25 Card Reprice Poll

This does not preclude a full set reprice at some point.

what's the urgency to reprice cards? r u worried about under-priced cards or over-priced cards? or i suggest doing it like the new card polls. nominate 50 cards for each category, i.e. both under and over-priced cards, run the poll voting for 10 days, select the top 25 and ties from each grouping. Strat could then reprice the cards and reenter them into the game. the result would be the same as adding 50+ new cards. i'm all in!!!

what's the urgency to reprice cards? r u worried about under-priced cards or over-priced cards? or i suggest doing it like the new card polls. nominate 50 cards for each category, i.e. both under and over-priced cards, run the poll voting for 10 days, select the top 25 and ties from each grouping. Strat could then reprice the cards and reenter them into the game. the result would be the same as adding 50+ new cards. i'm all in!!!

I agree. This cuts both ways.

WN

what's the urgency to reprice cards? r u worried about under-priced cards or over-priced cards? or i suggest doing it like the new card polls. nominate 50 cards for each category, i.e. both under and over-priced cards, run the poll voting for 10 days, select the top 25 and ties from each grouping. Strat could then reprice the cards and reenter them into the game. the result would be the same as adding 50+ new cards. i'm all in!!!

I agree. This cuts both ways.

WN

It's a small subset of extremely underpriced cards that need to be adjusted to improve the game at caps of 100m and under. The rest can wait for a full repricing of the entire set, in my opinion.

I believe there is a concern that repricing may hurt business. Many vet owners (who buys most of the credits) are mostly comfortable with the current salaries (although some players are over priced and some under priced) and would be slow joining new leagues. I maybe wrong but I believe SOM is concerned about it.

I believe there is a concern that repricing may hurt business. Many vet owners (who buys most of the credits) are mostly comfortable with the current salaries (although some players are over priced and some under priced) and would be slow joining new leagues. I maybe wrong but I believe SOM is concerned about it.

So in other words vets who take advantage of newbies won't play anymore because they will be on a more fair playing field.

I believe there is a concern that repricing may hurt business. Many vet owners (who buys most of the credits) are mostly comfortable with the current salaries (although some players are over priced and some under priced) and would be slow joining new leagues. I maybe wrong but I believe SOM is concerned about it.

I don't know that that's really true on either count ...

#1 - Does Strat think that deeply about anything?
#2 - It's the vets you reference that often are the ones complaining about the pricing in the first place.

If they do not address the pricing of cards that are not "E" there can never be fair pricing. My proposal would be to add 200K for every additional unbalanced factor a card has, so Gates Brown would cost 1.8 million more a 1R would cost 200K more than the basic factor would call for. It is the addition of unbalanced cards along with unbalanced ball parks that brings about inaccurate pricing. Joel Pinero is used because in a righty ballpark with a minimal lefty hits and BP homeruns his value soars. Put him in a 20-0 20 - 0 ballpark against an all lefty team and he has no value and instead Gil Heridia has huge value. Delete the ridiculousness of having strategic cheap options that perform in certain parks like pitchers priced at twice the value and charge the team for the cost.

Designing teams has just become a mathematical calculation you put on a sheet with known outcomes, over time everyone copies the innovator's success.

Charlie made the exact points of importance.
Look no pricing will be perfect--in fact, vet or not that is OK--because it is the values we create that is what we all seek in constructing a team (by analyzing and/or controlling the competitive environment the cards are used in).

There are some definite outliers like Pineiro...but there are many on the margin too.

It can never be perfect because the cards are created to reproduce the season, but if you pay top dollar for a player who excelled against right-handers and saw right-handers 75% of the time, but are in a league with 50% lefties, that card would likely underperform.

On the contrary, some of the best cards are the ones that are designed to reproduce a guy who was great overall but especially against, say lefties, but only saw maybe 15% lefties in real life. For a hitter, then that card may over perform in a typical 30/70 L/R pitcher ratio. Because he is getting more chances on his strong side, and the right side of the card compensates too much because of the lefty slant to his rolls.

I like finding those values. Gates Brown and Kal Daniels are super values if you can keep their righty ratio very high. Though this becomes less important at high caps where you can spend for specific matchups. But at a lower cap, the unseen consequence is when a Gates Brown is only playing half the time and sees more lefties than his card is designed for--that is dead money that could have been used elsewhere.

But no doubt there are some very over and under priced cards. Another approach is to flood the market with new cards.

One other thing--without the L/R slant to cards, let's say all were E--it would be a pretty boring game. It approaches the environment of a dice game of chance that has very little dynamic space for deltas in strategies or card values.