Someday we all would like to see a comprehensive code re-write, along with effective dynamic player pricing, to increase competitiveness and variety in this game.
But "what if" . . .
In the meantime WIS tried something else? It's no mystery that some ballparks are used much more often than others, because of their built-in advantages relative to the algorithm. If you dig into any TOC bracket, you see a pattern of usage by successful owners - the same half-dozen or so stadiums are typically used by multiple owners in the TOC, which suggests a high frequency of those same ballparks by successful owners in OLs. Usage of these few ballparks does not necessarily guarantee success, but an owner's odds of winning are certainly improved by choosing a ballpark that gels well with the algorithm, and drafting players accordingly. I personally find no fault with an owner picking a ballpark that helps them win; I admit that I have used these same common parks, and I have built my teams as best as I could to match those settings, with success as an aim.
With this in mind, while the developers continue to work towards some form of ongoing dynamic player pricing, wouldn't it be more straightforward to attack the problem of over-usage of the same players, at least in the short-term, by factoring in the affect of the environments where they play? The ballparks in which players perform has a great impact on their results, so if we want to even the playing field by creating more variety in the players drafted, why not encourage owners to consider using a wider variety of ballparks?
As an example, I propose the following (the numbers I am using are simply for argument's sake; all I am doing now is suggesting the general concept): in standard OLs, all teams get an increased budget of $90M. However, built into that $90M would be a cost for the stadium chosen. The stadium usage cost would be determined dynamically. The 5 to 10 most commonly used ballparks would cost $10M, thus effectively leaving the same $80M player budget available that we are used to in OLs. The 5 to 10 least commonly used ballparks would have a much lower cost (perhaps, $1M to $2M, or maybe even zero). And, all of the remaining stadiums in between would be priced accordingly by their frequency of usage.
In theory, this would reward owners for choosing less popular ballparks, and consequently drafting less commonly used players to fit into those environments, thus sparking greater variety and competitive balance. Perhaps stadiums that favor power hitters, power pitchers, or other player types that are now under-used, will become a bargain, thus driving increased use of those less popular players. Those owners willing to think outside the box and use the stadiums and players that are now less popular, would ultimately be rewarded with a payroll even higher than $80M, than those owners still using the strategies more commonly used now. New and interesting strategies to compete might then emerge.
Naturally, smart owners will soon discover ways to exploit new stadiums and players that work most efficiently together, but this can be mitigated with a dynamic re-pricing, say, for example, every 6 months (for now I am suggesting this figure, again, for argument's sake). Having no technical expertise, I would think that it would be simpler for the developers to periodically manage the dynamic cost of a few dozen ballparks, compared to re-pricing tens of thousands of players dating back to 1885, but I could be wrong.
Would this add to or detract to the realism of SLB? I would argue that dynamic stadium pricing (DSP), would make the sim more realistic. In real life MLB, location matters. A stadium's operating costs and revenues (related to maintenance, leasing, concessions, ticket pricing, fans' parking fees, etc.) and market location all impact an owner's bottom line. Different markets and stadiums pose different costs and benefits, which ultimately affect which players a team can acquire (or must acquire, sometimes unwisely, due to fan pressure in some larger markets) and for how much. Also, while some locations appear to have built-in advantages, success or failure is not necessarily guaranteed by location. There are always success stories and utter failures in both large and small baseball markets, depending on how well or poorly payrolls and rosters are managed.
Anyway, that's all I have for now. This is just a weird idea I've wanted to get off my chest for a few months now. I'm sure there are many valid critiques of my proposal, and I would love to hear counter-arguments. I'm just brainstorming here.