Jump to content
Lightning

Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

Recommended Posts

Tried out baseball today and its quite flawed, it could do with some simple tweaking.

The problem at the moment is that the player that plays just home games earns money way faster than the player that plays away games and this is bad for baseball. I believe tweak 1) below could help make baseball more fun for everyone. 
1) Winning team gets 90% of the revenue generated and the Losing Team gets 10% of the revenue generated

2) Tweak the way of upgrading players, its ridiculously tedious to get a player to 100 in all 3 attributes. It needs to be much less time consuming, there needs to be a $200,000 button to add points to the players attributes. 

3) Make the match winning prize a minimum of $3000, at moment its dreadfully low which doesn't help baseball and only incentives hosting home games. 

4) Add bonuses for streaks without losing a game, like a $30,000 bonus for 10 games without a defeat,  $50,000 bonus for 15 games without a defeat

5) Limit the number of games a nation can play in one hour/turn to 50/75/100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lightning said:

1) Winning team gets 90% of the revenue generated and the Losing Team gets 10% of the revenue generated

If you switch from the home/away payout system to a win/lose system new players will never play as they can not afford to upgrade their teams with the small amounts of money they would get.

 

4 hours ago, Lightning said:

2) Tweak the way of upgrading players, its ridiculously tedious to get a player to 100 in all 3 attributes. It needs to be much less time consuming, there needs to be a $200,000 button to add points to the players attributes. 

He has already stated that he won't change this as he wants the massive amounts of clicks required to upgrade players.

 

4 hours ago, Lightning said:

3) Make the match winning prize a minimum of $3000, at moment its dreadfully low which doesn't help baseball and only incentives hosting home games. 

While he could and probably should increase the payout for winning games the bigger problem is all the greedy selfish players that never play any away games or tip the people that do play large amounts of away games.

 

4 hours ago, Lightning said:

4) Add bonuses for streaks without losing a game, like a $30,000 bonus for 10 games without a defeat,  $50,000 bonus for 15 games without a defeat

You are not new so you should know just how terrible sheepy's RNG is.

 

4 hours ago, Lightning said:

5) Limit the number of games a nation can play in one hour/turn to 50/75/100

If he put a limit on how many games that a player could play per hour/turn, no one would ever upgrade their teams again as they would not be able to make any money playing.

Edited by Who Me
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Who Me said:

If you switch from the home/away payout system to a win/lose system new players will never play as they can not afford to upgrade their teams with the small amounts of money they would get.

Not exactly, a new player doesn't earn very much to begin with, if they get 10% of revenue that could be $1500 which from my experience is around what they make from hosting games and quite a few earn less than that. The best part of this is they get $1500 or so regardless of if they win,lose or host it 

30 minutes ago, Who Me said:

He has already stated that he won't change this as he wants the massive amounts of clicks required to upgrade players.

He may have stated that but I'm here now and I'm here to tell him it is ridiculous. It takes too much time to do something that doesn't actually benefit you that much. It could be just 30 clicks instead of ~225 clicks to get a player maxed. 

30 minutes ago, Who Me said:

While he could and probably should increase the payout for winning games the bigger problem is all the greedy selfish players that never play any away games or tip the people that do play large amounts of away games.

Its best to eliminate that problem I think by making it so the home game doesn't mean you profit more as I described in 1). 

30 minutes ago, Who Me said:

You are not new so you should know just how terrible sheepy's RNG is.

I'm very new to baseball but yes RNG is very unpredictable but it doesn't take away from this, ideally you won't be getting it every time and its just a small bonus. 

 

30 minutes ago, Who Me said:

If he put a limit on how many games that a player could play per hour/turn, no one would ever upgrade their teams again as they would not be able to make any money playing.

If with my points 1) through 4) are implemented it makes it fairer and everyone earns more money, with more money being earned and baseball being more fulfilling it needs to have limits or else it will be abused by nations. A max of 100 games an hour/turn is very fair, its still as profitable as it is now. You could easily play 600 games a day under that system. 

 

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should an established player that has spent the money to upgrade the quality and seating in their stadium split the profits they make with new players that haven't? They already get a lower payout because of the lower level of the new player. No one wants to work for anything any more, they just want everything handed to them without any effort on their part.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Who Me said:

Why should an established player that has spent the money to upgrade the quality and seating in their stadium split the profits they make with new players that haven't? They already get a lower payout because of the lower level of the new player. No one wants to work for anything any more, they just want everything handed to them without any effort on their part.

Weren't you just worried about new players not being able to make a buck?  The established people will still earn 90% of revenue most of time so its very fair.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not worried about new players making money playing baseball, it doesn't take much of an upgrade for them to be able to pull in 10K per home game. Unless I catch someone running a string of away games I play 2-3 times as many away games per day as I do home games and if I do catch someone doing a bunch of away games I usually send them a percentage of the winnings I make as do others so they do make money, sometimes quite a bit of money.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lightning said:

Tried out baseball today and its quite flawed, it could do with some simple tweaking.

The problem at the moment is that the player that plays just home games earns money way faster than the player that plays away games and this is bad for baseball. I believe tweak 1) below could help make baseball more fun for everyone. 
1) Winning team gets 90% of the revenue generated and the Losing Team gets 10% of the revenue generated

2) Tweak the way of upgrading players, its ridiculously tedious to get a player to 100 in all 3 attributes. It needs to be much less time consuming, there needs to be a $200,000 button to add points to the players attributes. 

3) Make the match winning prize a minimum of $3000, at moment its dreadfully low which doesn't help baseball and only incentives hosting home games. 

4) Add bonuses for streaks without losing a game, like a $30,000 bonus for 10 games without a defeat,  $50,000 bonus for 15 games without a defeat

5) Limit the number of games a nation can play in one hour/turn to 50/75/100

1) That's the incentive to win.

2) The point of Baseball is to give you something to do to kill time. Tediously clicking a button accomplishes that.

3) It doesn't need a minimum. I don't care if you never play baseball, it's an entirely optional part of the game to serve as something to do to kill time when you're bored.

4) Sounds like a ridiculous buff for nations with maxxed out baseball teams.

5) Why? The point of baseball is to give you something to do. You don't have anything more to do if it's suddenly limited and you hit the limit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winning or losing the baseball match is completely meaningless in terms of the revenue generated, or for that matter anything at all other than a meaningless stat. The vast majority of revenues comes from who hosts the games, which has resulted in a baseball environment filled with leeches that make baseball not really worth doing. This would totally be a casus belli, but even if we raided the leeches to the ground, that wouldn't actually stop them.

Suggestion: Our baseball teams should not be able to be matched with nations we've embargoed. Boom, embargo becomes meaningful and lets people have some measure of choice in who they baseball with. Fixes so many problems with baseball.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

 

Suggestion: Our baseball teams should not be able to be matched with nations we've embargoed. Boom, embargo becomes meaningful and lets people have some measure of choice in who they baseball with. Fixes so many problems with baseball.

I agree with this, we need something which can help us to block these nations.

Edited by Flavee
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Alex said:

1) That's the incentive to win.

Yes that's an incentive to win as it should, atm there is only an incentive to host games to make money. This also helps newer/smaller guys and encourages them to be more active and invest in baseball because they have a chance to win some decent money and still earn roughly the same as they do now even if they lose which is better than forcing them to host games to make money. Forcing players to host games to make money is why baseball isn't played by more I believed, as I speak right now there is currently 12 people hosting home games and no one playing away games, this is actively killing baseball for new baseball players.

9 hours ago, Alex said:

2) The point of Baseball is to give you something to do to kill time. Tediously clicking a button accomplishes that.

Baseball is tedious enough because it involves clicking buttons loads of times, it doesn't need to be even more tedious by making it take 2000+ clicks on a page you have to scroll down on to find the right button to press. This is a barrier for new players and casual players who would rather not spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to upgrade their team. 
We have 10 nations at a 100 team rating and by the time we get the number the #60 nation they have a rating of 12.77, that's an 83 point drop over 50 nations. That is a very clear sign baseball has serious issues, I believe both the lack of incentive to win and it being tedious to upgrade your team are the causes of this rapid drop in team ratings. 

9 hours ago, Alex said:

3) It doesn't need a minimum. I don't care if you never play baseball, it's an entirely optional part of the game to serve as something to do to kill time when you're bored. 

When people can earn loads playing baseball I don't think it would hurt to add a minimum to make baseball more competitive and get people invest in their teams to win some money. 
This entire game is an optional part of life to kill some time when you're bored, that doesn't mean you should neglect it. You bothered to add baseball to this game, its part of the game. 

 

9 hours ago, Alex said:

4) Sounds like a ridiculous buff for nations with maxxed out baseball teams.

Its optional for me, it just adds something else to the game but again when people can earn loads playing baseball I don't think its that big of a deal to add a wee bit extra. It also encourages newer players to invest and make their teams more competitive. 

9 hours ago, Alex said:

5) Why? The point of baseball is to give you something to do. You don't have anything more to do if it's suddenly limited and you hit the limit.

Yeah something to do for maybe 5 - 15 minutes every so often, not nearly every second of the day. Anything beyond that is just abuse. Make it 200 games a turn perhaps, just something to give people something to do without turning it into outright abuse. 

 

 

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lightning said:

Yes that's an incentive to win as it should, atm there is only an incentive to host games to make money. This also helps newer/smaller guys and encourages them to be more active and invest in baseball because they have a chance to win some decent money and still earn roughly the same as they do now even if they lose which is better than forcing them to host games to make money. Forcing players to host games to make money is why baseball isn't played by more I believed, as I speak right now there is currently 12 people hosting home games and no one playing away games, this is actively killing baseball for new baseball players.

Baseball is tedious enough because it involves clicking buttons loads of times, it doesn't need to be even more tedious by making it take 2000+ clicks on a page you have to scroll down on to find the right button to press. This is a barrier for new players and casual players who would rather not spend ridiculous amounts of time trying to upgrade their team. 
We have 10 nations at a 100 team rating and by the time we get the number the #60 nation they have a rating of 12.77, that's an 83 point drop over 50 nations. That is a very clear sign baseball has serious issues, I believe both the lack of incentive to win and it being tedious to upgrade your team are the causes of this rapid drop in team ratings. 

When people can earn loads playing baseball I don't think it would hurt to add a minimum to make baseball more competitive and get people invest in their teams to win some money. 
This entire game is an optional part of life to kill some time when you're bored, that doesn't mean you should neglect it. You bothered to add baseball to this game, its part of the game. 

 

Its optional for me, it just adds something else to the game but again when people can earn loads playing baseball I don't think its that big of a deal to add a wee bit extra. It also encourages newer players to invest and make their teams more competitive. 

Yeah something to do for maybe 5 - 15 minutes every so often, not nearly every second of the day. Anything beyond that is just abuse. Make it 200 games a turn perhaps, just something to give people something to do without turning it into outright abuse. 

 

 

You are just asking to make baseball easy so everyone can play it and earn more money... Well it's totally fine with it's current mechanism and i don't think no one would like any more changes in baseball except "Preventing baseball matches against nations you have embargoed".

And it's totally optional, you want to play fine, You don't want to play still fine.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flavee said:

You are just asking to make baseball easy so everyone can play it and earn more money... Well it's totally fine with it's current mechanism and i don't think no one would like any more changes in baseball except "Preventing baseball matches against nations you have embargoed".

And it's totally optional, you want to play fine, You don't want to play still fine.

I wouldn't say easier, this idea is to make Baseball more accessible and enjoyable for current and new people. Its not fine if you're forced to host matches to make money. 

Quote

"Preventing baseball matches against nations you have embargoed"

That will only hurt baseball more.

Quote

1) Winning team gets 90% of the revenue generated and the Losing Team gets 10% of the revenue generated

This change above is much better and will solve that problem more smoothly without killing baseball. 

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Lightning said:

That will only hurt baseball more.

Hurt Baseball, do you really think that?

Would you like if one player is doing strictly away games for someone and everyone else are doing home games. By never doing away games or sending a tip the player doing only home games is leeching off the player doing away games.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Flavee said:

Hurt Baseball, do you really think that?

Would you like if one player is doing strictly away games for someone and everyone else are doing home games. By never doing away games or sending a tip the player doing only home games is leeching off the player doing away games.

Yeah it will hurt it because if people embargo people they don't like it might make it almost impossible to find baseball games for people thus lowering the number of people playing baseball.
I think it should be changed to "1) Winning team gets 90% of the revenue generated and the Losing Team gets 10% of the revenue generated", this will completely solve the problem with people only doing home games which is the problem you have. 

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lightning said:

Yeah it will hurt it because if people embargo people they don't like it might make it almost impossible to find baseball games for people thus lowering the number of people playing baseball.

Unfortunately that's the plan and I believe this will bring a major change in baseball, this will make baseball a better game. People will eventually start giving out tips and never steal Play away game.

And I believe if everyone gets a chance to play with someone they want they'll spend more time in baseball.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Flavee said:

Unfortunately that's the plan and I believe this will bring a major change in baseball, this will make baseball a better game. People will eventually start giving out tips and never steal Play away game.

And I believe if everyone gets a chance to play with someone they want they'll spend more time in baseball.

Sure that's an idea a lot of you have but its not very good and I'm here to give better solutions. 
I checked beforehand, most of the threads suggesting ideas including the one you have weren't very good and got no response. 

Edited by Lightning
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lightning said:

Baseball is tedious enough because it involves clicking buttons loads of times, it doesn't need to be even more tedious by making it take 2000+ clicks on a page you have to scroll down on to find the right button to press.

Zoom out the tab/page until you don't have to scroll to click the buttons.

 

7 hours ago, Lightning said:

Yeah something to do for maybe 5 - 15 minutes every so often, not nearly every second of the day. Anything beyond that is just abuse. Make it 200 games a turn perhaps, just something to give people something to do without turning it into outright abuse. 

How is this any different from people that play on the trade markets all day? Do you want to limit the number of trades people can make as well?

 

4 hours ago, Lightning said:

I wouldn't say easier, this idea is to make Baseball more accessible and enjoyable for current and new people. Its not fine if you're forced to host matches to make money. 

You are not forced to play home games, that is a choice. If you only sit there and wait for someone esle to play an away game that is totally on you.

 

4 hours ago, Lightning said:

That will only hurt baseball more.

Not really, there are several high level teams that do nothing but play home games and never give anything back. They hurt the game more by not playing away games because it makes the people that do play away games stop playing to avoid them.

You say that you are new to playing baseball so you don't know all the different ways we have tried to make it fair to all who play. Where we are now is a tip system where the people that play home games send the people that play away games a percentage of their winnings. Unfortunately there are still a lot of people that just play all home games and never send any tips. These people hurt baseball more than anything else as they just take and never give anything back.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lightning said:

I wouldn't say easier, this idea is to make Baseball more accessible and enjoyable for current and new people. Its not fine if you're forced to host matches to make money. 

That will only hurt baseball more.

This change above is much better and will solve that problem more smoothly without killing baseball. 

"I wouldn't say easier, this idea is to make Baseball more accessible and enjoyable for current and new people." 

*1) Winning team gets 90% of the revenue generated and the Losing Team gets 10% of the revenue generated*

"This change above is much better and will solve that problem more smoothly without killing baseball."

So basically, let all the wealthy nations that can afford to dump 40 mil into their team take 90% of the profit from the not-so wealthy nations that can only dump maybe 5 or 10 mil into their stadium/team; this will totally make baseball more accessible and enjoyable for the newer nations coming in I'm sure.

Nations that can only afford to put a few mil into their teams will never win home, nor away games and will only cause them to forfeit 90% of their profits, 99% of the time. Sounds like a terrific idea.

However, I completely agree that nations should be able to prevent their team from playing another specified nation through embargo.

Edited by Cianuro
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Cianuro said:

"I wouldn't say easier, this idea is to make Baseball more accessible and enjoyable for current and new people." 

*1) Winning team gets 90% of the revenue generated and the Losing Team gets 10% of the revenue generated*

"This change above is much better and will solve that problem more smoothly without killing baseball."

So basically, let all the wealthy nations that can afford to dump 40 mil into their team take 90% of the profit from the not-so wealthy nations that can only dump maybe 5 or 10 mil into their stadium/team; this will totally make baseball more accessible and enjoyable for the newer nations coming in I'm sure.

Nations that can only afford to put a few mil into their teams will never win home, nor away games and will only cause them to forfeit 90% of their profits, 99% of the time. Sounds like a terrific idea.

However, I completely agree that nations should be able to prevent their team from playing another specified nation through embargo.

Well at the minute the nation that dumps 40 million money into their nation takes ~96% or more of the profits so yeah that is more fair and allows the new nation a chance to win 90% which could be $20,000 which is great for them and gives them incentive to invest into their team to win more often.

Yes they do win home and away games, I lost plenty of times to teams where only 4 players on their baseball team were maxed out. The point however is this change is better than the current system as it completely eliminates the problem with the host earning all the money and it helps smaller nation by giving them a sizable chunk (10% which could equate to $1500 - $2000) which more than what a lot make from my experience but it also gives them a chance to earn ~$20,000 if they win. 

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lightning said:

Well at the minute the nation that dumps 40 million money into their nation takes ~96% or more of the profits so yeah that is more fair and allows the new nation a chance to win 90% which could be $20,000 which is great for them and gives them incentive to invest into their team to win more often.

Yes they do win home and away games, I lost plenty of times to teams where only 4 players on their baseball team were maxed out. The point however is this change is better than the current system as it completely eliminates the problem with the host earning all the money and it helps smaller nation by giving them a sizable chunk (10% which could equate to $1500 - $2000) which more than what a lot make from my experience but it also gives them a chance to earn ~$20,000 if they win. 

I don't know where you pulled this 96% from, but it's false. Your suggestion states that the winning nation should take 90% of what the host's stadium generates. Smaller, less wealthy nations such as myself only play home games because we are, well, poor. Baseball is a reliable source of income for me as long as I dedicate the proper time to it. I make about $7,000 per game after investing $9,000,000 into my stadium and a minor amount to my players. I do not want to forfeit 90% of my $7,000 just because my opponent spent 30 mil more than myself into his/her players. You say that $20,000 is a good amount, but the chances an 8 rating team beats a 100 or even 50 rating team is extremely low. $20,000 does not nearly equate to the current amounts I make from baseball, currently by spamming home games I can make 400k in 10 minutes and that's after the fact that I give some of my profits to the away team. I'll use Flavee as an example, me and him played for about 10 minutes (120 games total), I hosted and made 700k total profits, I sent him 300k for his participation, meaning I came away with 400k. 400k is a way larger number than the mere 20k you're proposing the losing nation should receive. I like almost everything about the system as it stands, except I would like the previously mentioned 'team embargo' to be implemented to prevent absolute leeching.

Edited by Cianuro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cianuro said:

I don't know where you pulled this 96% from, but it's false. Your suggestion states that the winning nation should take 90% of what the host's stadium generates. Smaller, less wealthy nations such as myself only play home games because we are, well, poor. Baseball is a reliable source of income for me as long as I dedicate the proper time to it. I make about $7,000 per game after investing $9,000,000 into my stadium and a minor amount to my players. I do not want to forfeit 90% of my $7,000 just because my opponent spent 30 mil more than myself into his/her players. You say that $20,000 is a good amount, but the chances an 8 rating team beats a 100 or even 50 rating team is extremely low. $20,000 does not nearly equate to the current amounts I make from baseball, currently by spamming home games I can make 400k in 10 minutes and that's after the fact that I give some of my profits to the away team. I'll use Flavee as an example, me and him played for about 10 minutes (120 games total), I hosted and made 700k total profits, I sent him 300k for his participation, meaning I came away with 400k. 400k is a way larger number than the mere 20k you're proposing the losing nation should receive. I like almost everything about the system as it stands, except I would like the previously mentioned 'team embargo' to be implemented to prevent absolute leeching.

Its not false, its based off my revenue. I make 16K+ on matches and winning prize is $840 which I win most of the time means my revenue percentage is >97.5%. 
Baseball is more unpredictable than you think, I lose quite often to small nations. I sent out challenges to a hundred nations and quite a lot smaller than me won the match.

An 8 rating team didn't invest all that much but they still can make good money for the amount they invested. 20k per a match, not in the full ten minutes. 

For example if you and me were to play each other 120 times you would win probably 20 of those matches at least which would give you $400,000 just from the matches you won and $240,000 from the matches you lost which would mean you' would be better off than you're now. 

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lightning said:

Its not false, its based off my revenue. I make 16K+ on matches and winning prize is $840 which I win most of the time means my revenue percentage is >97.5%. 
Baseball is more unpredictable than you think, I lose quite often to small nations. I sent out challenges to a hundred nations and quite a lot smaller than me won the match.

An 8 rating team didn't invest all that much but they still can make good money for the amount they invested. 20k per a match, not in the full ten minutes. 

That number is based off your revenue and does not apply to each team. Also, baseball is not all that unpredictable; an 8 rating nation vs a 100 rating has probability play heavily out of their favor, raising the chances that they lose by a lot more. In one instance, it took my 8 rating team 36 games to win a single game against a 100 rating team. It's not impossible for an 8 rating team to win against a maxed team, but it's highly unlikely. Your suggestion would make the game extremely unfair towards players without the millions of dollars required to max out baseball. My suggestion is: raise the winnings amount and make it scale with the rating of the winning team; like if an 8 rating team beat a 100 rating team they should get $5,000 whereas if a 100 rating team beat an 8 rating team, they should only get $2,500. Then on top of this, add the 'team embargo' system so maxed out teams do not need to face against non-maxed ones.

Edited by Cianuro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cianuro said:

That number is based off your revenue and does not apply to each team. Also, baseball is not all that unpredictable; an 8 rating nation vs a 100 rating has probability play heavily out of their favor, raising the chances that they lose by a lot more. In one instance, it took my 8 rating team 36 games to win a single game against a 100 rating team. It's not impossible for an 8 rating team to win against a maxed team, but it's highly unlikely. Your suggestion would make the game extremely unfair towards players without the millions of dollars required to max out baseball. My suggestion is: raise the winnings amount and make it scale with the rating of the winning team; like if an 8 rating team beat a 100 rating team they should get $5,000 whereas if a 100 rating team beat an 8 rating team, they should only get $2,500. Then on top of this, add the 'team embargo' system so maxed out teams do not need to face against non-maxed ones.

To fair you don't deserve to win that much because you don't invest in your team, you're part of the problem. Yeah there's no evidence of that 36 losing game streak so get some evidence. 

"Team embargo"? That would give maxed teams pretty much no one to play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lightning said:

To fair you don't deserve to win that much because you don't invest in your team, you're part of the problem. Yeah there's no evidence of that 36 losing game streak so get some evidence. 

"Team embargo"? That would give maxed teams pretty much no one to play. 

You don't deserve to win a bigger amount for overcoming the odds against you? Okie den. I guess I am part of the problem *shrugs*. I'm not going to go out of my way to get you evidence, I don't really care all that much to post it, since I'm guessing it will little impact your opinion (if at all).

""Team embargo"? That would give maxed teams pretty much no one to play." Wrong. Maxed teams would vs. each other much like many of them do now.

The only reason you do not want the team embargo to be added is because your set on this winner takes 90% of the earnings idea, and that if this got implemented your 100 rating team would have to vs other 100 rating teams which would lower the number of times you would win.

Edited by Cianuro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Who Me said:

Zoom out the tab/page until you don't have to scroll to click the buttons.

That isn't much better making the buttons smaller and is worst for the health of your eyes. 

3 hours ago, Who Me said:

How is this any different from people that play on the trade markets all day? Do you want to limit the number of trades people can make as well?

That suggestion is only to balance out the changes I suggested that give nations more revenue, 200 games per a turn is still quite a lot and 99% of people won't get near that limit. You don't need to lecture me about global market manipulators lol.. Placentia ;)

3 hours ago, Who Me said:

You are not forced to play home games, that is a choice. If you only sit there and wait for someone esle to play an away game that is totally on you.

I'm forced to play home games to make money, I would make next to nothing playing away games. It may be a choice but so is being poor and I wouldn't recommend someone to choose being poor over being wealthy. 

3 hours ago, Who Me said:

Not really, there are several high level teams that do nothing but play home games and never give anything back. They hurt the game more by not playing away games because it makes the people that do play away games stop playing to avoid them.

You say that you are new to playing baseball so you don't know all the different ways we have tried to make it fair to all who play. Where we are now is a tip system where the people that play home games send the people that play away games a percentage of their winnings. Unfortunately there are still a lot of people that just play all home games and never send any tips. These people hurt baseball more than anything else as they just take and never give anything back.

  Yeah its going to drive those players and others away from Baseball because they will have trouble finding matches and making money, less players is bad. Instead the system needs to change to make it fairer for the nation that plays away games so there won't be an issue with people only hosting matches, they will be encouraged to play away games. 

I looked at the forums history and read many posts on suggestions for baseball so I know all that I need to know, embargoing nations has being mentioned for the past 2 years and I can only assume it hasn't being implemented because Sheepy knows it is dumb and will hurt Baseball. 
The problem isn't the players, it is the system under which they interact. Those players don't hurt Baseball, the system hurts Baseball. 

10 minutes ago, Cianuro said:

You don't deserve to win a bigger amount for overcoming the odds against you? Okie den. I guess I am part of the problem *shrugs*. I'm not going to go out of my way to get you evidence, I don't really care all that much to post it, since I'm guessing it will little impact your opinion (if at all).

""Team embargo"? That would give maxed teams pretty much no one to play." Wrong. Maxed teams would vs. each other much like many of them do now.

The only reason you do not want the team embargo to be added is because your set on this winner takes 90% of the earnings idea, and that if this got implemented your 100 rating team would have to vs other 100 rating teams which would lower the number of times you would win.

You don't deserve to win for neglecting your team. It will make me tweak it to make it fairer if you have evidence. 
The problem is there is very few max teams so they won't be playing many matches against each other unless they organize it which is a terrible idea. I would still make a lovely profit if I was to play 200 games a day against max teams but the problem is it would be difficult to play 200 games against so few teams. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.