjoying the game very much this year. I think the muted price changes have made the game more interesting and more difficult. You have to constantly be looking for cheaper players to fill out your rosters and you have to manage your trades so that you can rotate the studs as their schedules change. Cheapies will have a place all year which is different than years past.
|
| 3 | Micheal
ID: 5815241
Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 20:44
|
I like this year better than the past years. I don't have to follow the crowd for fear of missing out on a 500K price swing for a "train". Don't like the gravity though.
|
| 4 | culdeus
Donor
ID: 541152147
Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 20:44
|
It's sad checking the sartibles just to see that only FOUR players are priced at their season high while 350!!!! are at their all season LOW!
If I remember this is about the same as the free game last year. Gravity kills in a 3500 man universe or a 350000 man universe. I do agree with your main points though.
|
| 5 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 20:57
|
Hard to argue the the fascination is dead the day after we rang a 530-some-odd-post thread.
|
| 6 | VIDevilRays
Leader
ID: 29439176
Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 21:02
|
Amen biliruben!! I like the challenge this year has brought. But I think every year there are changes, whether mechanical or otherwise, that require adjustments.
|
| 7 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 21:49
|
"... Today the price movers netted MINUS 3,65M when you add up all players. Only 25 players can register an increased value."
This isn't a difference from last year. Last year, daily price losers outnumbered gainers by about the same margin.
The difference is the aggregate value of the gainers. The reduced trade-related gains are offset by reduced trade-related losses. The net negative is almost entirely due to gravity - as it was last year.
|
| 8 | JCS
ID: 4411441714
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 07:08
|
For the record, I like the game better this year. Heck, I even like the free game a lot.
|
| 9 | Pistol Pete
ID: 3710531014
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 09:21
|
Yea, that was a lot of posts. But I doubt all 530-some-odd-posts came strictly from fascinated TSN Ultimate Hoops players. Not everyone is playing the same game or games, you know. Also, not everyone is happier with one game over the other. This forum's activity isn't necessarily a reflection on TSN Ultimate Hoops, it's a reflection of all the games that all gurupies play...whether they are fascinated or not.
Exploring Fantasy Sports Strategy. For a few of us around here that means something other than "I play and am fascinated with TSN's pay-to-play games."
|
| 10 | Taxman
Leader
ID: 501128206
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 09:37
|
The question is not "Do I like this year (pay) better than last year (free)?" The question is "What will I do with my spare internet time now that Small World free fantasy games are dead?"
The old free game/structure could not generate enough revenue to sustain operations. Either we pay to play, or we don't play.
Makes me like this year's pay version with it's warts a bunch more than last year's defunct, but free, version.
|
| 11 | Micheal
ID: 371024132
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 09:45
|
This forum is dominated by the TSN game. If you don't have a team you are in the minority. The roster moves are TSN, Action Threads (TSN), Price Updates (TSN) and the basketball standings are TSN. I bet out of the people who posted in the 530 post thread, 98% of them have a TSN team.
|
| 12 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 09:58
|
And I'll bet 98% of the posts were by about 5 different people as well.
|
| 13 | PhillyTom
ID: 101055821
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 10:03
|
And 98% of those posts weren't worth reading.
|
| 14 | EdS
Leader
ID: 361155289
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 11:11
|
And I'll bet that 98% of this forum did not read the thread.
EdS
|
| 15 | MyLakers
ID: 345282521
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 13:32
|
I am disappointed in the game this year. I have been playing for about 4 years now and it is not as much fun as it was. I dont think we need to afford a stud at every position but, I would like to be able to afford 5 studs and 5 decent players at the same time. Part of my problem is I dont follow the lemming moves all the time, keeping players until the natural trade point not selling on game early. That being said I still should be able to field a little better team at this point than I have IMO. I probably will be back, but, I would like to see an adjustment in gains or prices to reflect the muted changes.
|
| 16 | jumpball
Sustainer
ID: 33050298
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 13:42
|
The fascination is not dead.
I like the pay game this year -- it's much more of a challenge and promotes different strategies. I just wish i had more time to do the necessary research!
For those of you who want an all-stud lineup -- that's what the free game is still about! I'm up to 4 all-stars out of 5 slots on that team, and will be able to have 5 before the end of the year.
|
| 17 | gumby
ID: 559211110
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 14:09
|
the only thing that needs fixing is gravity. I find this year's game much more competitive, thereby making it much more interesting.
on the 530 post day, let me just say that it was one of the most enjoyable days at work that I (along with a couple of my colleagues) have had in quite awhile. good thing the NBA doesn't play weekday games more often. thank God for T1 lines!
|
| 18 | DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 15:00
|
I also have enjoyed the game this year, probably b/c I have been doing much better, but I miss the days when I could say, "I'm in 500WWR, but there are 360,000 teams worldwide, so that's great".
I also think that the gravity limit (the point where a player is no longer affected by gravity) should be set lower b/c of the lower number of total teams, maybe using a percentage, so that it doesn't penalize managers that differentiate early.
|
| 19 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 15:18
|
Pistol Pete - Yeah, you are right about TSN not being to sole subject in the thread or on the boards. I have actually never played TSN hoops, am not playing it now, and don't ever plan on playing it.
Just talking out my arse. ;)
|
| 20 | purpleturtle
ID: 449252418
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 16:07
|
Santa - I couldn't disagree with you more. The part I disliked about the game in the past was the ability (read: none) to pump up the roster value and field a team with all studs (or even a bunch of studs). The point and challenge of the game is to study boxscores and scout the next best thing or at least the best bargain. How much fun is it to pick a team of All-stars and pile on big points? There's no strategy except to follow the crowd in price changes. I'd rather have to rely having to find the Bufords/Glovers/Smiths/Voskuhls etc. as they rise and fall in playing time and points produced. This is the reason I play fantasy games. I take it you are a Yankee fan (or at least a fan of their way of doing business).[Cheap shot at the Yanks, I know]
|
| 21 | Pistol Pete
ID: 131157183
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 17:44
|
Ah, it ain't no big deal, biliruben. I understand what your point was, though. To be honest, I never read the thread. Once I saw it get up to about 364 posts I didn't dare open it with either of my slow-ass computers. I guess that means I'm talking out of my arse too. : ) Thought that was a rare post on the Hoops forum for you. Now I see why. Baseball is a little over 2 months away already. Looking forward to seeing you and all the regulars on the baseball forum. Chat with you then, buddy.
|
| 22 | Pistol Pete
ID: 131157183
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 17:54
|
Micheal, I don't doubt that at all. Nearly everyone here has a TSN pay-to-play team. I'm in the minority in-so-much that my TSN teams this year are free teams only. My point was that the high rate of daily action thread activity or forum activity in general does not necessarily translate into a complete fascination with TSN pay-to-play alone. I think the 530 post action thread means people here enjoy chatting about the performance of basketball players as it relates to fantasy hoops. Indeed, the prevailing slant of the entire forum is directed to the TSN games. You'll get no arguement from me about that.
|
| 23 | PGunn
ID: 370462317
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 18:29
|
Regarding Purpleturtle post 20:
That wasn't a cheap shot that's reality.
The Yankees should have an asterisk next to their name in the record books regarding all their World Series victories as follows:
*These championships were attained at a time when there was a competitive imbalance in the Major Leagues. Due to revenue disparity, only 6 or 7 teams each season had a chance to go to the playoffs. The 24 other teams were finished before the season started.
|
| 24 | Pistol Pete
ID: 131157183
Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 18:41
|
At the risk of sticking my foot in my mouth (or would that be "keyboard up my nose"?), I suppose I should share my thoughts on the matter as Santa asked.
My opinion may not mean much since I'm not playing TSN Ultimate Hoops but from the outside I think I can see both sides of the "smaller price changes" issue. I played the old SmallWorld game over the past 4 seasons so I understand your frustration, Santa. And it does appear that stud-laden rosters are going to be tough to come by. It probably is a product of having a smaller pool of managers and very few new teams entering as you state. I believe TSN thought that part of the game through, however. IIRC, that might have been a selling point about the Ultimate game. Does the appearant lack of monster roster values take away some of the luster of the "old" game? Yes, it probably has for some of the partipants. On the other hand, I don't see it as a huge loss in the grand scheme of the game. Just like in baseball last season when we had the dampening of price changes to dislodge the "Randro Effect" folks still made $ and had semi-star-studded lineups eventually. Likewise, I think Ult-hoops managers will adapt to these changes and we'll see semi-star-studded lineups before it's over. It will just take a little longer than folks are used to. Hmmm...I think I've read that somewhere before. : )
I don't believe that pay-to-play has killed the fascination, but from my perspective it sure has made things different. It will be interesting to see how baseball plays out this year. I decided to wait out this hoops season and see if future TSN pay-to-play is something I can personally justify participating in. So far I'm still undecided on that issue but I'm enjoying the free game, 500k and OTO in the meantime.
|
| 25 | Wonderboy
ID: 7101880
Thu, Jan 24, 2002, 12:48
|
i think the price changes can be higher. personally i think it was more fun last year looking at the prices everyday. i wrote a note to them at the begining of the season and this is what they wrote back. i don't know what you've seen or been told by TSN befor so...
Dear Ian,
Thank you for your inquiry. It is a very long season. In order to ensure competitive balance in the game we felt it would actually be more fun if the price changes were less dramatic.
Sincerely,
The Commish
-----Original Message-----
From: ian_gallaugher@hotmail.com [mailto:ian_gallaugher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:58 PM
To: ultimatehoops@smallworld.com
Subject: Comments
email_address = ian_gallaugher@hotmail.com
message = the price changes are too low. make them like last years. this isn't as fun when you can't make alot of money.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|