Agree or disagree?
-
It’s closer to pay to play than before. Grinding doesn’t really get you anything especially in comparison to prior years when grinding could get you everything. I like some of the changes, the sheer amount of cards and the different programs that come out are cool. I don’t think there are “pay walls” because flipping makes it super easy to stack stubs and the set collections cards are some of the best in the game and available for free for the most part(at least the first of 3 ) if you complete all the programs and collect all the free cards available. I don’t enjoy flipping so I just do it here and there this year and I make enough that the only cards out of my budget are the chase cards. That’s fine I'm not buying show packs, if they can get other people to spend cash to buy stubs to buy show packs more power to them it’s a business they don’t have a responsibility to give everyone everything for free just because they did in the past.
-
Why buy anything when SDS makes its cards somewhat useless as time goes on? Reinforced not to buy for me
-
@Pergo_MLBTS said in Agree or disagree?:
There are so many free cards out there that are perfectly fine for being competitive in the game, so I don't see why anyone would be spending money at this point unless they just want to (which is fine to!).
Very true.
That said... I'd really like the "loaded" Mantle card, but won't be able to afford it this year. I think it was the LS Collection reward in 20, and maybe a TA reward in 21?
-
As always, SDS overcorrected, I don't think they are good at finding the middle ground
-
@fubar2k7_PSN said in Agree or disagree?:
Disagree. If you can’t win unless you have all 99 players then you probably shouldn’t be playing at all.
I feel attacked by this post.
-
@aaronjw76_PSN said in Agree or disagree?:
@fubar2k7_PSN said in Agree or disagree?:
Disagree. If you can’t win unless you have all 99 players then you probably shouldn’t be playing at all.
I feel attacked by this post.
Sometimes the truth be like that
-
@eatyum_PSN said in Agree or disagree?:
As always, SDS overcorrected, I don't think they are good at finding the middle ground
This is very much true, they do have a tendency to overcorrect.
Just a few other points. First the article is hardly even an article. It is a lazy piece where the writer simply found opinions on reddit and twitter and echoed them.
Next, while it is true that you don't have to buy anything and that there are plenty of useable cards that you can get by grinding, we can't underestimate the draw that peoples favorite team or players have on them.
In season 1 I ended buying Jim Edmonds, Jordan Walker, and Ozzie Smith. In season 2 I have purchased Stan Musial and Lou Brock. These were not purchased to "compete". They were purchased because I am an old man who has been rooting for the Cardinals longer than most of you have been alive (I was actually in the stands when Lou Brock broke the single season stolen base record). My only goal each year is to get the Cardinal players and play with them as much as possible. It is what I enjoy.
Luckily I have not needed to buy stubs yet (and I won't) but I also don't have many sellable cards left in my inventory to fund more Cardinal players as they release them in expensive packs or as rewards for online play.
-
@genopolanco_PSN said in Agree or disagree?:
I actually like this more “pay to win” structure. I think it’s a lot better than anyone being able to get any card by just putting in a few hours of grinding. It makes certain cards actually mean something to have and it makes people have to sacrifice to use certain cards. This is one of the few ways to actually get some lineup diversity for most people (the highly competitive will always use similar cards). I prefer this way much more than everyone getting a 99 Kluber or Kershaw day one and only competing because they were getting overpowered cards, free and easy.
My issue with content is this Set structure and having cards expire. That was only implemented to force people to spend more stubs. I won’t be convinced otherwise. If they left the Sets out of it, I would have no issue with how much cards cost.
Do you really feel like it’s increased lineup diversity, though?
Is that why I play against WBC Lindor every game since launch? And why I’ve faced Bob Gibson too many times to count?
I get it. The best players are going to get used the most.
These new changes were supposed to increase lineup diversity…but I’m not sure they have. I guess when Season 3 hits…we won’t see many Set 1 cards. But…we’all all just see the same Meta cards from Sets 2 and 3.
Why not find a way to increase lineup diversity without putting an expiration date on cards?
A capped mode would do that. Not in Ranked but for anyone else who wants to play a baseball video game where roster construction strategy actually matters and lineups aren’t just 13 5-tool 99s and 13 unhittable 99 pitchers.
-
@BrikMahorn_XBL said in Agree or disagree?:
@genopolanco_PSN said in Agree or disagree?:
I actually like this more “pay to win” structure. I think it’s a lot better than anyone being able to get any card by just putting in a few hours of grinding. It makes certain cards actually mean something to have and it makes people have to sacrifice to use certain cards. This is one of the few ways to actually get some lineup diversity for most people (the highly competitive will always use similar cards). I prefer this way much more than everyone getting a 99 Kluber or Kershaw day one and only competing because they were getting overpowered cards, free and easy.
My issue with content is this Set structure and having cards expire. That was only implemented to force people to spend more stubs. I won’t be convinced otherwise. If they left the Sets out of it, I would have no issue with how much cards cost.
Do you really feel like it’s increased lineup diversity, though?
Is that why I play against WBC Lindor every game since launch? And why I’ve faced Bob Gibson too many times to count?
I get it. The best players are going to get used the most.
These new changes were supposed to increase lineup diversity…but I’m not sure they have. I guess when Season 3 hits…we won’t see many Set 1 cards. But…we’all all just see the same Meta cards from Sets 2 and 3.
Why not find a way to increase lineup diversity without putting an expiration date on cards?
A capped mode would do that. Not in Ranked but for anyone else who wants to play a baseball video game where roster construction strategy actually matters and lineups aren’t just 13 5-tool 99s and 13 unhittable 99 pitchers.
There will never be that much lineup diversity in these games because people are sheep. Monkey see, monkey do. But I can say it was a lot worse when everyone was given guys like 99 JRam and 99 Kluber.
I don’t support the expiration of the cards though. I’ve been vocal about that since March. I’m just supporting the more pay to win system rather than everyone get any card they want for little to nothing.
-
@genopolanco_PSN said in Agree or disagree?:
@BrikMahorn_XBL said in Agree or disagree?:
@genopolanco_PSN said in Agree or disagree?:
I actually like this more “pay to win” structure. I think it’s a lot better than anyone being able to get any card by just putting in a few hours of grinding. It makes certain cards actually mean something to have and it makes people have to sacrifice to use certain cards. This is one of the few ways to actually get some lineup diversity for most people (the highly competitive will always use similar cards). I prefer this way much more than everyone getting a 99 Kluber or Kershaw day one and only competing because they were getting overpowered cards, free and easy.
My issue with content is this Set structure and having cards expire. That was only implemented to force people to spend more stubs. I won’t be convinced otherwise. If they left the Sets out of it, I would have no issue with how much cards cost.
Do you really feel like it’s increased lineup diversity, though?
Is that why I play against WBC Lindor every game since launch? And why I’ve faced Bob Gibson too many times to count?
I get it. The best players are going to get used the most.
These new changes were supposed to increase lineup diversity…but I’m not sure they have. I guess when Season 3 hits…we won’t see many Set 1 cards. But…we’all all just see the same Meta cards from Sets 2 and 3.
Why not find a way to increase lineup diversity without putting an expiration date on cards?
A capped mode would do that. Not in Ranked but for anyone else who wants to play a baseball video game where roster construction strategy actually matters and lineups aren’t just 13 5-tool 99s and 13 unhittable 99 pitchers.
There will never be that much lineup diversity in these games because people are sheep. Monkey see, monkey do. But I can say it was a lot worse when everyone was given guys like 99 JRam and 99 Kluber.
I don’t support the expiration of the cards though. I’ve been vocal about that since March. I’m just supporting the more pay to win system rather than everyone get any card they want for little to nothing.
I’m with you. The changes do fix “problems” that existed in previous years of DD.
But they fail to fix the bigger problem where 98% of cards are basically just binder fodder/filler.
A capped mode solves that issue and levels the playing field, while also allowing us to build teams around a certain play “style”.
Without restrictions, a meta forms and almost everyone feels forced to follow it. With a cap or restrictions you could actually try different rosters built around different styles.
Speed and defense. Power hitters and power pitchers. Ground ball pitchers with slick fielding infielders and maybe lots of contact hitters in a large home ballpark.
5 dominant starters. Or guys who can get you 5 solid innings and with a loaded bullpen. Or just your average everyday “balanced” team.
It brings a “Moneyball” aspect to building a DD roster for online play that doesn’t currently exist in the game.
-
I agree. I spend whatever time I have to play the game trying to keep my head above water now in order to ensure I have enough decent cards to play in the next season. It's sucked all the fun out of the mode for me. In years' past I could play the game at the pace my life allows and eventually get the cards I want and would be able to use them in ranked. This year, I know I won't get them in time before that set drops off the eligible list. So what's the point in even starting down the path? For someone who likes to play ranked seasons there's virtually no point in me touching the mode at all.
-
Speaking of Pay To Win, I found it interesting today to see Kevingohd do one of his stunt videos. He did a hot sauce challenge and then played an online game with an all common team going against Bob Gibson. He eventually lost but held his own. The score was 8-6 and he was only outhit 12-11
-
It’s hard to call this a “pay to win” structure unless you’re brand new to MLB:TS. We still have like 2.5 weeks left in this program and all the bosses are around 20K. Has that happened in recent memory? I certainly don’t remember bosses being this cheap.
The BR “no sell” thing really sucks, especially for those of us who don’t play online much. But the BR structure is doable even without being very good.
And if you do want to buy a card or finish a collection, it should be easier to have free stubs floating around this year — most notably because the LS feels super cheap. The most expensive LS card is, what 150K? It wasn’t that terribly long ago that trout was 400K and all 90+ diamonds were 200K until about September. But maybe there are more 90+ diamonds than usual. I still haven’t finished the LS because I have no need for any od this three top rewards. I’m sure I’ll get there around thanksgiving when all LS cards will be near QS value.
-
A admin locked this topic on
