Self Editor

Forum: hoop
Page 6404
Subject: TSN: How are we doing?

Posted by: Erik B. - [239592612] Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 11:55

Gang:

We're now far enough into the season where I'd like to get a sense of how we're doing. Specifically, with the pay game, has it been worth your dollar? For what it's worth, I think the number of teams we've had and the level of competition has been great. But I'm biased. :>

Can you give me a sense on how we're doing on the following issues:

1) Game-play -- do you like the rules, the price updates, etc.?

2) Game-performance -- Has the site generally been up? Have stats generally been updated to your satisfaction?

3) Customer Service -- have problems been addressed in a timely manner? To your satisfaction?

4) Community -- do you feel like we have something special here? Do enjoy the way we interact with each other?

Please feel free to share any other thoughts with me on this thread. I'm just trying to get a state-of-the-state.

Yours,

-ESB
GM of TSN Fantasy Games

Blooki
ID: 359321514
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 12:00

1) Price Updates could be a 'bit' more sensitive. Not as much as last year, but not as rigid as this year.
2) Minor things. Once I was trying to get in around 11:00 AM on a Saturday and didn't get in until 11:30 AM. Kinda gave me a scare because I had trades that I wanted to make. Also, pricemovers seem to be slow to update (but only about 5 minutes, no biggie at all).
3) Not applicable to me.
4) Hmmmm... the new influx of people to RotoGuru has certainly stirred the pot in a somewhat negative way, hopefully it'll settle down.

J
Leader
ID: 47937310
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 12:02

1) Game-play -- do you like the rules, the price updates, etc.? Like the rules, maybe you guys damped the price changes a little too much?

2) Game-performance -- Has the site generally been up? dont jinx it, its been great this year! Have stats generally been updated to your satisfaction? yep!

3) Customer Service -- have problems been addressed in a timely manner? To your satisfaction? Personally, I haven't had any problems, but I think just in that you guys are around these boards is great and you guys seem to respond in the ATTN threads pretty quickly

4) Community -- do you feel like we have something special here? Do enjoy the way we interact with each other? This part doesn't really matter to me. I play the game to get as high a WWR as I can. I think the quality of these boards has gone down dramatically this season, but hopefully things will get better as the world ticks.

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 12:09

1) Agree with the previous posts, maybe too much dampening on the prices, but don't take it back to 2000 levels either.
2) I've been able to access almost everytime, and the site is faster than previous years, much faster.
3) N/A
4) I think the community (here in Rotogutu) will be richer and better by the time we get to the ASB, it takes time to get used to the standards and such. For TSN I think somthing like a weekly trivia to get some TSN$ would make for more access to the site, or maybe direct links to articles on TSN's website from the game site.

So far I give it a B plus.

J
Leader
ID: 47937310
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 12:10

I just noticed the new Price Change column on the financial report page. It shows how each player did on the most recent price change, I love that!!!

Blooki
ID: 359321514
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 12:14

Haha, yeah. I use the Financial Report to calculate my delta RV when the delta RV is slow to update.

Dirt
ID: 20944228
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 12:15

I like the watered down price changes. It makes the game much more interesting. My team was decimated by injuries and, though I fell about 300 WWR, i was able to pick it back up b/c i didn't lose too much cash. There's less pressure to panic sell. Everything's great, but the price movers link does take way too long to load.

JCS
ID: 381051716
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 12:20

No problem with the game this year so far.

I also have to say that I, for one, like the new price changes system in the ultimate game. But in the free game, it looks like a lot of ppl will have an all-star roster by the ASB, maybe the price changes should be watered down there too.

OSU Rules
Leader
ID: 15372315
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 12:57

I have been very happy with the pay game. I even like the dampened prices, I think it will keep the game interesting for a longer period of time. It should also help roster diversity until the very end, since some value players will be required for the entire season.

Now if you would just buy AT&T Broadband, so I could get reliable internet access, everything would be great.

citizenkane.org
ID: 1411541
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 13:36

when you click on player leaders there isn't a reliable sample given because the minimum # of games played is too high (ie. there is no kobe, shaq, paul pierce, iverson listed)

citizenkane.org
ID: 1411541
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 13:37

we want 25 points for a triple double!

CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 13:46

salary ordered rosters = happiest player in the Smallworld community!

Blooki
ID: 359321514
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 13:57

I say do away with the Player Leaders page altogether. All that information doesn't apply directly to the game and can be found and better serviced (no offense) at many other sites on the web.

bd
ID: 261033715
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 13:59

Add a top managers using total team value as comparing $$$ seems to be of interest to all.

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 14:00

25 for 3d and maybe 5 for 2d, or a special one for 4 categories over 5 getting 10.

15 points, 12 boards, 7 assits, 5 blocks/steals. Bonus points. Garnett/TD would be a must have in that scenario.

Samuli
ID: 3104968
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 14:22

Ok you asked for opinions on the pay game, but I'll just chip in my 0.02$ about the free game. Not much to say, but you really did ruin it completely. I guess it would've taken away all your paying customers if you kept the genuine 10-man roster concept? Weekly repricing? Quite frankly, the free game sucks big time. I wouldn't mind paying for the ultimate game like everyone else if I was also eligible to win prizes like everyone else, even though this game has never been about winning moolah or fancy trips, but rather about love for the basketball. I'm perfectly happy about the hockey game, there are two identical games, one that costs you to participate and gives you an option to win prizes, and the other that's free.

Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 15:19

Samuli:

Thanks for the honest feedback. If we thought we stood a fighting chance economically to do as we'd done for hockey, we'd keep doing it. But we don't, so we can't.

-ESB

Samuli
ID: 3104968
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 15:31

Oh and I forgot to add that of course playing the free game is better than not playing at all.

Wompusscats
ID: 261144422
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 15:53

Overall, love the game, but there are a couple of things that I think need addressing.

1) I agree that the 2000 price updates were probably too sensitive,but this year is ridiculous. I'm guessing that most of the top managers are at around 56 million roster value right now...on track for about 85 million...and that's the top managers in the world. I agree that we shouldn't all have an all-star team by the end of the year, but i will get tired of cheering for guys like Kirilenko and Nailon by March. In addition, maybe the dampened price changes wouldn't be as bad if the initial prices weren't so outrageous. $5.00 million for Fred Hoiberg? I mean, come on. Also, it would be great if you could add something like in the football game where there is are updates for the last 3 days for each player. On their personal page it tells how they've been doing and a little insight into their upcoming games, injuries, and possible return dates. Just a thought.

The site runs great...although one request is to put each player's next five games on his personal page, like it was in the past. It was a quick way to tell when he played again without having to search the schedule.

I haven't had to use the customer service section yet, and i'm sure i won't have to. This is my third year and it's just as good as it ever was.

As for the community section. This is my only complaint--the guys on the message boards are a bunch of jerks (wouldn't want to offend their precious posters). They complain and completely tear apart posters that "take up useless threads" when they themselves put up 5 or 10 threads complaining about the 3 or 4 that they consider "useless". The guys who play this game for fun want to talk about their teams and share ideas about player moves. Meanwhile, the threads that are so important to them are the ones where they use up 4 threads commenting on lemmings, or games to bet on, or (my favorite) watching a game on T.V. and pointing out how each player is doing in the game. Guess what--WE'RE ALL WATCHING THE SAME GAME, SO WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, OK?? Anyway, sorry for the rant, but the negativity on the message boards is getting out of control, and it makes people not want to post on the boards.

Thanks for listening and I hope you take some of these ideas into account. Keep up the good work!!!

CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 15:57

WPC...not sure if you noticed it but if you click the player's team link (ex. Jamaal Tinsley - IND) on the personal page it shows their next 5 games. I agree it was easier the other way but I noticed this and seeing as it is just 1 extra page click I haven't said anything. Still would be nice to have them all laid out on each players page though.

Shelby-villian
ID: 261146232
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 16:00

Ah Wompusscats has a very good point! TSN,
please, please, please put in the effort to
make a message board so that wompuss
and the others can post all they want about
whatever they talk about.

I would pay a dollar extra for baseball if there
was a TSN message board.

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 16:04

And the action thread is for those of us who don't get to see the games, we can ask about performance or injuries or anything. Anyways since this isn't part of TSN, I don't think that's what Erik B is asking about.

Hillbilly Delight
ID: 221039714
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 16:18

I believe the pay game has been excellent. At first, I wasn't for sure if I wanted to pay the twelve or so dollars, but I am glad I did.

I especially love the pay game over the free game of last year because the free game has so many teams added every day, which has an effect on the player's prices.

For improvement suggestions, you could probably add a direct injury report and notepad.

Overall, A+ for TSN

emachine
ID: 26103714
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 16:30

How about prizes other than a magazine subscription for the top 50 to 100 managers? Fifty bucks or so would reward those who play all year, without hurting your profit too much.

Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 16:38

I agree with you emachine. I set the prizes, and unfortunately, I think I could have done a much better job spreading out cash prizes instead of mag subscriptions. For golf, we're going to be giving out cash, golf lessons and game credits, and we're giving out more total prizes. So hopefully, you'll see improvements.

smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 119491116
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 16:40

Golf lessons?

May seem rather tasty for a few of us...Single digit handicap, here we come!
;)

Dirt
ID: 20944228
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 16:42

WPC makes a good point. the prices in the beginning were a little hard to figure out. I can't remember that many examples at this point. Danny Fortson was a pricy pickup after playing a very surprising ten games last year.

Tomcraw
ID: 289503117
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 16:45

Erik-

If/When there is a Midseason game, will it be free?

smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 119491116
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 16:46

I'll cut TSN a little slack on Fortson (38.3 avg, I believe) but Hoiberg?

Studs are studs.
Low priced players are low priced players....but there are TONS of 4 to 8 million $ players with little value.

slamma
ID: 5010131823
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 17:00

A minor annoyance: How about showing AVERAGE ppg, rpg, apg, etc. in the stats for the players, and/or a direct link to the player's career stats, splits, etc. That would keep me at your site longer.

Also, could the prizes be more tantalizing/interesting? The 5,000 bucks are nice, but the free TSN subscription? Could you get a little more creative?

The price changes are fine, IMO. If you do decide to tweak, could you wait til next season? This time, PLEASE notify us if/when you do decide to tweak them.

CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 17:38

I can just see Erik B. at the SW meeting.

TSN guy: So Erik what kind of prize structure are we going with this year for the pay game?

Erik B.: [oh crap, i knew I forgot to do something]...errr....how about $5,000 to the winner.

TSN guy: Just one prize?

Erik B: err...yeah...that way everyone will try their best to win...yeah that's the ticket!

TSN guy: Great work Erik! Keep it up!

Erik B: [whew....that was close]

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 17:45

ROTLMAO CanEHdian Pride

Bungers
ID: 339541815
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 17:49

DR Stars, rolling on the " " laughing...? How does one roll on a blank?

Aircanada15
ID: 13116118
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 17:58

Like Samuli said already, the free game is very weak. With weekly price changes, and only 5 slots to work with, I think just about everyone will have the same roster, or 4 out of the 5. Right now, how many people have a lineup of McGrady/Tinsley/Brand/Gasol/Miller, or at least 4 of those? It takes away the fun of the game. I'll say its better than nothing, but I wont be playing it next year, even if it means paying for the pay game. That was probably the plan all along, to make a free game so bad, that people would want to pay for the old free game again.

And will there be a midseason game? Both pay and free?

Jmadman
Donor
ID: 267342622
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 18:09

I might be in the minority here but I don't hate the free game. Sure I wish I would have played the pay game but going home for a month with limited internet access put the stop on that. I for one don't mind the weekly price changes. In fact daily price changes are a relaticely new thing (2 years???). And when they were inplimented I rememeber there being some debate on if they would "ruin" the game.
The only part that I don't like is the fact there are only 5 slots. But I realize this is part of not paying. I say keep up the good work.

Jmadman
Donor
ID: 267342622
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 18:12

AC15, I am doing well in the free game and only have 1 of the guys that you mention on my team right now. So it shows there is some room for some differences between rosters

Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 18:57

Guys:

Love the comedy routine. And unfortunately, it hits a bit too close to home. IT was really like that...

On the mid-season side, if we do a game, it'll only be a pay game, and currently we're not scheduled to do one at all. If we can find a way to get sign-ups like what we got for the full-season game, we'll reconsider.

Thanks for your continued feedback.

-ESB

joe suspect
Donor
ID: 441143311
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 19:10

This is my first year playing and I've enjoyed it so far. After reading posts in other threads about the pricing changes I think I like the current structure as opposed to last year's. I would rather think about maximizing my cheap-mid priced players than just rotating a roster of studs based on schedule. I think the current structure takes more bball knowledge instead of having an allstar team, which anyone can pick.

As far as any rule/point changes go, I wouldn't mind seeing a weighted points per win concept where anyone on the winning team recieved 10-15% of their TSNP's for a win. Stud players would then get more "credit" for the win: DNP's and scrubs would generally get little.

How about a "trade scheduler"? I would like to be able to enter my planned trades by date for the upcoming week or two. This would be great for vacations, unplanned connectivity issues, etc...
Obviously we would be responsible for injuries and such, but it would be nice to recieve 1) email verification of a successful trade and 2) a warning email after the last price change prior to the planned trade indicating that a trade would not be supported by your $$$ available.

If you were to do these emails in HTML, you would still have the capability for ad-clicks to minimize any issues with us not going to the site.

Lastly, thanks for asking for our input, Eric.

joe suspect
Donor
ID: 441143311
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 19:11

oops.."Erik"

jo

quik_ag
ID: 368423022
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 19:23

i'm more of a hockey guy and i've gotta say that the game over on that end has been great.. i'm playing both the pay and the free game and really have no complaints about either.. i'm playing the free basketball game because, quite frankly, the prizes in the pay game weren't very tantalizing (sorry). as far as midseason goes, it would probably be very profitable to offer pay midseason games. how many of us would pay to have the season start over now? :)

seriously, you could probably be more successful hooking people with a free game at the head of the season and then charging them to enter into a midseason division once they figured out how the game works, and probably have gotten completely hooked. seriously.. i'd really push for a midseason version.. and don't forget about hockey :) and i miss soccer...

but thank you.. you guys are doing splendidly this year

highlander643
ID: 2110182723
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 19:52

1-The rules are great. The best game in town as far as I'm concerned.I played last year with a bunch of freinds who opted out this year because it's a pay game now with the payoff being "cheap". I'd say you would get more players if the payoffs were a little better.

I agree with the consensus on the price updates.They could be a little looser.I enjoyed that side more last year.On the other hand competition is very good.In my division 150 points separates 5 players.

2- keep up the good work on your site maintenance.in other words no problems whatsoever for me so far.

The division rankings have been slow to update .

3-N/A

4-I'm new to the message boards and I found them very helpful.I inquired about the formula for price changes and Rfs directed me to a link that helped.

In general, I see a lot of comradery and help between players which is great. Being new ,I'm not sure about the deterioration of quality as some have complained; but in general I pass over the threads that disinterest me. Freedom of speech,Freedom of choice. You don't like a channel you change it!Personally I don't like to see the the betting discussion threads, so I pass them over, and I hope this site doesn't see an increase of just "bettors" as opposed to players in the SW.

Plus you can't ignore the value of diversity and new blood that opening these boards will bring.

On the other hand ,It would be a good idea from time to time to repost the thread about the standards.

Basically, great job.What can I say I'm hooked!

Peace

Veracity
ID: 2842102
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 20:05

1) I like the rules and don't want any innovations like paying for trades. Price changes are too small; players are supposed to rise and fall to their market value; they don't.

2) The game/site is much more reliable that when SmallWorld ran it.

3) n/a

4) I like the addition of emailing the people in your division.

I would really like live stats/point production. And I like that "trade scheduler" idea joe suspect had.

THANKS! for asking, and for your candor.

Addicted
Sustainer
ID: 610441810
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 20:18

I agree, some way to email in roster changes would be a great feature. Especially for times when you have to travel, etc.

Overall the game has been great.
I believe it's easier this year to buy and sell players. Last year it took to many steps to get the job done.

Switching between teams: I like switching between my teams, but I sometime click on create a new teams. Can you move that further down?

pyrodave
ID: 1510432820
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 20:55

I am a Small World player for 3 years. Never did very well at national rankings but I loved competing with friends. When you locked up the divisions I ended up in a division by myself. THAT IS NO FUN.

1). Price gains are to low. I would like to see an average with last year's. I like the email option, but no one to email. I would like twice weekly salary changes in the free game.

2). Been good for me, better than last year.

3). N/A

4). Was this about Rotoguru? I have NO community at TSN. Love the NFL game.

TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 21:08

Erik B. I have a question for you in reference to post 24 (prizes).

I have thought this for awhile, but I feel for the WWR of 1 you should give out tickets to that respective championship (i.e. NBA Finals, Super Bowl, Masters (or another tourney), World Series). I think that is the most fitting and best prize.

And I love the new divisional prizes and such...great addition considering prizes.

AND

In reference to the watered down price changes...I would prefer they were a little bit more sensitive, but I will play the game either way.

biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 21:21

The championship tix are fitting, but dang expensive, when you toss in getting them there, hotels etc...

You better get some buds to start paying for this game (like 10,000 of your closest friends) if you are going to expect that type of prize.

joe suspect
Donor
ID: 441143311
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 21:26

I'd also like to see a top 20 list of weekly point leaders for the managers. If your season is toast, at least you would have a bit more incentive to keep actively playing.

It seems like a natural addition considering that you are giving away weekly prizes. Perhaps the prizes could rotate: Merch one week, subscription another, tickets to your hometown bball game.

DR Stars
ID: 4211161321
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 21:35

I think the idea of a planned trade page, or by email is great, the lack of that feature is why I didn't play baseball last year, I knew I had a tirp where I wouldn't have internet access for two weeks, that feature could have helped.

T-man
Donor
ID: 10818100
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 21:56

Rules -- The rules are great. I think the prices are dampened too much. Last year you could pretty much know a player was going on a train, and if you had a guy you wanted but couldn't quite afford, you could spend an extra trade jumping on a shor term money train then jumping into the guy you wanted. There was a constant money vs. points judgement on every move you made. This year, the price changes just aren't enough to even try to sacrifice a few short term points for money because the money is almost never going to be enough to make sacrificing points worthwhile. I though it was more challenging last year in that respect. Something inbetween might be interesting. But I think price changes have been too dampened right now.

Game-performance -- Site has been great for me.

Community -- I think the biggest mistake was having a direct link to this site! I liked smallworld having their own message forum for the casual fans, and I thought the quality of this message forum was better last year. Right on the link you say its for hardcore gamers, best tips, and all that stuff. Well, in my opinion, some of that quality has gone down since the front page hyperlinks have attracted so many people. Lately, the forum has seemed a little better, but I still think there's no need for a direct link. If it's helping GURU pay the bills, and its what he wants, then so be it. I always felt that with GURU always having at least one rotoguru.com team on the leaderboard (and with the top division being rotoguru.com), players have ample opportunity to find this site. The way you have it set up now, it's almost like this site is part of the TSN game...

Mighty Cod
ID: 01021713
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 22:24

I agree with Joe Suspect about the weekly managers race standings update. I also like the reduced price changes much more than last year. Keep up the good work.

DaddyZen
ID: 8113840
Thu, Dec 06, 2001, 23:25

Erik,

Thanks for asking.

My main issue is the price change which while better than last year is still overkill. T-man had it right that there is no motivation to make money trades over point trades because the cash is thin at best. With that said, it is still better than everyone having stud rosters in march.

I also think the player pricing needs to be regauged as some players will never be bought because they are overpriced from the start where as others (Nailon, Kirilenko, Tinsley etc) will never rise to a fair market value thus making them overheld, schedule permitting.

Reliability has been good, and for the money it is nice to know that the majority of players are trying to remain competative.

It always sucked to have 200,000 out of 300,000 mailing it in after the first three weeks.

Great game. Keep up the good work.

Oh yeah, better prizes for the top 50 or 100 would help and a weekly prize wouldn't hurt either.

T-man
Donor
ID: 10818100
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 00:16

One other thing that comes to mind is Price Gravity. What is the purpose of it in the first place? I see no use for it. But if it has to stay, I think it should be lower. Maybe 10K a day or something. 30K is too much relative to the smaller price changes we are seeing this year.

Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 151149618
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 00:22

The purpose of price gravity is to bring down the price of lightly-owned players, in order to stimulate buys of that player as they become a better buy.

For example, without price gravity we would often have a situation where a player was overpriced to begin with, and no one would pick him up. Since price drops depend upon sells there was no way his price was going to drop because no one owned him to sell. With price gravity the player's price will slowly drop, making him more attractive to managers.

pd

SillySpheres
ID: 551031723
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 00:24

I have to disagree T-Man, I think that gravity is a great idea. It serves to constantly drop the price of little owned (but not neccesarily sucky) players and allows for, over time, an over-priced player to come down to more reasonable levels.

Mr.Freedom
ID: 412582722
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 00:30

After three years, I'm glad you have to pay. ALL 20 teams are playing. Not just the first two or five if your lucky. It weeded out all the junk. I found Rotoguru.com when he(David) was in the top 50 three years ago and been wacthing the boards every since. Most of the time just LMAO and drinking a beer. NO complaints from me.

Veracity
ID: 2842102
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 00:38

It's been mentioned before, but, for Erik's ears: it would be great if there was anti-gravity as well as gravity; so that, when a player is widely owned he continues to go up in price even tho there are few remaining buys coming in.

T-man
Donor
ID: 10818100
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 00:48

Yeah, I guess there are some benefits to price gravity. I just kind of like to march to my own drum and love to have a way different roster than the players I'm competing with. But to stay off the mainstream players, by definition, means to hold lightly owned players. And that kills you when your making a pidly 50-100K on the couple guys that are popular at the moment, but the rest of your roster is dropping 30K a day per player. Kind of like 1 step forward, 2 steps back. It forces you to go with the mainstream players and stay off the guys that noone owns, even if they are like you say, not sucky players. I think anything to encourage roster differentiation should be looked at. Perhaps some kind of system where you are not penalized for players dropping due to gravity. Say if you own a player who is dropping due to gravity, let their salary go down on your roster as well, to keep the salary consistent, but add the 30K to your cash reserve! I guess that sounds too complicated. Oh well.

RecycledSpinalFluid
ID: 211013916
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 01:53

1.) I think the gravity effects on this years pricing formula make it very hard to grab someone in gravity. Take Karl Malone for instance. I have him as a differential pickup. He is absolutely killing my Franchise Value with the daily $30K drops. He is a quality value pick, if his price was stablized, IMO.

With gravity (under this years price formula), you are essentially required to select players exclusively from a certain group of non-gravity players, which is the exact opposite of what I think you wanted to do with the muting. You are severely penalized (-30K daily) for holding a gravity player, especially for long term (15-20 holds) like I like to do.

I think the balance of gravity rate and repricing rate needs to be weighed better. I am definitely not calling for a loss of gravity, just a better balance against repricing.

One thing discussed about gravity was a teered version, say for example:

Ownership Percentage	Daily Drop
0% to 9%	50K
10% to 19%	30K
20% to 29%	10K

or something like that (those are just arbitrary numbers).

2.) The game-performance has been, surprisingly, excellent. The relative timeliness of SWP updates at night has been very impressive. Cudos.

3.) Not related to Hoops, I was disappointed with the extreme delay in the baseball notifications. But that has been discussed and resolved.

4.) Well, I think that T-man's post (#48) sums it up. What ever "deal-with-the-devil" Guru may have made, I truly hope it was worth it for him. As for the community items directly related with TSN, I like the Fan's Voice and plan to write something, sooner or later, things are a little busy right now.

skrumped
ID: 281038282
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 02:00

I first started playing this game last year when it was free and I would say that I've been "strangely obsessed" ever since. I like the direct link to this very helpful forum, although some of the veteran's here are a little anal. I like the well discussed pricemovers difference this year. So basically the pay game is awesome, but this free game going this year is questionable. Price updates once a week!??! It's easy for those managers to just let their teams sit for a week and possibly lose interest all together. If prices were updated twice a week I think that free game managers would be more into it. Some of my friends have already lost interest in it. Maybe it isn't prices, but I feel that you just need something to get these guys checking their team more often and then, hopefully, buying the pay game. Overall, I am totally satified, keep it up.

citizenkane.org
ID: 1411541
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 02:09

great post y'all.....please add the notepad erik b, as suggested!

blade
ID: 30114361
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 03:39

as mentioned before it is quite obvious the free game was set up the way it is so more people would buy the pay game. TSN knows the free game is abominable and purposely made it that way.

Tim G
Donor
ID: 2082201
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 04:33

I agree with RSF's post #57 regarding gravity. I had Malone and Stockton for awhile and they were doing quite well, but I couldn't take the -30K/day. It's easy to see who is losing to gravity and nobody buys those players.

threespleens
ID: 2310463020
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 05:25

1) Game-play

just fine... would like a triple double bonus tho

some people don't like the dampened prices but i for one think it is just fine... people have to learn to balance their roster with studs and the right 500k-2m players in order to succeed... the less the game is a race to 90m/100m/whatever, the better imho

2) Game-performance

not a once haven't i been able to get into the site... and i access it at many different points in the day

3) Customer Service

n/a because 2) is doing so well

4) Community

posts like this not only help u get a grasp of what we are thinking, but it lets us know someone is on the ball... smallworld just isn't putting a game out the start of november, and then checking back months later at the end of the year to see who won

[/craig]

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 08:52

I just pulled up one of my Ultimate Hoops teams and an ad for Maxim Online Casino popped up. That wasn't supposed to happen in the pay game!

SweetGP20
ID: 2010492810
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 09:00

We used to be able to click banners and earn 10K everyday. What happened to it?

ahsbball05
ID: 32114978
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 09:06

1-it has been great this year, better then last
year because no dumb managers left.
2-the site has been very good most of the time
3-i am VERY upset, when i registered, i was
logged in on the wrong account and i didnt
know the password, because it was
automatically logged in. when i logged out i
never could get back in! i actually found the
password, and logged back in but the 3 teams
werent there! i emailed customer service,
telling them to please cancel it, or tell me the
accounts password and i gave them my credit
card again, BUT THEY NEVER ANSWERED!
why did it delete my team anyways!!!! i am kind
of upset still, and i would like a 3 team credit
for mid-season or something please....ERIK B
PLEASE EMAIL ME!!!
4-the community is great, i love talking on AIM
and AOL and the message boards with other
managers!

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 09:13

I also think the price change mechanism needs to be recalibrated.

1. Price changes are so small that the value management aspect of the game has been almost trivialized. This element was always one of the game's most distinctive features. But now, there are very few opportunities to gain value. Only four players have appreciated more than $500K since the start of the season. Another dozen have gone up between $200K and $500K.

2. Part of the reason for limited gains is the closed-end nature of the game. Without new teams being continually added, it is difficult for players to be continually bought. As discussed previously, anti-gravity could overcome this problem.

3. Gravity is a good idea. But when price sensitivity is so small, the current gravity drag becomes even more problematic. When roster values would typically appreciate several $100k per day, it was feasible to own a gravity player. But this year it is tough to find any player that consistently gains $30K per day, and carrying a gravity player can really cripple roster value generation.

It's very difficult to get all of the pricing aspects into proper balance. Maybe impossible. You could, of course, migrate to a true free market, with prices updated continuously based on a bid/ask system....

Nahhh....

citizenkane.org
ID: 1411541
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 09:34

Erik B, hope you incorporate some of these suggestions into the game. Hopefully there is some way that more players can end up on team rosters so there is more of a diversity. Just looking at the top 100, you can see many teams have 50% of the same roster. Though maybe with the 30K a day drop on many players that will eventually make them affordable. Really enjoy the game, thanks.

Bernie H.
ID: 395452711
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 10:39

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. We're glad most of you are happy; those of you who have criticisms, we're especially listening to you, so keep 'em coming.

- Dampened market. We, of course, set out to achieve a better balance between Value and Points this year, and prevent managers from amassing too much wealth too soon. It looks like the consensus is that we're on the right track, but that we may have gone a little too far. We'll continue to work to perfect it.

Don't worry; we won't be arbitrarily making changes to our algorithms in the middle of the season. If any fundamental changes are made to any part of our game, we'll be telling everybody.

- Gravity. I see the problem caused by having a dampened market but still having gravity at $30K. RSF: We've been thinking about the solution you suggested. Thanks.

- Guru: "bid/ask". You jest, but we did dream up this kind of free market game. But of course it's impractical to run it, as we'd probably get a grand total of 3 people insane enough to play it.

Thanks again everyone - keep it coming.
Bernie

Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 12:59

ahsbball -- please email customer service and CC me (ebarmack@sportingnews.com).

others, it sounds like:

1) we should introduce anti-gravity.
2) we should change our prize mix.
3) we shouldn't change our general game structure.

is this correct?

Blooki
ID: 359321514
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 13:08

I'm a little against anti-gravity. If you are implementing it, be very careful (I'm sure you guys would've been anyways) because given muted price gains like these, an anti-gravity component of even 20K TSND a day would be rather significant and players who were already widely owned would demand to be even more widely owned and thus leading to lack of roster diversity in the game. Instead of anti-gravity, I like RSF's idea better where larger player ownership would prevent or reduce gravity losses and players that are not owned at all would suffer a bigger loss. This would better diversify rosters because players that were not owned would become attractive more quickly. I mean, I wouldn't be as unhappy about muted price gains if I could afford the players I wanted with the roster value I had.

Oh and yes on the last two.

Tortfeasor
Donor
ID: 469202110
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 13:09

Erik B.-

I think those are all correct. I also think that you shouldn't change the price changes, at least not until next year or next fantasy game. The key time for making money is at the beginning of the season, and if you change the formula now (midway through), it will change the makeup of the game substantially. Above you had mentioned something to the effect that you would look at changing the price formula, so I am responding to that comment. I'm not sure that I speak for everyone in saying that (and I don't claim to either), so you can take that FWIW.

Shelby-villian
ID: 261146232
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 13:11

The problem with large roster values that SW
is trying to avoid is two fold.

a. unlike a real economy, price gains are easy
to forcast by buying a player during a good
schedule and selling conversely. etc. etc.
Therefore rosters values are steadily built up.
b. The specific amount roster values go up is
proportional to the sensitivity of the price
gainers/losers.

Basically a*b = price gains.

The easy method to check large roster value
growth is by tweaking (b). Lower the price
swings and proportionately the price gains.
The problem with this is that with a small
sample such as a pay game, the
unpredictable factor of past years is still
missing. How many of us *thought* Marion
train would stop after a couple weeks last year
but he kept chugging along? By having
300,000 managers, the price movers brought
an aura of mystery to the game. I thought the
Marion saga was a lot of fun and something
that cant be recreated with a small manager
sample of 5000. Predicitability is a big
concern for me
because with all these serious, logical
managers playing for $5000, price movers
have been very boring. It's predictable.

So instead of taking the easy way out and
tweak (b), I propose SW find out a way to
tweak (a)- the predictability of price gainers. My
suggestion would be to make price
gains/losses lag one day. Right now if you
hold a hot player on a train and he goes down
with an injury, all you have to do is trade him
that day and you make off with all the profits. It
shouldn't be that easy- make the prices lag a
day so that when the massive sells come,
everyone is affected and takes a price hit. This
way you don't have to dampen price gains
because managers will lose some money
regardless.

Another example would be someone in a 6 of
8 sched. Right now you can buy a player at the
start, get his money gains, sell him after his
6th game and collect the check. But with a
lagged system, the manager must decide, do
I go strictly for the points and efficient trading
or do I trade a day early so I don't get the big
lag effect? You can change the alrgorithm for a
50% price lag or whatever you decide fair.

Anyway, my price lag strategy is just one of
*many* ways to change the game and make
SW more exciting. I think you guys are doing a
diservice to the paying customers by going the
easy way out and just modifying the price
swings. Please take the time to fix what does
not work in a closed, small enviornment such
as a pay game.

Thanks for listening.

CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 13:15

Why should a manager be penalized for a player getting hurt? That doesn't make sense to me!

havenbros
Donor
ID: 710402911
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 13:28

SV: I'm just not understanding some fundamental aspect of your proposal. Why would delaying the price change by one day have any effect on the amount of the price change? Or are you suggesting that if I buy or sell a player today I do so not at the price in effect pre-freeze but at the price that comes up post-freeze? That would eliminate the benefit of that day's price gain or the avoidance of that day's loss, but how would I know whether I have enough $$ to buy the replacement player? Like I said, there must be a light bulb that just isn't going on for me.

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 14:24

I don't really like the lag idea, and anti-gravity isn't a must. Easing of the price fluctuations would help, and differentiating the price drops in gravity, to make it steeper to players that aren't owned at all, and less than 30k for those with minimal ownership is a must IMO.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 14:41

I also don't understand how SV's proposal would work administratively.

But it highlights the fundamental flaw in the repricing model that has always been used - that it is inflationary by design.

When you buy a player, that pushes his price higher. But since you get to buy at the pre-push level, voila - instant price gain.

Ditto on the flip side. When you sell a player, you get to avoid taking the loss. Yet that loss probably reflects something about the player's point potential (weak sched, injury, etc.), and by selling at the pre-trade price, you get to avoid the loss that you are precipitating.

If you own a player that gets injured, why shouldn't you take a price hit? If you own stock in a company that incurs some hardship, you don't get to sell at the pre-news price. Information that influences the value of a stock is immediately reflected in the tradable price.

It would be a more realistic TSN market system if player prices were already inflated prior to a heavy schedule period, and deflated prior to the end. The price should reflect the expect point returns. But by reflecting buy/sell activity after the fact, the market essentially offers a free lunch. To a degree, the problem we are trying to solve is that the free lunch has been reduced in size.

Unfortunately, the method has also reduced the gains that should be available for correctly outguessing the market. Those who owned Jamaal Tinsley before he demonstrated his value should reap a nice reward. Those who jumped in after the value was shown should not be entitled to much. But the current system give a little bit of reward to everyone. There is really no reason to take a risk by buying a player before he proves himself. There will be plenty of ability afterward to collect those gains. Therefore, why risk it by buying early? (This is the exact thinking that is being touted as the best way to "play" Webber.)

Thus, SV is correct when he says that tweaking the price sensitivity cannot really solve the problem. Unfortunately, short of moving to instantaneous pricing, I'm not sure I see an effective way to administer a theoretically purer approach.

rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 14:43

..... now I have a headache....

rfs

biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 15:02

Performance based pricing would solve this, though then it wouldn't be a stock market game...

Maybe take into account both buys and performance?

For example, have the price go up by a 10% if a player plays 10% over an "expected" performance, "expectation" being calculated based on historical data, and this price change being instituted prior to any opportunity to buy.

A second price change could then be instituted in the normal way - based on buys/sells.

That way you would be given the incentive to jump on a guy early that is missing in the current approach, but also have the stock market aspect, tempered by performance.

I seem to remember some other game, which I did not play, using the first part already, no?

DR Stars
ID: 162592010
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 15:20

Borrowing from biliruben, maybe using TSNP/$Mil we could mak price changes more or less dependant on production. If for example player A, isn't widely owned but is putting up good TSNP/$Mil his price won't drop as much as another player that has a worse TSNP/$Mil, and the same way when prices are going up. That way a good player for his price if he's not getting any buys then that's just it (maybe schedule) but if the price is high compared to the rest of the players then it should come down faster.

Excuse my lack of english language presentation skills. Can someone put this in a more presentable/understandable way?

Aircanada15
ID: 13116118
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 15:25

I would pay (not a lot, but i would pay) for a midseason version of the pay game.

And about the lowered price changes in the pay game, would they be larger if there were more people playing?

biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 15:28

No - price changes reflect the % of buys and sells, not total #s.

Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 44241819
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 15:39

Wait a minute: Prices move based upon transactions. And transactions occur for a number of reasons (schedule, injury, better alternatives, hairstyle, whatever). So you are proposing that we change prices based on anticipated value increases? Impossible to administer, as you note (since the variables are too many and difficult to quantify), but the larger question is why should the pricing model do some of the work of the market?

While to some degree there is already an anticipatory prices in place (the draft prices), the changes in the market do tend to reflect changes in value, though with the lags you noted. The "free lunch" is really the reflection of the reward for guessing the changes early, as well as the increased risk of holding players after their production has peaked but buys have not.

pd

Tomcraw
ID: 289503117
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 15:58

Maybe we should stick with the current system and have initial player prices lower.

A lot of guys in the $7-$8 million range don't produce any better than some $5 mil guys. I think that leads to the parity in rosters.

Or how about the price system of last year along with a salary cap? What about $85-$90 mil? There would still have to be some choices made in personnel.

Twarpy
Leader
ID: 3074280
Fri, Dec 07, 2001, 16:35

Erik and Co I think this speaks for itself...

This week's question: Do you think Shaquille O'Neal would make a good policeman? Why or why not?

It's in my opinion that must people of the pay game couldn't care less about Shaq being a policeman, you should either scrap that section or please think of more insightful questions.

DaddyZen
ID: 8113840
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 09:09

well, i just deleted a two page spread on this topic because I just had to scrap my old hypothesis. I was riffing on the idea of a trade/performance variable for price movement ala Billiruben and DR Stars. This would seem essential to promote roster diversification by alleviating undue financial penalty brought on by gravity in the case of SUCCESSFUL differentiation.

I began to think of performance percentages based on the 15 day SNP average per player but I decided this method was flawed as it would reward equally Bobby Jackson for scoring 16 SNPs as Kobe blowing up for 96. Then I began to think of flat SNP over/unders; 5 SNP over = x price movement, 10 SNPs over = y etc. but this also seemed flawed in that if Anthony Mason for example (with nods to Lou wherever he is) is consistently getting 24 SNPs a game his price isn't going to go anywhere and still no ones going to buy him.

There had to be a better way that would correct mispriced players and broaden the choices for managers.

My idea is the performance portion of the price movement formula should be based on performance vs. the SNP average for your price tier, I'd say every $500,000 (the average could be of everyone in your finacial strata group or the top producing 5 or 10, whatever works).

The gist being that when Anthony Mason (who was either grossly overpriced at 7.69 M or underperforming woefully, would immediately and repeatedly fail to measure up to the average of his pice group and thus his price would fall dramactically until it stabalized at something in the neighborhood of 3-5 M maybe, where people would begin to take a look and consider buying.

Conversely consistent over performers wouldn't have the same price ceiling that currently exists. The kirilenkos and tinsleys would rise just like marion last year until they hit an equitable price bracket and managers were faced with a genuinely difficult decision with roughly equal performing players for roughly the same price.

As it stands now, Anthony Mason has lost $30,000 a day everyday of the season and no one has bought him (except perhaps Lou!) because he is still horribly overpriced at 6.79 mnillion.

My proposal would try to bring a larger volume of players into consideration by adequately adjusting for inaccurate preseason valuations.

Performance pricing would also engender more managers willing to choose or stick out a three day week further aiding diversification as the financial loses wouldn't be so punitive if the player performs well. In fact, financial performance incentives could bring about additional emphasis on matchups and opportunities to make money by outperformance.

It is certainly a fact that many a player can score more in a 3 game week then a comparable player does in four, but if the masses are lining up to buy the heavy scheduled player these days and if you are looking at a $30,000 gravity drop if you go elsewhere where is the incentive to buck the "lemmings". There isn't any.

You will lose $210,000 in a week with little hope to recoup that elsewhere, while everyone else hopes on the obvious schedule motivated money train.

Erik and Bernie, you guys aren't far off. Keep at it, till you get it right.

Hopefully the posters here will continue to expand and refine all the good ideas raised here and we can make this great game even better still.

threespleens
ID: 331122810
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 10:50

bleh. if it ain't broke don't fix it... and i don't think it's broke

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 11:01

Although a number of issues have been raised (and solutions suggested), I think we are all "gravitating" to a central theme:

The current player pricing structure leaves too much of the player universe unattractively priced. Thus, most competitive rosters look VERY similar, as we're all pretty much forced to make similar moves.

Obviously, some players will start the season at prices that turn out to be bargains. Everyone flocks to these players, either in search of price gains, or in search of high productivity, or (most likely) both. Seldom, however, does the market price of these players ever reach equilibrium (a price where they are equitably priced vs. other players).

When this handful of players remains cheap (e.g., Tinsley, Gasol, Kirilenko, etc.), then most other players look expensive. We can attempt to lower the prices of everyone else to reach a more attractive price, but unless they can get priced so low that they are attractive alternatives to the bargains, they won't be bought.

If the price disparities are addressed by getting the bargain players (Tinsley, Gasol...) adjusted up to equilibrium, then we all benefit from big roster value gains, which reduces the need for any cheapies at all, which make the game one of swapping studs for schedule.

I think it is good if we avoid roster hyperinflation. I also think it is good if we don't all own the same perpetual bargains. Which is more important, and/or which element should be fixed?

Dampening all price changes doesn't seem to produce a good tradeoff. Suppose, for example, that Tinsley continues to average 35 TSNP/G this year, and his price never tops $4m. Everyone will just own him for the season, and then we're all competing with just the other nine spots. I can actually forsee this game turning into the free game, where about 5 slots are very similar long-term holds across all top teams, while we actively swap among studs for schedule advantage with the other five slots. That is not an attractive design.

Since it is inevitable that some players will emerge as screaming bargains each year, perhaps we need to find a way to get their prices quickly adjusted to an equilibrium price, and then deal with the issues brought about by widespread roster value inflation. This could be handled with some sort of luxury tax, or hard salary cap, or perhaps some limit on the number of players who can be priced above a certain threshhold, etc. All of these ideas probably have significant problems, and all would complicate the game. But maybe they are worthy of kicking around.

Bottom line - it is not clear to me that any tweaking of general price sensitivity, or gravity, or anti-gravity can necessarily solve the underlying problem.

joe suspect
Donor
ID: 441143311
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 11:58

Perhaps changing gravity from a flat 30K to a system where it is based on a % of the players cost, say 1% with a minimum of 30K. This should get more players into a reasonable price range quicker.

With roster differentiation being the goal, then the % ownership amount that causes gravity to kick in would also need to be lowered. I wouldn't want to be penalized by trying to differentiate my roster (ala my recent Karl Malone experiment).

DR Stars
ID: 4211161321
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 12:05

A salary cap seems to be an attractive option, and maybe you can have a couple of spots 1-F and 1 G that have to be priced under 3M for example.

citizenkane.org
ID: 281155521
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 13:27

Point Blank all that is needed is a way to see to it that more team rosters are more varied in players. Too many players are overpriced, however i don't see how you can fairly adjust all of this in-season.

Veracity
ID: 2842102
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 14:03

With anti-gravity, Tinsley (the example par excellance) might be $6 or $7 million right now, considering the density of ownership he's had. After tonight's big sell-off, it would be a harder decision on whether to pick him up again when his schedule improves. This is what would lead to greater roster differention; not the hold when a player's got a great sched and is making money, but the re-pick up when he's not such a bargain anymore.

Shelby-villian
ID: 261146232
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 15:08

In regards to my post 72, the main point is
their are many ways to improve the game
regarding the price algorithm because of its
flawed design. My lag idea was just
something I thought up in a couple minutes...
If SW people actually take the time in the next
8 months to fundamentally improve the game
for next year instead of wasting their energies
on fruitless endeavours (Policeman Shaq for
example)...

havenbros- I think you understand most of
what I said. Regarding knowing how much
money u need to buy, its not what u think- it
does involve cash remaining to go below 0 but
doesn't affect the game much.

Shelby-villian
ID: 261146232
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 15:56

Regarding price gravity-

The main problem with gravity is that

1. prevents diversity because only a handful of
players at a point in time are at a stable price
or going up (ex. Malone)

2. if there is a big error in initial price of certain
players, regardless of gravity, that player will
never reach a reasonable value (ex. Mason)

I think out the ideas presented, my thinking
resembles daddyZen the most. Have gravity
reflect proportionately based on performance
rather than just a flat amount.

First is to quantify price to performance-

15swp (500-2000k)
25swp (2000-4000k)
30swp (4000-6000k)
35swp (6000-8000k)
40swp (8000-10000k)
45swp (10000-12000k)

Next is price/performance to rate of drop. To
make things simpler for sake of example,
instead of percentages I'll use flat swps drop.

-0k (over price/perfomance)
-10k (>-1 swp)
-20k (>-2.5 swp)
-30k (>-5 swp)
-50k (>-7.5 swp)
-100K (>-10swp+)

Ok, so to see how this works...

First example>Karl Malone...he starts getting
hammered by gravity from day one.

After his first game, his year to avg is 33.5
swp. Since at his price of 9.7, he should be
getting 40swps.. 33.5 (actual avg) - 40 (ideal
avg) = -6.5 which means that he falls 30k.

He falls 30k for the next 3 days until he puts up
a 48.5, his year to avg is now 39.3. Since now
his difference is -0.7, he doesn't fall at all.

If you extend this calculation, you can see that
Malone does indeed keep a 40swp avg and
therefore by calculations, his price does not
fall.

Second example>Anthony Mason... he too
gets hammered by gravity day one.

His starting price at 7.9 puts him in the 35swp
avg. After his first game, his 26swp avg gives
him a -9 differential.. his price falls -50k.

He will then continue to fall -50k until he has
some bad games around 11/10. His average
dips to 23.75 which is a 12.25 differential.
Now suddenly he is losing *-100K* a game,
quickly bringing him into a more realisitic
price.

I think my price algorithm (the specific
numbers are arbitrary and subject to change
of coruse) solves both problems to a certain
degree. Players falling 100k a day will quickly
reach a plateau where their price relates to
performance... The last case is the DNPs like
Webber who should fall -30k a day
regardless.

Thanks for listening.

azdbacker
Donor
ID: 1832261
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 16:45

Excellent idea, Shelby. Add in a salary cap or luxury tax, ala Guru, and you have a nearly perfect system, IMO.

quik_ag
ID: 368423022
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 17:45

i'm wondering whether or not a penalty on trades may also promote roster differentiation. i don't have much time to research or think it out right now, but just wanted to throw out the idea -- what if, say, they decreased the number of trades per week or when you sell a player, you only get 90% of their 'buy' price put toward your free cash?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 17:56

quik_ag has a thought worthy of consideration.

Put a 1% commission charge on all player buys. Thus, if you buy a player priced at $10 mil, you must spend $10.1 mil. You could get full value for sells (no selling commission), but have to pay-up a little for buys. This helps to compensate for some of the inherent inflation in the repricing mechanism, and would allow prices to be more elastic without necessarily putting all of the extra price gains into roster value.

1% might not be the correct figure (though 10% is clearly too high).

Stretch Nuts
ID: 293112217
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 20:17

I actually don't play TSN basketball, but a couple of general additions that would greatly enhance my experience with baseball and football are:

1. Live-updating point totals. I'm sure it would be costly and entail some logistical difficulty, but it would keep alot of owners glued to their team page.

2. A built-in notepad where you could write down notes to yourself and save them.

Both of these were already mentioned somewhere in this thread, but I just thought I'd highlight them. #2 especially should be pretty easy to implement.

SillySpheres
ID: 551031723
Sat, Dec 08, 2001, 23:23

I think that some excellent ideas have been tossed out regarding pricing structures. I have a couple ideas about the interface:

How about adding in a weekly leaderboard that would just show who has done the best in the last 7 days or so (I think this was kicked around earlier, not sure)?

Expand the daily leaderboard beyond the first 10. Ive come close (I think) to the top 10 and it would be really cool if I could scroll through the top 100 or so. Or, better yet, if I was told my daily ranking.

Expand the standing to include how many people actually played for the team in the previous nite. This would make it easy to compare my team to the others in my divison without having to look over their roster.

What do you guys think?

100

12th man
ID: 249422716
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 00:17

RE Eligibility for prizes. My team finished 12th last season (10th placed manager) and I was positively salivating at the thought of winning a digital camera, but then I read the small print and found out I was inelligible for a prize because I live in Australia. Doh! Fair enough when I played the game for free, but as a PAYING customer this year, why shouldn't I have an opportunity to collect a prize like everyone else? Seems grossly unfair to me!!!

101

Shelby-villian
ID: 261146232
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 00:32

Well, even the people who got "digital"
cameras got screwed. All they were were
dinky panasonic vhs cameras. Not to mention
they would not return my emails and had to
get the info from other gurupies. What a rip.

102

Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 11:21

Gang:

Thanks for the continued feedback. We'd like to tinker with pricing for baseball, and will consider all of the suggestions presented on this board. One problem that keeps coming up -- our games are already complicated, and we want new users to be able to understand them. The more complicated our pricing model becomes, the more realistic it'll be, but it'll also be confusing. It's difficult to balance all of this, of course.

As for prizes -- we, unfortunately, are faced with international restrictions. There are legal reasons for this that I wouldn't pretend to understand.

-Erik

103

rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 81125109
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 11:33

Guru -

The problem I see w/ a 1% commission for buys is that most money trains trains are guys priced between $500K and $3M, thus their commission would be 5,000 to 30,000 TSN$. Negligible when considering the $100-$400K upside.

Studs are priced @ $7-$11M, they are usually bought for points as oppsosed to money gains. Buying GP or Kobe would cost $100,000 commission (@ 1%) and they may not ever may that much profit during your hold time thus almost giving the the same effect as being on gravity.

In my opinion, this would induce a strategy of holding high priced studs (as opposed to rotating them) and all the trade concentration would be on low-moderate priced players such as Griffin, Tinsley, DC, Jumaine Jones, DC, etc....

Wouldn't this tend to further cluster the rosters together?

rfs

104

smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 119491116
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 11:35

Good point - rfs!

105

citizenkane.org
ID: 1411541
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 11:58

WHY HAVE WE NOT HEARD WHO THE WEEKLY WINNERS ARE?? The Top Ten each week should be listed, at least. I don't even know what days comprise the week, in order to win The Sporting News subscription. Please respond.

106

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 12:34

rfs - your suggested strategy might make financial sense, but it sounds like a loser point-wise.

To solve your issues (although I'm not convinced that they are problems - in fact, they might be desirable), the commission charge could be some flat $ amount. Suppose the flat amount is $100K. This means that a team that makes four trades per week spends $400K per week to do it. Over the course of a season, that is about $10 million, which quite frankly may not be enough. If the objective of the commission charge is to be able to ratchet up price sensitivity, then maybe something like twice that amount is warranted. A flat charge would also satisfy the "keep it simple" principle.

Either way, the object of the game is still to generate the most points, so I fail to see why rotating cheapies and holding studs would accomplish that objective. It may be that the cheapies produce the biggest gains (in fact, that is still likely), but the reason you accumulate those gains is to be able to afford studs. My approach would just make studs a little more expensive to own.

To recap, this approach is designed to permit two simultaneous outcomes:

increased price sensitivy (including anti-gravity), which allows players to more quickly reach price equilibrium, and
reduced general roster value inflation, keeping the stud-laden roster out of reach for most managers for most of the season.

Wouldn't a flat $200K buying commission accomplish these objectives?

One caveat - this does create the potential to leave insufficient funds for a manager to fill an open slot. If you have less than $200K in cash, and sell a player at the $500K minimum, you wouldn't have enough money to be able to buy another $500K player (incl. commission.) That could lead to a forced invalid roster situation if someone "leaped before they looked". Then again, so what?

107

rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 81125109
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 12:53

Guru -

I see your point(s). I think the flat fee is better from the simplicty point and the fairness point. After all, a trade is a trade regarless of whether applied to a cheap or expensive player (the outcome of the trade is what varies).

The point that I was tring to make about detering rotating studs is this that perhaps there would be less stud rotaion to gain a single game advantage because of the $100,000 commission. For example, would we all think harder about Walker ---> Brand (pick any 2 players and substitute names)if it gained 1 game over 7 days and cost $100K? Certainly, the commission would not encourage more trading, therefore woudln't the effect be to deter more trading? If there is less trading, would rosters tend to bunch up?

Under the current system, I'm considering a trade to gain 1+ stud game (45+ TSPN's) and $200K rise in value for th cost of that trade. Under a commisison system, I belive the yield would be the same in points (of course) but only $100K in gains. That's alot less money to be used down the road to purchase studs later in the year.

This is kind of a circular situatuation (in the case of studs). use the commisison based system.... gain less money.... decrease buying power.... end up w/ less studs. However in the case of cheapies, you gain less points on the cross over (25+ TSPNs/game gained?), but are able to negate the $100,000 commission loss sooner, thus having increased buying power for future rounds.

rfs

108

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 13:26

Ultimately, I think everyone would use the full allotment of trades whether they cost anything or not. A trade will produce more points, and to not trade in order to save money is not a winning strategy.

The pace of trading may be different. Perhaps more trades would be conserved until later in the season, but perhaps not.

So, if you accept this premise that it will be optimal to use all trades, and if the cost of a trade is a flat charge, then all this accomplishes is a gradual leakage of $10m or $20m (or whatever the number works out to be) from all rosters over the course of the year. The marginal cost-benefit of a trade is not changed at all (if you assume that all trades will be made regardless, and all trades are charged a flat $ commission).

Therefore, I don't think this type of change should impact the game's fundamental strategies. It simply allows for more dynamic price action without creating immense widespread wealth.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. Perhaps I need to rethink whether the optimal strategy is still to use all trades, however, before casually assuming it. Clearly, there is a trade price that would invalidate that assumption. (e.g., if trades cost $25 mil apiece, it would not make sense to trade.)

But with increased repricing sensitivity that would otherwise allow roster values to inflate to more than $100 million, it seems like a cumulative trade cost of $20 million would still make trading cost-beneficial. Doesn't it?

109

Ender
ID: 52438315
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 13:32

The commission idea is interesting. I wonder what a game with no trade limit, but heavy commission would be like?

110

Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 31114953
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 13:46

For what it is worth I am not really liking the type of solutions being suggested. While I really sympathize with T-man's gravity problem and had previously supported anti-gravity or momentum movement I now think too would not work. The problem with both anti-gravity and performance based adjustments is that it only acts to enhance the benefit of those holding the "mandated trains"
(i.e. Tinsley, Gasol, Kirilenko, MacCulloch) to the detriment of those diversifying. Right now if you "missed" a train you are only paying a productivity cost (difference in current production at a low cost vs. a higher priced player but aren't losing the opportunity for additional roster value gain as well) but with anti-gravity or production changes you convert that cost to a permanent cost (or benefit) permitting all managers holding that player both to recognize the full dollar value of the movement immediately and bail out of the guy.
As an accountant I think the solution is some sort of off-book accounting- where player prices are adjusted without affecting roster value for gravity-antigravity or momentum. (i.e the player receives the gravity adjustment but the manager doesn't get the gain/loss). This would not be hard to implement but it does run the risk of "locking" low priced players into a roster (i.e if you held Tinsley at $3M but his gravity movement moved his price to $7M even if you didn't get the $4M appreciation you couldn't very well afford to sell Tinsley (the old Swerve situation)).
One other thought would be to set a maximum ownership percentage (say 50%) where if a player was owned by that percent of the teams at some specified period (perhaps once a month) all those players would be dropped from all rosters and those players would be repriced manually. Similar treatment could be accorded players owned by a minimum number of teams (either 0 or 1%). This would achieve the diversity desired and bring the players more in line with current value w/o unduly rewarding or punishing those currently owning them. Those managers having players dropped would either have to pick them back up at their current prices or replace them. (perhaps a better solution to dropping the players would be to freeze their carrying price but prohibit any trading for that manager holding a sub-market priced player but that I fear would require much more extensive programming vis a vis the drop option). Of course players holding the dropped players would receive bonus or free trades for repalcement purposes. I think this might work as long as we are dealing with a relatively small number of dropped/underpriced players however I can foresee quite an uprising since no one would be really happy about having their bargains purged from their team without a commensurate personnal benefit (increased diversity and competition falling a far second to personnal gratification). On the other hand if you fix the under/over price issue by immediate roster value increases or decreases you effectively end the game for those not holding these players at the time of the change.
One other thought is that maybe you make the adjustment during those periods where a player drops from +50% ownership to sub-50% ownership (like I suspect occurred with Tinsley this week). This would work even better if we were sure all players would eventually drop below 50% but if it were known that this was going to happen and the adjustment were to be reflected in roster value many more managers would be prone just to hold the Tinsley's of the world to get the one time RV adjustment.
In my opinion if an attempt to try to rectify this situation is implemented it should be done in some manner which does not affect the roster value of those holding these players.
Sorry for rambling- and my apologies to to all the free marketers who want the full immediate benefit of their bargain purchases (which in a perfect world is the ideal solution)
The problem with immediate mark to market adjustments is that they are so large and pervasive as to end the game for those who have knowingly diversified, knowing the costs, under the current rules or in the alternative if implemented at the beginning of a game would put far too much emphasis on the first two/three weeks trades and/or the draft.

111

Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 16:18

Thanks for the note on weekly winners. I need to check into this.

-ESB

112

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 16:32

Valkyrie - in a large sense (as I suspect you already know), you are describing the Swirve Hoops game from the past few years. You could benefit from productivity by locking in players at low prices, but there was no gain when a player was released. And prices were mostly a function of performance.

A lot of the emphasis in that game was on locking in cheap players early and then holding through thick and thin. Using this year's TSN game as a reference, we'd all have Tinsley locked in for the year. If we didn't (and if he didn't get injured and/or Best doesn't wake up), it would be almost suicide not to have him. You could seek to diversify as much as you wanted, but success would require locking in some slots for the duration, especially for players who were initially underpriced vs. their ultimate value.

By the way, I don't think there was anything wrong with that framework. But it isn't really a stock market type game.

So I really don't see what that solves. I also don't understand why it would be better. Just different.

113

Tomcraw
ID: 289503117
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 17:23

How about getting rid of the invalid roster?

114

Valkyrie
Leader
ID: 31114953
Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 18:25

Guru- Actually I was trying to find a way to avoid the lock-in without giving everyone the mark to market benefit which would in my opinion be destructively inflationary. Like everyone else i was just trying to find a way to achieve the free market parity in the manner least destructive to the game. Wish I knew how to do this w/o over emphasizing the draft or the first few weeks trades.
Overall I think it is marginally better to have 3 or 4 locked in "value players" rather than to reach stud rotation by the end of January so I think the dampened value moves are still an improvement.
As a side note I have been doing fairly well in Swerve football (I would be 7th WW if I had a paypal account) w/o locking in a lot of players but the winning strategy there still seems to be to lock in the undervalued players Alas this year's football is probably the last playable Swerve/Echelon game.

115

The Bandwagon
ID: 101155281
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 12:51

Ahh, nice thread! I can't beleive I over looked this one! Its nice to see most of you including Guru is agreeing with what I said when prices were released at the beginning of the season. read post 45

I posted this before we knew that price changes would be muted. So forget what I said about raising the top tier players prices. Shelby's post 94 goes along with my thinking on player prices. It is very frustrating this year seeing the low tier players prices so high, and add muted price gains on top of that, that equals a smaller player pool.

I have a real simple suggestion, if you want to keep the muted gains, price your players according to Shelby's example in post 94. If you want to adjust price gains for next season, I would suggest you use my idea in post 45 of the link I provided.

I would also like to see you guys base the player prices on TSN points/per ELIGIBLE GAMES. This way we get a discount price for injury prone players such as Terrell Brandon, Chris Webber, Grant Hill, Sam Cassell etc. These guys average alot of points per game, but never play 82 games. Of course there would have to be a cut-off of games missed, say around 15/20 games missed. This way, players with season ending injuries aren't priced at 500K.

Anyway I have played this game 4 years, and this is the most boring year of them all. The low player pool leaves it almost impossible to differ and catch up IMO.

116

TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 13:00

I think Shelby's idea for gravity is scary because players can always have off games. And if he is widely bought even after a poor game does he lose or gain?

I think everything is alright with the prices and everything. All I think is that gravity should maybe be a little less (but still constant for each player) and we should find a small balance between last year in this year (not a middle balance, but close to muted price changes).

Just my thoughts...

THK

117

citizenkane.org
ID: 531142514
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 13:12

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE CHANGES FROM ERIK B AND BERNIE H?? EX. POST 105??? THANKS!

118

Rubalamp
ID: 410262119
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 13:36

Shelby's idea is the perfect solution, and while very complicated, I think everyone would understand it, if they even cared to. The biggest problem this year, is people should be scared to sell out of a guy like Tinsley, because when they want him back he should be more expensive. Instead, he is going down with the sell-out. But his average is still more than twice what his output should be for his price tag. There should be some consideration, to alright he only plays two games and possibly more points from a cheaper guard with 4 games...I don't know it just seems ridiculous that people can just shift around in the same price range with a guy that should cost 7-8+ mill...

My two cents

119

The Bandwagon
ID: 101155281
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 13:44

Here is what I was thinking for player prices next season IF TSN KEEPS THE MUTED GAINS. This goes along with Shelby's example. This is real simple, and it would work! TSN would still avoid the high RV's because the gains would still be muted, more players would be affordable, everyone would be happy.

0-20 TSNP (500K-2.0 mil)

21-30 TSNP (2.0-5.0 mil)

31-40 TSNP (5.0-8.0 mil)

41-60 TSNP (8.0-12 mill)

Notice you get a discount on players in the 0-30 TSNP range. Why? Because most of these players are inconsistent. They get you 35 TSNP one game, 8 the next. The higher in price you go, the less TSN points/per million you get. Why? Because with a higher priced player, you usually get more consistency.

If you buy a 2.0 mill player and get 20 TSNP a game, you are getting 10 TSN points/per million spent. If you buy an 8.0 mill player and get 40 TSPN a game, you are getting 5 TSN points/per million spent.

IMO this leads to more differation in rosters because you are able to take chances on inconsistent 0-20 TSNP/G players. If you want consistency, you pay for it. This is the beauty of the game that I came to love. This season has screwed this design up, you have your 0-20 TSNP/G players priced 2.5-4.0 mill.

120

gumby
ID: 559211110
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 14:05

Gravity needs to be fixed. The way it is set up, the game is dictating that certain players, even if they are producing to a level that is acceptable to a manager, should not be bought due to the draconian $ hit. The system is leading to a "follow-the -leader" mentality (or perhaps the dreaded lemming mentality).

For instance, I made the decision (in spite of gravity) to go from Kirilenko to Tim Thomas (great schedule, great opportunity to up his production with Allen out and a sense that his game is coming together). Because of gravity, I am expecting to lose $210K over the next week even though I will probably get nice production from him. Why should that be the case?

I think gravity has a place, but not on a daily basis and not to such a severe degree. Why not evaluate on a weekly basis and make the hit $30/week? You might actually promote differentiation and diversity, thereby making an already awesome and interesting game that much better. Thanks.

121

Jazz Dreamers
ID: 511057221
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 14:25

I haven't had a chance to read all the posts (many of which are great from what I have read), so I apologize in advance if I repeat any idea that has already been thrown around.

What about having player prices correlated to recent performance rather than buys/sells? The basic idea is this -- a certain level of TSNP/gm should correspond to a certain price (e.g. 50 TSNP/gm --> $12 million, $30 TSNP/gm --> $6 million). Here's how I would invision the game working. Suppose you buy Antoine Walker at $9 million to start the season and Boston plays on Monday (opening night), Tuesday, Thursday, Friday. In Monday's game, Walker goes off for 67 TSNP. Say his initial $9 million price corresponds to 40 TSNP/gm production. Because he produced better than his price level's production, his price goes up. Say it goes to $9.05 million. On Tuesday, he scores 41 TSNP. That's about the level of production expected for his price -- so no change in price. On Wednesday, he doesn't have a game scheduled, so no change in price. On Thursday, he scores 33 TSNP. A little below his expected level of production, so he drops to $9.03 million. On Friday he puts a real stinker, 13 TSNP. His price drops back to $8.98 million.

Well, that's the idea at least. What it would do is make players like Tinsley have their prices rise until they reach a point where the price corresponds to their level of performance. Injuries could be treated differently (the price could stay fixed from a DNP due to injury), so people wouldn't be penalized for holding a player through a one game injury (the so-called lemming effect).

Of course, one doesn't have to adopt this plan in full either. The formula used to update prices based on buys/sells and gravity could include a performance part as well based along the concept above. Okay, that's my $0.02.

122

Bungers
ID: 339541815
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 15:31

Many excellent ideas in this thread. I apologize if I missed anyone who may have submitted this fairly simply idea regarding gravity.

I would only have a player drop due to gravity if he is not widely held AND is not producing to a certain PPG level or PPG level per Million $. Gravity would not take effect unless BOTH criteria were met. This idea allows us to keep a free market pricing scheme and not simply move all the way to a performance based one, and it is not an intial pricing scheme based on productivity as others have developed in previous posts.

Again I apologize if someone has already come up with this, but most of the posts above seem to be complex new systems that completely revamp the whole pricing concept. My suggestion is to keep it simple, but add one thing to keep productive players that aren't widely held from dropping consistently.

123

Shelby-villian
ID: 261146232
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 15:56

THK-

My system happens during gravity. So only if a
player is relatively unowned, the system kicks
in. Even when it kicks in, its very fair.

Suppose tomorrow, Bonzi Wells (held in
gravity) scores a paltry 5swp. Even with this
score, his season average will be the same
so he will lose very little to gravity.

One offgame does not affect that players
overall price loss much because its very hard
to significantly change a players season
average without a lot of bad games.

Hope you understand.

124

citizenkane.org
ID: 531142514
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 17:17

despite all the insite and suggestions on ultimate hoops, if the game never change abit i would still thoroughly enjoy it.

125

TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 17:23

Shebly-
So your system only affects gravity for players that are already under gravity? The changes of the players bought and sold are the same?

Your gravity idea sounds good IMO.

THK

126

walking small
Donor
ID: 5011392617
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 18:24

One thing missing in strategy this year is the diversity that occured last year when new players were constantly joining in. One way to change this and to create more diversity would be to increase the number of weekly trades alloted - say from 4 to 6. Also, if the rooster was enlarged to include a "reserve" player that could be rotated in some fashion, the implications for strategy would increase.

127

Erik B.
ID: 281112221
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 18:38

ck.org and gang,

my apologies. the holidays came up on us quickly. getting weekly winners posted will be a top priority when i get back in the office on monday. i have not had a chance to read up on my email this week, but i'll be back on this board resolving these issues on monday.

-esb

128

TaRhEElKiD
ID: 42109719
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 18:39

WS-
This is the first post I have seen you make, so I hate to say this, but I totally disagree with you. 4 trades is a perfect # to make this game challenging, no matter how much we all want those extra 2! :-)

And the 10 player squad is perfect. I want this game to remain pretty much the same...PLEASE No big changes Erik or Bernie, this is a great game!

THK

129

Jeddi
ID: 24519209
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 18:44

An idea for next years game. Take off all the pricing restraints and let it be a free market so to speak. The more you try and regulate it the more it gets muddled up and takes away from the most fun aspect(trying to get an insanely large roster value and having an all star team by the end of the year).

The rules would be the same for every owner and every player. I don't see how it's unfair if it's totally without "modifications" to the pricing system. So what if people gain a lot of money in creating a roster? It's not the easiest thing to do (unlike what some people believe).

There was always the argument of what to do, gain money, or go for points early on in a new season. With the system the way it is now, there is no argument, you have to get points because money is too hard to come by. If you go for money and foresake points early on, you are in a bad way because the little extra money you make won't help you make up a 1000 point disadvantage.

The muted gains help the more experienced players, who are really good at getting value for their buck. If a new player comes in with a different way to play, he's bound for failure before he even picks a roster because almost every team has to have the same roster and do the same things. Diversity and risk taking is punished to a huge degree.

I hope I am somewhat making my point. The allure of the game was always (at least to me) the stock market aspect. But when TSN tries to tamper with something that was never broken to begin with, to install a sort of TSN/Smallworld socialism, it only hurts the game.

Thanks

130

walking small
Donor
ID: 5011392617
Fri, Dec 28, 2001, 19:27

I agree with you TaRhEElkiD - it is a good game. The main question to me seems to be in how to deal with gravity, anti-gravity - or whatever - and price changes, and then to ad to the challenge of strategy without complicating things. Keep it simple. My question is, if more trades were allowed, would this add to the equation given the fact that diversity in pricing is effected by trading?

131

citizenkane.org
ID: 1111392823
Sat, Dec 29, 2001, 00:27

thanks erik b!

132

Erik B.
ID: 281112221
Sat, Dec 29, 2001, 16:49

jeddi -- we've thought about this, and are considering loosening things somewhat for baseball.

ck.org -- thanks for being understanding. we should be on this.

tar -- got it, no major changes. we agree.

-esb

133

Im better than Marve
ID: 2410192222
Sat, Dec 29, 2001, 18:38

I am more of a baseball buff but I enjoy playing
the Ultimate Hoops. I was wondering if the
fantasy baseball will be similar to lasts years.
Will we have to pay. i don't mind but I am
wondering. I also want to know if it will be
similar to the fantasy basketball.

How many of you basketball players also do
baseball.???

:-) IBTM

134

Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 5211552821
Sat, Dec 29, 2001, 23:06

Why would the absence of gravity be a bad thing?

135

rage_22@work
ID: 57932917
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 17:22

BUTT, I figure we might have some more input on this, as another month has passed.

136

Old Man Greene
ID: 151046119
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 17:42

For my money it's great entertainment..Were else can I have this much agony and fun for a few dollars..Keeps me out of the bar, spending endless hours on my roster..I understand and put up with any server problems or problems with the site, because I've been around computer's all the time and understand things WILL go wrong..The only problem I have is with the pricing of the lesser players..Seems high on several of them..What I like the most is the stock market atmosphere..The buying and selling, rise and fall of the players market value..It adds so much to determing what players you pick..Great game guys

137

Drunken Baller
ID: 210553017
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 17:59

Make the 10 man thing free. I need money for my beers!

138

rage_22@work
ID: 57932917
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 18:00

Aren't you 15?

139

smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 157582113
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 18:56

Rage, I drink the beers for Drunken Baller.
;)

140

rage_22
Donor
ID: 490311415
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 19:06

Well in that case, so do I, my friend.

141

crossmovement.com
ID: 24050210
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 20:58

Erik B & Bernie H: i hope that y'all implement many of the great suggestions that are in here while maintaining the integrity of the best fantasy sports game there is.

142

Memphis Fan
ID: 341015260
Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 23:41

I dont know about other people.. But I would kill for a way to DELETE/RENAME teams.

143

blade
ID: 290183023
Thu, Jan 31, 2002, 00:33

in past years whenever you sold a player you immediately saw how much available cash you had...now it just says you sold that player...i'd like to see that brought back.

144

Wompusscats
ID: 13027251
Thu, Jan 31, 2002, 03:41

just curious what plans you have in store for playoff basketball. me and my friends really liked the way you did it last, year, survivor style. I think it was a great way to play the playoffs, and it also penalized those teams that didn't pay attention to their rosters. Please do it again this year.

Thanks

145

Butt Monkey
ID: 13047411
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 13:07

Do you guys think it would be beneficial to have certain players listed as more than one position? For example, some people consider Paul Pierce a guard, some consider him a forward. I know he has appeared in boxscores as both this year. I think that adding the choice to put these "multi-position" type players at either position might add an interesting dimension to the game.

There would of course have to be limits, like a player would have to had played 5 or 10 games at a given position to qualify. This idea is of course not without it's problems/difficulties. This type of positioning is done in Sandbox Fantasy Baseball, but the positions in baseball are more defined. Some teams run 3 guard sets or three forward sets. How would you make the destinction? Or would a player qualify if filling in for an injured player at their position? For example, Lee Nailon for Wesley and S. Walker for Shaq (both examples of Forwards in the TSN game now playing different positions, at least on occassion). Kurt Thomas playing center (at least being classified as the C on the boxscore) when Camby is out is another example.

This change could be a good thing because it would allow for more differentiation between the TSN teams and allow a lot more combinations. With the current price changing formula, it could potentially make it harder to make money (with trades being more spread out over more players). It is not my desire, however, to completely revamp Ultimate or harm it in any way. It's a great game!

Let me know what you guys think?

-BM

146

Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 15:55

BM:

Very cool idea. Unfortunately, it becomes a tricky, administrative nightmare -- a nightmare that we're not willing to have right now.

We will most likely have a playoff hoops game, though it's not clear what that game will be exactly.

-ESB

147

Butt Monkey
ID: 13047411
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 16:55

I was thinking it would be a little tricky. I think Sandbox.com uses some kind of formula that actually takes into account (and keeps track of) what position each player is playing (for baseball anyway). When updating points for any given day, is it possible to include "position played" as part of the boxscore/stats for basketball? I don't know. I'm just asking. It seems like there would be a way to do it, the question is how.

-BM

148

Bungers
ID: 5311343110
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 17:58

I would think we could avoid the "tricky" by simply drafting any 10 guys (5 in the free game)that we can afford regardless of position. Hoops is known for its strange designation of who started the game or entered the game at which postion. It seems very arbitrary at times in the NBA.

After all, it is price that really determines who you can can on your roster. Calling a guy a guard, forward or center just restricts us unecessarily. What's next, Point Guard vs. Shooting Guard, etc?.

149

Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 18:05

Bungers:

We considered it, but we wanted you to try to have to field a "real" team. You could never play in the NBA effectively without a center/power forward...

-ESB

p.s. In other news, I will be gone for the next week on vacation (Barcelona). If you need anything in the next week, please contact Bernie on these boards. Sidenote: I'm very proud of the community that's developed here, and have joined by interactions with you over the last 5-6 months. We're excited to get going with baseball and hope to continue building on what's been built so far.

150

Bungers
ID: 38082016
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 22:23

Erik, point taken. And that is pretty much what I thought the reason behind the game setup was, to field a "real" team. Makes sense. It is just once you've played the TSN game for a while you realize that playing position doesn't mean much compared to TSN points, trades, and money. :)

I like the way I said "can can" in my post #148. What a dork I am. Waiting for Guru to add some music to this thread too....

151

smartone
ID: 29135714
Thu, Feb 07, 2002, 23:31

please review my idea in msg #2 at the other thread called "an idea for improvement for next year's TSN" (or something like this)

152

MyLakers
ID: 345282521
Fri, Feb 08, 2002, 00:18

I cant believe I havent seen this thread before. I really like the staggered gravity system from above that is tied to performance as well as buys. It has possibilities to even out the over/under priced players. No offense Guru, but I completely hate the commision idea, that one is near a deal breaker for me. The gains are a little to muted as most have said, I would enjoy seeing Tinsley at 5 or 6 million as well as Gasol. I enjoy this game very much and plan on staying, keep up the good work and thanks to the very intelligent folks who post here, someday I hope to catch up with you.

153

jumpball
Sustainer
ID: 33050298
Fri, Feb 08, 2002, 16:10

I found this information at the bottom of an injury report listing and it got me to thinking . . .

Note: The NBA Injury File is transmitted three times daily...On Monday through Friday between 12:00-1:00 p.m., 6:00-6:30 p.m. (et) and after all games are final, and on Saturday and Sunday between 10:30-11:00 a.m. (et) and after all games are final.

Thinking about the importance of trading based on injury reports, maybe next season TSN could set up roster freeze deadlines at 2PM on weekdays and NOON on Saturday and Sundays (and also on holidays and any other days when there might be an early game). In theory, that would give us at least an hour to read the injury reports and respond BEFORE the roster deadline (what a concept!).

154

Addicted
Sustainer
ID: 610441810
Fri, Feb 08, 2002, 18:56

I totally agree.
Move the freeze back to 2 or 3pm.
Or accept mail in roster changes

155

Memphis Fan
ID: 341015260
Fri, Feb 08, 2002, 20:45

Mail in would get too controversial. Someone could send in emails for teams that
werent theirs. Not to mention more work for TSN.. could get ugly =) hehe.

I like moving the freeze back to 2, but would this impede on their margin of error? Very
good suggestion if they will consider it.

156

Chris Eibling
ID: 51054300
Sat, Feb 09, 2002, 11:00

PLEASE move the Freeze to 2 PM Eastern Standard Time!

Thanks

Forum: hoopPage 6404Subject: TSN: How are we doing?

Forum: hoop
Page 6404
Subject: TSN: How are we doing?