Jump to content

Baseball Needs Some Tweaking


Clarke
 Share

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Cianuro said:

Why do you believe the winner should take the majority of the profits?

"I don't think you're understand hosting all that well" Didn't you say you only came to baseball 3 or 4 days ago?

Having a max team is *only required* to make max profits, but not everyone can *afford* to max their team. Some of us (like myself) just invest solely into our stadiums and play home games; some of us split the profits, some of us are leeches and the leeches are one of the problems we're dealing with.

To distribute the revenue more fairly and stop the problem we have now where only the host profits nicely, they still have to win the match mind you. 
Yeah I'm a faster learner, there's not much point hosting if you aren't after profits. You choose not to invest in your team, that is your problem. 

52 minutes ago, Codonian said:

Alex created baseball as a way for bigger nations to waste cash, I assume that's still his purpose for baseball. I don't think he cares if people stop playing baseball because the game could survive without it. 

I fear that people constantly asking him to implement x,y or z will just cause him to remove baseball outright. 

Someone said he makes revenue off the ads so he might care. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lightning said:

To distribute the revenue more fairly and stop the problem we have now where only the host profits nicely, they still have to win the match mind you. 
Yeah I'm a faster learner, there's not much point hosting if you aren't after profits. You choose not to invest in your team, that is your problem. 

That will not distribute the revenue more fairly, that will only give the people who can afford to dump 40 mil into their players a huge advantage which I would not call in any way, fair. By both the host, and the away team splitting the profits, both will earn a nice amount of cash. "...they still have to win the match mind you." Yes, because it's very hard for a 100 rating team to roflstomp a 10 rating team. Your idea would work if every team was on equal footing, but they're not, not everyone on pnw is capable of maxing their team and they should not be forced to in order to make any reasonable profit. I don't really care how fast of a learner you say you are, there are many other people in this discussion with a lot more experience in baseball so I do not think you should be so quick to shoot down their ideas. You chose to play baseball, don't like it? That's your problem bud.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Cianuro said:

That will not distribute the revenue more fairly, that will only give the people who can afford to dump 40 mil into their players a huge advantage which I would not call in any way, fair. By both the host, and the away team splitting the profits, both will earn a nice amount of cash. "...they still have to win the match mind you." Yes, because it's very hard for a 100 rating team to roflstomp a 10 rating team. Your idea would work if every team was on equal footing, but they're not, not everyone on pnw is capable of maxing their team and they should not be forced to in order to make any reasonable profit. I don't really care how fast of a learner you say you are, there are many other people in this discussion with a lot more experience in baseball so I do not think you should be so quick to shoot down their ideas. You chose to play baseball, don't like it? That's your problem bud.

It sounds like you only host games because there is no money to be made playing away games, you sound like you're one of these "leechers". If you aren't a leecher then you abuse baseball by playing with a friend so you make money faster. This change isn't going to affect you if you abuse the system, you can continue to abuse it. 

They all have the same idea that is two years old and is bad, yes I will shoot it down. 
I like it Baseball, my pockets are full. 

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lightning said:

It sounds like you only host games because there is no money to be made playing away games, you sound like you're one of these "leechers". If you aren't a leecher then you abuse baseball by playing with a friend so you make money faster. This change isn't going to affect you if you abuse the system, you can continue to abuse it. 

They all have the same idea that is two years old and is bad, yes I will shoot it down. 
I like it Baseball, my pockets are full. 

Make whatever assumptions you want about me, it does not tackle the problems we're facing. Whether I am a leecher or a farmer or a casual is irrelevant. If you're not going to at least try and compromise, then there's no helping you. I'm glad your pockets are full, glad you feel the need to brag about your virtual monies, congrats man.

  • Downvote 1
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cianuro said:

Make whatever assumptions you want about me, it does not tackle the problems we're facing. Whether I am a leecher or a farmer or a casual is irrelevant. If you're not going to at least try and compromise, then there's no helping you. I'm glad your pockets are full, glad you feel the need to brag about your virtual monies, congrats man.

I'm not bragging, you asked if I like Baseball and that was my answer. 
I'm full of compromise, don't forget you were the stubborn one wanting to embargo people and unwilling to compromise with my suggestions then you left saying you wouldn't reply again like a spoiled child. 

Edited by Lightning
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lightning said:

I'm not bragging, you asked if I like Baseball and that was my answer. 
I'm full of compromise, don't forget you were the stubborn one wanting to embargo people and unwilling to compromise with my suggestions then you left saying you wouldn't reply again like spoiled child. 

"My pockets are full" was irrelevant, you could have just said "I do like baseball" and been done with it. I don't believe I've been stubborn, maybe I have, but I've tried to take into account all the problems and all the solutions and comment on them with my ideas and suggestions. Even with your idea I was trying to compromise. You said you wanted winner takes 90% and I tried to meet you with winner takes 50 or 40% both of which you shot down, so please remind me again, whose being stubborn? Also if you're really curious why I did not want to reply again, it is as simple as this: You're boneheaded and hard to argue with.

  • Downvote 1
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cianuro said:

"My pockets are full" was irrelevant, you could have just said "I do like baseball" and been done with it. I don't believe I've been stubborn, maybe I have, but I've tried to take into account all the problems and all the solutions and comment on them with my ideas and suggestions. Even with your idea I was trying to compromise. You said you wanted winner takes 90% and I tried to meet you with winner takes 50 or 40% both of which you shot down, so please remind me again, whose being stubborn? Also if you're really curious why I did not want to reply again, it is as simple as this: You're boneheaded and hard to argue with.

No you weren't trying to compromise, you were set on embargoing as a solution. 
You only came to the table about compromising when someone else suggested giving the away team money, its like you were ignoring the OP and everything I was saying because you were set on embargoing people. 
Yeah I changed my stance from 90% of winnings to 70%/60%, I believe the person who wins the game should get the majority and 60% is a fair, the loser host still gets 40% if they lose or 90% if they win. 

Com'on you know the winner should get the majority, what that number is is up for debate. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lightning said:

Enabling people to restrict who they play with will just kill Baseball as more people will stop playing it because they can't find matches and make a profit and that means less revenue for Sheepy as well. That is not a good suggestion, it has being suggested for 2 years and it was still bad when it was first suggested. 
I know you guys have bias because you want to play in your own groups and not play any one else but there is a much better way of solving it is which giving the away team just as much revenue if they win their away match. Fixing the system is not hiding the problem as you suggest. 

That's a false narrative to claim that restricting who you play against will kill baseball.  You're quite able to send someone a message or DM on Discord to communicate on either 1.) tipping for him/her or 2.)  Discuss if you guys will switch from playing home/away games to make it fair to both parties.  You should come to an agreement either way if both parties are willing to be fair.  If someone isn't willing to work under those pretenses then you know they only care about themselves so you can eliminate their ability to play with you via an embargo which is completely warranted in that scenario.  

I believe that it is a complete stretch to say that people who play baseball will just embargo you to not play with you entirely especially if you're willing to work together to make it fair.  Actually, I would say that it would help players get to know people that they might not typically talk to if it wasn't for the baseball connection so in reality it actually adds value to the game.

You're using a broad brush to paint a picture over everyone that plays baseball.  I don't care who I play with as long as they're willing to work with me and be fair.  If they are only concerned with doing home games and never tipping/switching then I don't want to play baseball with that type of individual.  Plain and simple.  I would say a lot of baseball players feel similar to myself.
 

9 hours ago, Lightning said:

No he is not. His suggestion which is an old suggestion is bad and doesn't help grow the baseball community, it does the opposite. 

It has never been implemented before so how would you know what it will or will not do.  You're just theorizing which I admittedly am doing the same.
 

9 hours ago, Lightning said:

Baseball will remain tedious under my suggestions, no lazy people will get the same reward as people who spend hours playing baseball. 

My point was that it's currently fine how it is in regards to upgrading players, it's tedious but it's not meant to be fast either as Alex has already stated.  If you want to play baseball, understand that upgrading players is going to require some time investment.

  • Upvote 1

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lightning said:

No you weren't trying to compromise, you were set on embargoing as a solution. 
You only came to the table about compromising when someone else suggested giving the away team money, its like you were ignoring the OP and everything I was saying because you were set on embargoing people. 
Yeah I changed my stance from 90% of winnings to 70%/60%, I believe the person who wins the game should get the majority and 60% is a fair, the loser host still gets 40% if they lose or 90% if they win. 

Com'on you know the winner should get the majority, what that number is is up for debate. 

Compromise means to meet in the middle of the two options. These are the two options for the embargo argument: Yes embargo, no embargo. As you can see there is no middle there, none that I can think of anyway, but if you want to suggest one go ahead. Continuing on, you originally said the current system gives the host 96% of the profits, so your proposal was to give the winner 90% of the profits instead. Well in the middle of those two options (winner takes 4% and winner takes 90%), the middle ground would be 47%, but for the purpose of rounding, I suggested 40 or 50%. I thought that was a pretty reasonable compromise to be honest. I really do not believe the winner should get more profits, that only gives the rich an advantage over the poor and in my opinion, a person should not be discouraged from playing a game solely because their pockets are too small.

  • Downvote 1
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lightning said:

It sounds like you only host games because there is no money to be made playing away games, you sound like you're one of these "leechers". If you aren't a leecher then you abuse baseball by playing with a friend so you make money faster. This change isn't going to affect you if you abuse the system, you can continue to abuse it. 

They all have the same idea that is two years old and is bad, yes I will shoot it down. 
I like it Baseball, my pockets are full. 

Are you sure m8?

I think you've been leeching on my game from 3 days.While cianuro took a step forward and sent me tip without asking.

And playing with friend isn't abuse of system. You just arrived in baseball, play for some months and than tell me.           

you are lucky cause we are playing away.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Flavee said:

Are you sure m8?

I think you've been leeching on my game from 3 days.While cianuro took a step forward and sent me tip without asking.

And playing with friend isn't abuse of system. You just arrived in baseball, play for some months and than tell me.           

you are lucky cause we are playing away.

I said already we can come to an arrange but you chose you ignore me. I wouldn't say I'm lucky you're playing, you guys are the reason I started playing.

You played 49,000+ games of baseball, you're trying to tell us you aren't abusing baseball and your keyboard to make money?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lightning said:

You played 49,000+ games of baseball, you're trying to tell us you aren't abusing baseball and your keyboard to make money?

As long as he does the games manually (Which i'm pretty certain he does) he isn't abusing baseball at all, He's making the full use of the mechanics available to him.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I roughly started playing 3 days ago and all i see u do is leech off ppl . @Lightning So yeah it isnt perfect the embargo idea, but to avoid leechers like u, i think it would be a perfect solution

Edited by ivk
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seeker said:

That's a false narrative to claim that restricting who you play against will kill baseball.  You're quite able to send someone a message or DM on Discord to communicate on either 1.) tipping for him/her or 2.)  Discuss if you guys will switch from playing home/away games to make it fair to both parties.  You should come to an agreement either way if both parties are willing to be fair.  If someone isn't willing to work under those pretenses then you know they only care about themselves so you can eliminate their ability to play with you via an embargo which is completely warranted in that scenario.  

I believe that it is a complete stretch to say that people who play baseball will just embargo you to not play with you entirely especially if you're willing to work together to make it fair.  Actually, I would say that it would help players get to know people that they might not typically talk to if it wasn't for the baseball connection so in reality it actually adds value to the game.

You're using a broad brush to paint a picture over everyone that plays baseball.  I don't care who I play with as long as they're willing to work with me and be fair.  If they are only concerned with doing home games and never tipping/switching then I don't want to play baseball with that type of individual.  Plain and simple.  I would say a lot of baseball players feel similar to myself.

It has never been implemented before so how would you know what it will or will not do.  You're just theorizing which I admittedly am doing the same.

Yeah me and others who casually play baseball will probably quit or rarely play it if that was to happen. 
Yeah I would have to organize with alliance buddies and others about playing together but then its not really casual anymore. However embargoes aren't the way to go. 

 

3 hours ago, Seeker said:

My point was that it's currently fine how it is in regards to upgrading players, it's tedious but it's not meant to be fast either as Alex has already stated.  If you want to play baseball, understand that upgrading players is going to require some time investment.

Well I did it myself, 30 clicks is bad enough to upgrade a single player but 250 clicks to upgrade a single player to 100. It doesn't serve any purpose other than to discourage you from upgrading and make you fear when the player or players retire. Its just unnecessary. 

3 hours ago, Cianuro said:

Compromise means to meet in the middle of the two options. These are the two options for the embargo argument: Yes embargo, no embargo. As you can see there is no middle there, none that I can think of anyway, but if you want to suggest one go ahead. Continuing on, you originally said the current system gives the host 96% of the profits, so your proposal was to give the winner 90% of the profits instead. Well in the middle of those two options (winner takes 4% and winner takes 90%), the middle ground would be 47%, but for the purpose of rounding, I suggested 40 or 50%. I thought that was a pretty reasonable compromise to be honest. I really do not believe the winner should get more profits, that only gives the rich an advantage over the poor and in my opinion, a person should not be discouraged from playing a game solely because their pockets are too small.

We weren't here to debate the embargo suggestion and every time I told you its a bad idea I suggested a different solution which you ignored because you wouldn't compromise on the embargo issue, as in the embargo idea is bad and we need a different solution. 
This is competitive, life is competitive, the winner always gets the majority. How about the host that loses get 45% and the winner gets 55%. 

1 hour ago, Codonian said:

As long as he does the games manually (Which i'm pretty certain he does) he isn't abusing baseball at all, He's making the full use of the mechanics available to him.

That's different that would be cheating, one can abuse the system without cheating by making full use of the mechanics.

22 minutes ago, ivk said:

I roughly started playing 3 days ago and all i see u do is leech off ppl @Lightning

False, I split profits with everyone if they message me and if we come to a deal about cooperating. 

Edited by Lightning
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lightning said:

Yeah me and others who casually play baseball will probably quit or rarely play it if that was to happen. 
Yeah I would have to organize with alliance buddies and others about playing together but then its not really casual anymore. However embargoes aren't the way to go. 

 

12 minutes ago, Lightning said:

Well I did it myself, 30 clicks is bad enough to upgrade a single player but 250 clicks to upgrade a single player to 100. It doesn't serve any purpose other than to discourage you from upgrading and make you fear when the player or players retire. Its just unnecessary. 

Per Alex's to-do list, it is going to happen.  

You're essentially just complaining to complain at this point.

  • Upvote 2

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Seeker said:

 

Per Alex's to-do list, it is going to happen.  

You're essentially just complaining to complain at this point.

A change is going to happen but not with bad suggestions like embargoing. I'm here now to help. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lightning said:

A change is going to happen but not with bad suggestions like embargoing. I'm here now to help. 

A change is going to happen and Alex has said it's going to be the embargo change that was said earlier.  I don't know if I can make that any clearer.

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Seeker said:

A change is going to happen and Alex has said it's going to be the embargo change that was said earlier.  I don't know if I can make that any clearer.

I didn't know that but it doesn't make a difference. Its a bad change and I have a better change. 
It doesn't really matter if Alex listened to fools about implementing embargoing, I will sort this out and help him. 

Edited by Lightning
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lightning said:

I didn't know that but it doesn't make a difference. Its a bad change and I have a better change. 
It doesn't really matter if Alex listened to fools about implementing embargoing, I will sort this out and help him. 

Just because you don't like it doesn't discount it as being a good solution.

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Seeker said:

Just because you don't like it doesn't discount it as being a good solution.

Actually no its more complicated, baseball is a system and adding embargoing to that system is severely going to disrupt that system mainly by slowing down the rate at which games are played if people are embargoing others and removing their contact with other players. It would be like if your alliance had the option to remove itself from interactions with others, it disrupts the system. 
That is a bad change, anything that reduces war or in  this case games being played is a bad change. 
This change sounds like its coming soon enough, its fortunate I started Baseball when I did to help you guys out of a mess. If you had experience with systems you would see the problem. 

Edited by Lightning
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lightning said:

I didn't know that but it doesn't make a difference. Its a bad change and I have a better change. 
It doesn't really matter if Alex listened to fools about implementing embargoing, I will sort this out and help him. 

You don't need to help someone who created this game. Even if he hasn't played baseball he knows is better what's good and what's bad, just because some "fools" thinks it's bad doesn't mean he's gonna change everything for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Flavee said:

You don't need to help someone who created this game. Even if he hasn't played baseball he knows is better what's good and what's bad, just because some "fools" thinks it's bad doesn't mean he's gonna change everything for them.

I haven't been following the conversation and don't even know what you're talking about, but this is relevant. Just because he knows the code, doesn't mean he really knows how the code will work. Logic errors exist. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Lightning said:

Actually no its more complicated, baseball is a system and adding embargoing to that system is severely going to disrupt that system mainly by slowing down the rate at which games are played if people are embargoing others and removing their contact with other players. It would be like if your alliance had the option to remove itself from interactions with others, it disrupts the system. 
That is a bad change, anything that reduces war or in  this case games being played is a bad change. 
This change sounds like its coming soon enough, its fortunate I started Baseball when I did to help you guys out of a mess. If you had experience with systems you would see the problem. 

I think most can agree that facing less players whom are willing to cooperate and split profits, is way better than facing the same amount of players who don't share their profits. What's the point in playing against leeches if all you're going to make is a meager amount of cash? 

"This change sounds like its coming soon enough, its fortunate I started Baseball when I did to help you guys out of a mess. If you had experience with systems you would see the problem." Oh lordy, lordy, our messiah has arrived, thank Jesus we're being saved. 

  • Upvote 2
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2018 at 7:31 PM, Lightning said:

We weren't here to debate the embargo suggestion and every time I told you its a bad idea I suggested a different solution which you ignored because you wouldn't compromise on the embargo issue, as in the embargo idea is bad and we need a different solution. 
This is competitive, life is competitive, the winner always gets the majority. How about the host that loses get 45% and the winner gets 55%. 

That's different that would be cheating, one can abuse the system without cheating by making full use of the mechanics.

What do you mean we aren't here to debate the embargo solution? Anything that is a *suggestion* is up for debate and feedback, just because you want to denounce it entirely, doesn't mean I can't try to convince you, if you choose to not debate it, that's pure ignorance. Also I don't recall the "different solution" you're referring so please inform me again so I can account for it and maybe reconsider my previous statements regarding the team embargo. 

If for the sake of compromise, 45/55 will appease you, I will agree to those terms, although I still disagree that winner should take majority.

Abuse means to utilize something for anything other than its intended use. Baseball is intended to pass time while also creating a secondary source of income. If Flavee chooses to use his time playing baseball, that is still considered passing the time and within the grounds of its intended function. I would say that using a bot is both, cheating, and abuse; but not one nor the other.

  • Upvote 2
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My idea, Simply remove the Away/Home part of baseball.  Just have a single option to play baseball.  When you play baseball, it would make your team play the other team once in your home field, and once in their home field.  Winners still take some more for winning.  This would effectively be a built-in 50-50 system, also it would allow for everyone to play with everyone else without really getting salty about leeching.

 

This is just my simple idea, if you disagree, tell me what you would like to change.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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