The problem with this thread, the game, and the approach is that runs are way too hard to score in Sportsclix (As I said in another thread). Not to win - but for more fun - I suggest fielding fairly high point players (good hitters) with relatively poor defenses (3's, 4's, and only a 5 here and there), while capping the point score of the starting pitcher pretty low.

This is the big question to me with Sportsclix - It's not about "What strategy/lineup can I use to win?" (That would be more or less opposite of what I stated) - It's, how can spend 2 hours having some fun and end up with a score other than 0-0 or 1-0 after 9 innings?

I think that FBI's point about the point limit needs to be looked at more closely. Just arbitrarily deciding that the point limits should be 1000/1500 isn't a great plan. Some research should be or should have been done to see what the optimum numbers are. You don't just choose the numbers because they are conveniently nice and round. It's a strategic choice that must be properly measured by those in charge.

I hope I am not coming off as negative here, because I that is not my intent, I am just a questioning fellow who likes to be reassured that the proper thought went into the decisions about this very interesting game. I just hope that WK has adequately looked into the point limits before choosing such round numbers. They have settled on 1000/1500, but why not 1100/1600, 1500/1800, 800/1200 or even 1273/1738 for that matter? What was the criteria used to decide the point limits?

On this point I agree with FBI. Maybe 1100/1600 is more workable and creates better games than the current system, or maybe it doesn't. I would like to know how much WK has actually looked into this. It would be good for us to know so that if we find in our own play testing that another set of numbers works better, it will be implemented. On the other hand I hope that their numbers work out well and we don't have to modify the point requirements too much. Well, that's about my $1.25 worth instead of $.02. Sorry.

in my opinion, this is far from the case. a complete team should have some deficiencies, or be average across the board -- while 100 points might not seem like that big a difference, being able to add 10-15 points per position certainly removes a lot of the tough decisions... now why go for a high defense over a good bat when you can get both, etc.

fielding a good team should be challenging, the reward coming from winning the games, not from assembling the team. i also personally feel that the higher the ceiling for the cap, the more similarities you'll see across teams... you'll tend to see this at any salary cap level, but more so as the ceiling increases, as there are more ways to look at optimizing key positions on the roster, and the main differences will become the also-rans which fill out the bench.

as for games being more fun, that all depends on what you're looking to get out of the game. i want the games to be as realistic as possible -- a combined final score of 5-7 runs is about right, in my opinion. which is about the average score for most of the games i play.

for more scoring, i'd rather see the walls pulled in to green and yellow depth than the pitching and defense ramped up. it's already very easy to sacrifice pop at the plate to field a team of all DEF 5 or 6 players, and really put the screws to your opponent. but it's a style of play, much like the blue control decks for magic. effective, but there are ways around it.

increasing the salary cap doesn't necessarily end up meaning more scoring. for every better offensive player you can put into your team, that's one better defensive player or sterling pitcher the opposing team can field. it's still relative...

Oh, I agree that increasing the cap far from guarantees extra offense, since defense (control decks in Magic) can suddenly go really crazy.

Its actually moot now for tourneys as I understand it (since there is no on the field limit apparently)

The thing of it is/was for me is that "Control" was too easy with 1000 pts. You can't field enough big bats to compete against it IMO (unless you go for SP Leadership maybe. Plus tried to abuse the previous OOP rules which I never did since I figured they were kaput soon)

And, more to the point, you can't field an "Aggro-Control" team that can do more than try to scrape out a single run and still play suffocating defense. People have posted several teams to refute me but, frankly, I'm not terribly impressed....

Actually FBI, the no limit is only for the Sealed Booster Tournaments. The constructed league play will follow the 1000 point rule.