WS Rewards

SDS

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

Alright, fine. I guess I’m on my own with this one.

I still feel like it is unjust that making WS early in the cycle isn’t as rewarding as making it later.

And for the record, I thought the WS rewards were whack when they came out back then. I spoke against Britton and Pierre; I thought then and still believe that they were slaps in the face to the community.

But I guess I’m the only one. It’s okay. I’m used to having unpopular opinions. Haha.

Good luck, everyone!

What's wrong about Britton? He's a really good card.

SDS

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

I will say, though, that if everyone knew you could trade your 91 WS reward for a 99 a few months later, they wouldn’t be selling it for 30k, Dingers. In fact, it would ensure that WS rewards from the early season maintained their value, which sort of at the heart of my argument here.

Obviously, which makes it completely unfair and stupid.

SDS

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

Oh. Then what is he talking about?

But I wonder, how cheap is the cheapest WS reward in the market right now?

And pierre was selling for dirt before the trout collection shot up his value. That's what I was referencing about for the 30k pierre, because people could have stacked him then, and just waited until later to exchange for a 1 mil coin card.

SDS

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

That’s how people stash stubs, isn’t it? Put in buy orders for cards that aren’t moving?

No, not on a card like that where there are only 11 buy orders at 1m. Chances are super high of getting that card. If people wanted to stash stubs they'd pick Chipper or something.

And even then, that's irrelevant to the actual conversation. There are orders there and you can click a button and sell him instantly for 1m, he sells for 1m

I’d like to know when was the last time those cards actually sold. I thought you used to be able to see that online but I can’t find it anymore.

But what they did to inflate the value of those cards, of course, is to make them needed for Trout, then not release very many more Veteran or Prime Series cards. So they made the series rare.

So with this market manipulation and others, like the 1M cap, it is hard to measure what a particular card is actually worth. Chipper would very well sell for far more than 1M if they allowed it. As would Sale or Mays. So the fact that Pierre has orders for 750k, which is only 250k less than Mays, is only because they capped Mays.

Without the cap, would Pierre be within 250k of Mays? We may never know....

Anyway, I’m gonna get a shirt made that says:

“I made WS once and all I got was Juan Pierre, a Nameplate, and this stupid T-Shirt.”

Haha. But alright you guys. Fun discussion. I’m over it now.

SDS

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

That’s how people stash stubs, isn’t it? Put in buy orders for cards that aren’t moving?

No, not on a card like that where there are only 11 buy orders at 1m. Chances are super high of getting that card. If people wanted to stash stubs they'd pick Chipper or something.

And even then, that's irrelevant to the actual conversation. There are orders there and you can click a button and sell him instantly for 1m, he sells for 1m

I’d like to know when was the last time those cards actually sold. I thought you used to be able to see that online but I can’t find it anymore.

But what they did to inflate the value of those cards, of course, is to make them needed for Trout, then not release very many more Veteran or Prime Series cards. So they made the series rare.

So with this market manipulation and others, like the 1M cap, it is hard to measure what a particular card is actually worth. Chipper would very well sell for far more than 1M if they allowed it. As would Sale or Mays. So the fact that Pierre has orders for 750k, which is only 250k less than Mays, is only because they capped Mays.

Without the cap, would Pierre be within 250k of Mays? We may never know....

Anyway, I’m gonna get a shirt made that says:

“I made WS once and all I got was Juan Pierre, a Nameplate, and this stupid T-Shirt.”

Haha. But alright you guys. Fun discussion. I’m over it now.

We may never know because of the cap, but again that's not relevant to the conversation because there is a cap and the early WS rewards do sell for that much. Doesn't matter how it's achieved.

SDS

I don’t know you keep saying something is irrelevant. Just because something IS, and is verifiable, such as what a card can sell for (but won’t), doesn’t mean that discussing the way things could be is irrelevant. I mean, what are we doing here? Talking about what I’d like to see changed, and other people are talking about why they don’t want it to change.

People talk on here all the time about the way pitches shouldn’t hang. But pitches do hang. Does that make saying that they shouldn’t irrelevant?

I’m just confused by the way you’re dismissing hypothetical scenarios as irrelevant, when every conversation about how people wish the game was different in any number of ways could be called “irrelevant,” too.

And if you feel that any conversation about proposed changes is irrelevant, then, okay. That’s your feeling on it. Doesn’t seem worth it to engage, though.

SDS

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

I disagree,

Sure you do get Mantle/Biggio/Sheffield day one, but I don't think that means "Ok just open it up to more end-game players" It opens up a very slippery slope that could ruin probably the most fun time in the game, the time when we all don't have god squads and are running different teams.

Why don't we make 99 players the innings programs right away because you can get Sheffield/Biggio/Mantle day one! Some people may not be around to complete other innings programs later in the year!

Why don't we make event rewards end game players? You can get Mantle/Sheffield/Biggio day one, and some people may not have the time to play events later!

I love the early game when there are very few end-game players, we don't need more and more creeping closer to release day.

Couldn’t agree more. I would love it if they totally changed the rating system and there were only like 1 99 rated card per position. It would create much more lineup diversity.

SDS

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

I don’t know you keep saying something is irrelevant. Just because something IS, and is verifiable, such as what a card can sell for (but won’t), doesn’t mean that discussing the way things could be is irrelevant. I mean, what are we doing here? Talking about what I’d like to see changed, and other people are talking about why they don’t want it to change.

People talk on here all the time about the way pitches shouldn’t hang. But pitches do hang. Does that make saying that they shouldn’t irrelevant?

I’m just confused by the way you’re dismissing hypothetical scenarios as irrelevant, when every conversation about how people wish the game was different in any number of ways could be called “irrelevant,” too.

And if you feel that any conversation about proposed changes is irrelevant, then, okay. That’s your feeling on it. Doesn’t seem worth it to engage, though.

My point is you were holding to this point that first: no one would buy at that price and I showed that you can instantly get 1m because there are people waiting in line to buy it for 1m. Then you went off about how cards could be higher if there wasnt a cap, which still doesn't invalidate any of my points
The fact of the matter is that the early ones sell for as much as the later ones. No hypothetical situation changes that current fact.

SDS

@mrwonderful95 said in WS Rewards:

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

I disagree,

Sure you do get Mantle/Biggio/Sheffield day one, but I don't think that means "Ok just open it up to more end-game players" It opens up a very slippery slope that could ruin probably the most fun time in the game, the time when we all don't have god squads and are running different teams.

Why don't we make 99 players the innings programs right away because you can get Sheffield/Biggio/Mantle day one! Some people may not be around to complete other innings programs later in the year!

Why don't we make event rewards end game players? You can get Mantle/Sheffield/Biggio day one, and some people may not have the time to play events later!

I love the early game when there are very few end-game players, we don't need more and more creeping closer to release day.

Couldn’t agree more. I would love it if they totally changed the rating system and there were only like 1 99 rated card per position. It would create much more lineup diversity.

it actually wouldn't, it would kill it
We saw it with immortals in 18. Making only a few cards at each position 99's leads to everyone having the same lineup.

SDS

Why not just make World Series later in the year? Problem solved

SDS

Don't have to worry about it if you don't make world series!

This guy does not have to worry about it!

SDS

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

I doubt anyone is buying them, though. Why would anyone buy 91 Hornsby for 1M?

There are quite a few card collectors in this game. With the absurd abundance of stubs this year people are obviously willing to pay 1M for most of the WS rewards at this point in the season even a 91 Hornsby.

SDS

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

I don’t know you keep saying something is irrelevant. Just because something IS, and is verifiable, such as what a card can sell for (but won’t), doesn’t mean that discussing the way things could be is irrelevant. I mean, what are we doing here? Talking about what I’d like to see changed, and other people are talking about why they don’t want it to change.

People talk on here all the time about the way pitches shouldn’t hang. But pitches do hang. Does that make saying that they shouldn’t irrelevant?

I’m just confused by the way you’re dismissing hypothetical scenarios as irrelevant, when every conversation about how people wish the game was different in any number of ways could be called “irrelevant,” too.

And if you feel that any conversation about proposed changes is irrelevant, then, okay. That’s your feeling on it. Doesn’t seem worth it to engage, though.

My point is you were holding to this point that first: no one would buy at that price and I showed that you can instantly get 1m because there are people waiting in line to buy it for 1m. Then you went off about how cards could be higher if there wasnt a cap, which still doesn't invalidate any of my points
The fact of the matter is that the early ones sell for as much as the later ones. No hypothetical situation changes that current fact.

Not really, though. You showed that the card was priced at that much, but not that someone bought it at that much.

What someone pays for something determines its value, not what price the seller sets.

If someone makes WS now, and they have every WS reward that they want, they aren’t picking 91 Pierre and selling him because he isn’t worth as much as other WS rewards.

Pierre is 780k or so, meaning the seller gets 700. With the others they get 900. Pierre isn’t being used in-game and he isn’t being bought at 780k.

SDS

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

I don’t know you keep saying something is irrelevant. Just because something IS, and is verifiable, such as what a card can sell for (but won’t), doesn’t mean that discussing the way things could be is irrelevant. I mean, what are we doing here? Talking about what I’d like to see changed, and other people are talking about why they don’t want it to change.

People talk on here all the time about the way pitches shouldn’t hang. But pitches do hang. Does that make saying that they shouldn’t irrelevant?

I’m just confused by the way you’re dismissing hypothetical scenarios as irrelevant, when every conversation about how people wish the game was different in any number of ways could be called “irrelevant,” too.

And if you feel that any conversation about proposed changes is irrelevant, then, okay. That’s your feeling on it. Doesn’t seem worth it to engage, though.

My point is you were holding to this point that first: no one would buy at that price and I showed that you can instantly get 1m because there are people waiting in line to buy it for 1m. Then you went off about how cards could be higher if there wasnt a cap, which still doesn't invalidate any of my points
The fact of the matter is that the early ones sell for as much as the later ones. No hypothetical situation changes that current fact.

Not really, though. You showed that the card was priced at that much, but not that someone bought it at that much.

What someone pays for something determines its value, not what price the seller sets.

If someone makes WS now, and they have every WS reward that they want, they aren’t picking 91 Pierre and selling him because he isn’t worth as much as other WS rewards.

Pierre is 780k or so, meaning the seller gets 700. With the others they get 900. Pierre isn’t being used in-game and he isn’t being bought at 780k.

I don't think you are getting this, the seller isn't setting a price, the buyer is in this case. There are people who put in orders to BUY it at 1m, not sell it at 1m. You can sell Hornsby for 1m instantly without waiting because there are people lining up to PAY that.

People have orders to BUY Juan Pierre at 800k, not sell. You can get that instantly without waiting
In fact, someone sold him for 1m yesterday, not listed, SOLD

The 91 Hornsby has sold for 1m twice today. Not listed, sold

Those orders you see are not people listing their Juan Pierre for sale, those are people putting in orders to BUY him. They DO sell at that price

SDS

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

I don’t know you keep saying something is irrelevant. Just because something IS, and is verifiable, such as what a card can sell for (but won’t), doesn’t mean that discussing the way things could be is irrelevant. I mean, what are we doing here? Talking about what I’d like to see changed, and other people are talking about why they don’t want it to change.

People talk on here all the time about the way pitches shouldn’t hang. But pitches do hang. Does that make saying that they shouldn’t irrelevant?

I’m just confused by the way you’re dismissing hypothetical scenarios as irrelevant, when every conversation about how people wish the game was different in any number of ways could be called “irrelevant,” too.

And if you feel that any conversation about proposed changes is irrelevant, then, okay. That’s your feeling on it. Doesn’t seem worth it to engage, though.

My point is you were holding to this point that first: no one would buy at that price and I showed that you can instantly get 1m because there are people waiting in line to buy it for 1m. Then you went off about how cards could be higher if there wasnt a cap, which still doesn't invalidate any of my points
The fact of the matter is that the early ones sell for as much as the later ones. No hypothetical situation changes that current fact.

Not really, though. You showed that the card was priced at that much, but not that someone bought it at that much.

What someone pays for something determines its value, not what price the seller sets.

If someone makes WS now, and they have every WS reward that they want, they aren’t picking 91 Pierre and selling him because he isn’t worth as much as other WS rewards.

Pierre is 780k or so, meaning the seller gets 700. With the others they get 900. Pierre isn’t being used in-game and he isn’t being bought at 780k.

I don't think you are getting this, the seller isn't setting a price, the buyer is in this case. There are people who put in orders to BUY it at 1m, not sell it at 1m. You can sell Hornsby for 1m instantly without waiting because there are people lining up to PAY that.

People have orders to BUY Juan Pierre at 800k, not sell. You can get that instantly without waiting
In fact, someone sold him for 1m yesterday, not listed, SOLD

The 91 Hornsby has sold for 1m twice today. Not listed, sold

Those orders you see are not people listing their Juan Pierre for sale, those are people putting in orders to BUY him. They DO sell at that price

No I get it. I’m saying the early WS rewards aren’t as good as good as more recent ones. You’re saying they are because they occasionally sell for 1M.

I know when I looked at Pierre earlier, he had a couple buy orders for over 700k, but then the orders dropped off significantly. In fact, there was a 50k order visible.

Meanwhile I looked at Rickey, and he had 93 orders for 1M.

Clearly, there is much higher demand for the WS rewards released later in the cycle.

There a few “gotta-catch-em-all” folks out there that will buy any card for 1M. That doesn’t mean the rewards are equal.

In fact, I’d wager that if someone made WS today, they will won’t take Hornsby or Pierre. They take one of the rewards with close to 100 1M buy orders in to ensure that they get their 900k in stubs.

SDS

Making WS at this point isn't a huge reward anyway considering that with a lil market grinding and the game itself giving away so many stubs that anyone can obtain any card.
Obviously there are a few out of reach as far as purchasing them due to the Disney World length lines to get them. The current system is fine imo.

SDS

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

Alright, fine. I guess I’m on my own with this one.

I still feel like it is unjust that making WS early in the cycle isn’t as rewarding as making it later.

And for the record, I thought the WS rewards were whack when they came out back then. I spoke against Britton and Pierre; I thought then and still believe that they were slaps in the face to the community.

But I guess I’m the only one. It’s okay. I’m used to having unpopular opinions. Haha.

Good luck, everyone!

It’s plane and simple the competition is way too watered down at release. I’ve seen guys with .500 records sporting that WS logo and emblem and then proceed to mercy them by the 5th inning when I’ve put up 20 runs on them. I made WS going 14-0 at the beginning of the season and over half my wins were mercy wins to include my WS game. I was playing competition that had zero business being matched up against me. So sorry to burst your bubble but making WS the first few seasons is nothing more than the equivalent of making the 700’s later in the games cycle. And it’s not even arguable. Enough said!!!

SDS

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

I don’t know you keep saying something is irrelevant. Just because something IS, and is verifiable, such as what a card can sell for (but won’t), doesn’t mean that discussing the way things could be is irrelevant. I mean, what are we doing here? Talking about what I’d like to see changed, and other people are talking about why they don’t want it to change.

People talk on here all the time about the way pitches shouldn’t hang. But pitches do hang. Does that make saying that they shouldn’t irrelevant?

I’m just confused by the way you’re dismissing hypothetical scenarios as irrelevant, when every conversation about how people wish the game was different in any number of ways could be called “irrelevant,” too.

And if you feel that any conversation about proposed changes is irrelevant, then, okay. That’s your feeling on it. Doesn’t seem worth it to engage, though.

My point is you were holding to this point that first: no one would buy at that price and I showed that you can instantly get 1m because there are people waiting in line to buy it for 1m. Then you went off about how cards could be higher if there wasnt a cap, which still doesn't invalidate any of my points
The fact of the matter is that the early ones sell for as much as the later ones. No hypothetical situation changes that current fact.

Not really, though. You showed that the card was priced at that much, but not that someone bought it at that much.

What someone pays for something determines its value, not what price the seller sets.

If someone makes WS now, and they have every WS reward that they want, they aren’t picking 91 Pierre and selling him because he isn’t worth as much as other WS rewards.

Pierre is 780k or so, meaning the seller gets 700. With the others they get 900. Pierre isn’t being used in-game and he isn’t being bought at 780k.

I don't think you are getting this, the seller isn't setting a price, the buyer is in this case. There are people who put in orders to BUY it at 1m, not sell it at 1m. You can sell Hornsby for 1m instantly without waiting because there are people lining up to PAY that.

People have orders to BUY Juan Pierre at 800k, not sell. You can get that instantly without waiting
In fact, someone sold him for 1m yesterday, not listed, SOLD

The 91 Hornsby has sold for 1m twice today. Not listed, sold

Those orders you see are not people listing their Juan Pierre for sale, those are people putting in orders to BUY him. They DO sell at that price

No I get it. I’m saying the early WS rewards aren’t as good as good as more recent ones. You’re saying they are because they occasionally sell for 1M.

I know when I looked at Pierre earlier, he had a couple buy orders for over 700k, but then the orders dropped off significantly. In fact, there was a 50k order visible.

Meanwhile I looked at Rickey, and he had 93 orders for 1M.

Clearly, there is much higher demand for the WS rewards released later in the cycle.

There a few “gotta-catch-em-all” folks out there that will buy any card for 1M. That doesn’t mean the rewards are equal.

In fact, I’d wager that if someone made WS today, they will won’t take Hornsby or Pierre. They take one of the rewards with close to 100 1M buy orders in to ensure that they get their 900k in stubs.

Of course, they aren't as good as more recent ones, that doesn't change that most are going for just as much as recent ones.

And once again, so what if there are "less" of the 1m or close to that orders for the older ones? They still exist so you can still sell your early WS for that amount.

Rewards SHOULD get better as the season goes along. I will refer again to my first comment, should we just make everything the same because maybe someone can't complete future inning programs, so lets make 99 in the first one to make it FAIR!

Let's make event rewards end-game right away because some people might not have time later, because we have to make it FAIR!

It's a slippery slope you are proposing that I think would make end-game players more available right away and that is something I am adamantly against.

And again, you'll properly refer to BuT MaNtLe, and to that I say, that doesn't mean we need to keep introducing more and more "end-game" content right when the game starts.

SDS

@KILLERPRESENCE4 said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

Alright, fine. I guess I’m on my own with this one.

I still feel like it is unjust that making WS early in the cycle isn’t as rewarding as making it later.

And for the record, I thought the WS rewards were whack when they came out back then. I spoke against Britton and Pierre; I thought then and still believe that they were slaps in the face to the community.

But I guess I’m the only one. It’s okay. I’m used to having unpopular opinions. Haha.

Good luck, everyone!

It’s plane and simple the competition is way too watered down at release. I’ve seen guys with .500 records sporting that WS logo and emblem and then proceed to mercy them by the 5th inning when I’ve put up 20 runs on them. I made WS going 14-0 at the beginning of the season and over half my wins were mercy wins to include my WS game. I was playing competition that had zero business being matched up against me. So sorry to burst your bubble but making WS the first few seasons is nothing more than the equivalent of making the 700’s later in the games cycle. And it’s not even arguable. Enough said!!!

“Enough said!!!” Lol.

Someone else is supposed to say that about your comment. You aren’t supposed to apply that phrase to your own statement. Haha. That’s funny, though. I love it. I may start adding it to my own statements, too.

SDS

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

@eatyum said in WS Rewards:

@maurice91932 said in WS Rewards:

I don’t know you keep saying something is irrelevant. Just because something IS, and is verifiable, such as what a card can sell for (but won’t), doesn’t mean that discussing the way things could be is irrelevant. I mean, what are we doing here? Talking about what I’d like to see changed, and other people are talking about why they don’t want it to change.

People talk on here all the time about the way pitches shouldn’t hang. But pitches do hang. Does that make saying that they shouldn’t irrelevant?

I’m just confused by the way you’re dismissing hypothetical scenarios as irrelevant, when every conversation about how people wish the game was different in any number of ways could be called “irrelevant,” too.

And if you feel that any conversation about proposed changes is irrelevant, then, okay. That’s your feeling on it. Doesn’t seem worth it to engage, though.

My point is you were holding to this point that first: no one would buy at that price and I showed that you can instantly get 1m because there are people waiting in line to buy it for 1m. Then you went off about how cards could be higher if there wasnt a cap, which still doesn't invalidate any of my points
The fact of the matter is that the early ones sell for as much as the later ones. No hypothetical situation changes that current fact.

Not really, though. You showed that the card was priced at that much, but not that someone bought it at that much.

What someone pays for something determines its value, not what price the seller sets.

If someone makes WS now, and they have every WS reward that they want, they aren’t picking 91 Pierre and selling him because he isn’t worth as much as other WS rewards.

Pierre is 780k or so, meaning the seller gets 700. With the others they get 900. Pierre isn’t being used in-game and he isn’t being bought at 780k.

I don't think you are getting this, the seller isn't setting a price, the buyer is in this case. There are people who put in orders to BUY it at 1m, not sell it at 1m. You can sell Hornsby for 1m instantly without waiting because there are people lining up to PAY that.

People have orders to BUY Juan Pierre at 800k, not sell. You can get that instantly without waiting
In fact, someone sold him for 1m yesterday, not listed, SOLD

The 91 Hornsby has sold for 1m twice today. Not listed, sold

Those orders you see are not people listing their Juan Pierre for sale, those are people putting in orders to BUY him. They DO sell at that price

No I get it. I’m saying the early WS rewards aren’t as good as good as more recent ones. You’re saying they are because they occasionally sell for 1M.

I know when I looked at Pierre earlier, he had a couple buy orders for over 700k, but then the orders dropped off significantly. In fact, there was a 50k order visible.

Meanwhile I looked at Rickey, and he had 93 orders for 1M.

Clearly, there is much higher demand for the WS rewards released later in the cycle.

There a few “gotta-catch-em-all” folks out there that will buy any card for 1M. That doesn’t mean the rewards are equal.

In fact, I’d wager that if someone made WS today, they will won’t take Hornsby or Pierre. They take one of the rewards with close to 100 1M buy orders in to ensure that they get their 900k in stubs.

Of course, they aren't as good as more recent ones, that doesn't change that most are going for just as much as recent ones.

And once again, so what if there are "less" of the 1m or close to that orders for the older ones? They still exist so you can still sell your early WS for that amount.

Rewards SHOULD get better as the season goes along. I will refer again to my first comment, should we just make everything the same because maybe someone can't complete future inning programs, so lets make 99 in the first one to make it FAIR!

Let's make event rewards end-game right away because some people might not have time later, because we have to make it FAIR!

It's a slippery slope you are proposing that I think would make end-game players more available right away and that is something I am adamantly against.

And again, you'll properly refer to BuT MaNtLe, and to that I say, that doesn't mean we need to keep introducing more and more "end-game" content right when the game starts.

Events games aren’t the same as RS and you know it. People hand free wins out all the time in Events. They rarely do in RS, and pretty much never after 800. They might quit after being down 6-0 or something, but not like Events, where people will quit just because they don’t like your SP.

I’m saying that making WS gets you the same of everything else early in the game. You get the same stubs, the same XP, and the same funky little banner to fly. But the player reward is absolute trash early in the game cycle.

You’re okay with that, I’m not. Neither of us is going to convince the other to agree with them.

There are only 12 seasons or so. Releasing a couple more 99s from the first season isn’t going to tip the scales that much, and isn’t going to get in the way of your pReCiOuS gRiNdInG or dEvErSe LiNeUpS.

Lineups are diversified by MORE end-game cards, not fewer.

Early in the season, everyone had Biggio, Mantle, and Sheff in their lineups. And Ottavino and 94 Wagner in their bullpens, too.

I think the change I am proposing is more likely to result in diverse lineups, and has no impact whatsoever on the thrill of team-building.