Good game, guys. I thought we had you, but you managed to pull it out in the fourth. I hope we both make the playoffs so we can take another shot at you!
olfactory hues
offline
offline
your problem was probably that lame walmart wolverine staffing his entire team with his own players.
Spudsy2061
offline
offline
Yeah that is completely unfair to all the other well put together teams in the league like Beer Town or Fremont or MaddenWars etc.
BerkeyTerps
offline
offline
Originally posted by Spudsy2061
Yeah that is completely unfair to all the other well put together teams in the league like Beer Town or Fremont or MaddenWars etc.
yea, sucks for everyone but thats the game i guess
Yeah that is completely unfair to all the other well put together teams in the league like Beer Town or Fremont or MaddenWars etc.
yea, sucks for everyone but thats the game i guess
Last edited Jun 14, 2008 08:41:24
Pariah
offline
offline
Well, I have a lot of players on my team, and that is because I took over a gutted team with no players whatsoever midway through the season last season. I didn't have a great free agent pool and an "offseason" to pick and choose from players, I had to get a team on the field as soon as I could and making players was the easiest option.
So many people on this game complain about team owners who build players and staff their own team. its just another way of owning a team and playing the game.
If you are a player who likes the aspect of the game that concerns building players and game tactics, why should you not be able to spend your own money on players to do so, and play the game as you like?
Owners who own a lot of players on their team still have to find other players to round out the roster and have to put a game plan together just like other owners. Plus they have to worry about building multiple players properly to be successful not just one or two.
There is advantages and disadvantages to both, an owner who owns just a player or two on his team can spend the majority of the time managing his team and tactics, but has to put more time into dealing with player problems and recruiting.
On the other hand, an owner like myself has to worry about building my players properly, taking care of the rest of the players on my team, and still managing and getting tactics set.
I really think it is just an excuse for gamers here when they meet a good team with an owner who has a lot of players on the team to use as an excuse as to why that team is better.
Kudos to owners who recruit and are successful and kudos to those who build and are successful. Just two ways of playing and winning.
So many people on this game complain about team owners who build players and staff their own team. its just another way of owning a team and playing the game.
If you are a player who likes the aspect of the game that concerns building players and game tactics, why should you not be able to spend your own money on players to do so, and play the game as you like?
Owners who own a lot of players on their team still have to find other players to round out the roster and have to put a game plan together just like other owners. Plus they have to worry about building multiple players properly to be successful not just one or two.
There is advantages and disadvantages to both, an owner who owns just a player or two on his team can spend the majority of the time managing his team and tactics, but has to put more time into dealing with player problems and recruiting.
On the other hand, an owner like myself has to worry about building my players properly, taking care of the rest of the players on my team, and still managing and getting tactics set.
I really think it is just an excuse for gamers here when they meet a good team with an owner who has a lot of players on the team to use as an excuse as to why that team is better.
Kudos to owners who recruit and are successful and kudos to those who build and are successful. Just two ways of playing and winning.
Spudsy2061
offline
offline
I still think it's unfair. There needs to be a limit to 5 players per team from one user. I think that's a fair number since only 4 friends are needed to get the starting line-up of 20, and 8 needed to get a whole team of 40. Sticking all your players on a team is very unfair in the situation in that you can offer all of them cheap contracts and lock them up forever on the team while giving them 1-2 seasons to level up and ultimately become an unstoppable force in the league they play in and then repeating their dominance after a season or two as they move up.
Pariah
offline
offline
Originally posted by Spudsy2061
I still think it's unfair. There needs to be a limit to 5 players per team from one user. I think that's a fair number since only 4 friends are needed to get the starting line-up of 20, and 8 needed to get a whole team of 40. Sticking all your players on a team is very unfair in the situation in that you can offer all of them cheap contracts and lock them up forever on the team while giving them 1-2 seasons to level up and ultimately become an unstoppable force in the league they play in and then repeating their dominance after a season or two as they move up.
I GM another team with all different players and owners. All the players on that team and all the players I have signed on my team, have all taken contracts to help out the team finances. Contradictory to what you say, my players are some of the highest paid players on my team due to their levels being higher than others. Not all players out there demand tons of money from owners, I have plenty of players on my team that I have helped out money wise when they didn't even ask for it.
Also, when items come out for players to buy, I as an owner of my players will have to give them enough money to buy items and keep their morale up. And I will have to do the same for the rest of my teammates or I would be an "unfair" owner.
A limit to players on a team is absolute nonsense, that is regulating how some one plays the game. If I want to try my skill at owning a team and building it how I want and have the money to put players on my own team, I should be able to do so. In my situation if I had a limit to how many players I could have on my team, then I would have been stuck with computer players and quick fixes through free agency to finish off last season and that would have sucked. I felt the best option for me and the players I signed was to fill in the roster with my own created players.
Now I am not against an XP bonus for teams with owners who don't have multiple players, that is fine. But don't regulate how someone should play the game (unless of course they are cheating, gutting, colluding).
Owning multiple players is not cheating, and its not unethical if the owner is fair and follows the rules.
There are many aspects of this game that make it harder for some teams, I mean take the moderators or the Pro League teams, they have an unfair recruiting advantage because everyone wants to play for them. Should they not be able to own a team?
What about guys who band together a bunch of friends from outside and own a couple of players each, easy to manage for that owner, all the players are his buddies, easy to get low contracts, should he have team split up?
What about people who met on here and grouped up as GM's and work a few teams and move players around to better fit their teams (without gutting and colluding) should they not be allowed to trade?
The truth comes down to the fact that their are alot of advantages to this game and disadvantages, thats life...NFL players take hometown discounts on contracts so that the Front Office can sign huge names and continue adding to already good teams, one example of many.
No matter how a team is built (outside of gutting and colluding) what matters is how you game plan and how you play, if you don't understand the game and cant do those things, I don't care how you "form" your team, you wont have success.
I still think it's unfair. There needs to be a limit to 5 players per team from one user. I think that's a fair number since only 4 friends are needed to get the starting line-up of 20, and 8 needed to get a whole team of 40. Sticking all your players on a team is very unfair in the situation in that you can offer all of them cheap contracts and lock them up forever on the team while giving them 1-2 seasons to level up and ultimately become an unstoppable force in the league they play in and then repeating their dominance after a season or two as they move up.
I GM another team with all different players and owners. All the players on that team and all the players I have signed on my team, have all taken contracts to help out the team finances. Contradictory to what you say, my players are some of the highest paid players on my team due to their levels being higher than others. Not all players out there demand tons of money from owners, I have plenty of players on my team that I have helped out money wise when they didn't even ask for it.
Also, when items come out for players to buy, I as an owner of my players will have to give them enough money to buy items and keep their morale up. And I will have to do the same for the rest of my teammates or I would be an "unfair" owner.
A limit to players on a team is absolute nonsense, that is regulating how some one plays the game. If I want to try my skill at owning a team and building it how I want and have the money to put players on my own team, I should be able to do so. In my situation if I had a limit to how many players I could have on my team, then I would have been stuck with computer players and quick fixes through free agency to finish off last season and that would have sucked. I felt the best option for me and the players I signed was to fill in the roster with my own created players.
Now I am not against an XP bonus for teams with owners who don't have multiple players, that is fine. But don't regulate how someone should play the game (unless of course they are cheating, gutting, colluding).
Owning multiple players is not cheating, and its not unethical if the owner is fair and follows the rules.
There are many aspects of this game that make it harder for some teams, I mean take the moderators or the Pro League teams, they have an unfair recruiting advantage because everyone wants to play for them. Should they not be able to own a team?
What about guys who band together a bunch of friends from outside and own a couple of players each, easy to manage for that owner, all the players are his buddies, easy to get low contracts, should he have team split up?
What about people who met on here and grouped up as GM's and work a few teams and move players around to better fit their teams (without gutting and colluding) should they not be allowed to trade?
The truth comes down to the fact that their are alot of advantages to this game and disadvantages, thats life...NFL players take hometown discounts on contracts so that the Front Office can sign huge names and continue adding to already good teams, one example of many.
No matter how a team is built (outside of gutting and colluding) what matters is how you game plan and how you play, if you don't understand the game and cant do those things, I don't care how you "form" your team, you wont have success.
olfactory hues
offline
offline
I certainly have several of my own players on my team and it's a lot easier to convince my high level players to fill backup roles than it is FAs who are getting offered the world on the market. I don't have any like... it should be 4 or 6 max kind of thoughts but:
This guy has 19 of his own players (!) and it seems clear by the fact that his two other guys haven't resigned for their other teams that they'll be coming over midway through the season. So that's 21 players on your own team. Why doesn't he just go play Madden?
This guy has 19 of his own players (!) and it seems clear by the fact that his two other guys haven't resigned for their other teams that they'll be coming over midway through the season. So that's 21 players on your own team. Why doesn't he just go play Madden?
hutchins929
offline
offline
I don't own a team. I do have all four of my guys on the same team though. for one reason and one reason alone... The owner is fucking awesome! The management of the team is the best! All of you owners should take notes from this guy! Seriously!
Spudsy2061
offline
offline
Originally posted by Pariah
Originally posted by Spudsy2061
I still think it's unfair. There needs to be a limit to 5 players per team from one user. I think that's a fair number since only 4 friends are needed to get the starting line-up of 20, and 8 needed to get a whole team of 40. Sticking all your players on a team is very unfair in the situation in that you can offer all of them cheap contracts and lock them up forever on the team while giving them 1-2 seasons to level up and ultimately become an unstoppable force in the league they play in and then repeating their dominance after a season or two as they move up.
I GM another team with all different players and owners. All the players on that team and all the players I have signed on my team, have all taken contracts to help out the team finances. Contradictory to what you say, my players are some of the highest paid players on my team due to their levels being higher than others. Not all players out there demand tons of money from owners, I have plenty of players on my team that I have helped out money wise when they didn't even ask for it.
Also, when items come out for players to buy, I as an owner of my players will have to give them enough money to buy items and keep their morale up. And I will have to do the same for the rest of my teammates or I would be an "unfair" owner.
A limit to players on a team is absolute nonsense, that is regulating how some one plays the game. If I want to try my skill at owning a team and building it how I want and have the money to put players on my own team, I should be able to do so. In my situation if I had a limit to how many players I could have on my team, then I would have been stuck with computer players and quick fixes through free agency to finish off last season and that would have sucked. I felt the best option for me and the players I signed was to fill in the roster with my own created players.
Now I am not against an XP bonus for teams with owners who don't have multiple players, that is fine. But don't regulate how someone should play the game (unless of course they are cheating, gutting, colluding).
Owning multiple players is not cheating, and its not unethical if the owner is fair and follows the rules.
There are many aspects of this game that make it harder for some teams, I mean take the moderators or the Pro League teams, they have an unfair recruiting advantage because everyone wants to play for them. Should they not be able to own a team?
What about guys who band together a bunch of friends from outside and own a couple of players each, easy to manage for that owner, all the players are his buddies, easy to get low contracts, should he have team split up?
What about people who met on here and grouped up as GM's and work a few teams and move players around to better fit their teams (without gutting and colluding) should they not be allowed to trade?
The truth comes down to the fact that their are alot of advantages to this game and disadvantages, thats life...NFL players take hometown discounts on contracts so that the Front Office can sign huge names and continue adding to already good teams, one example of many.
No matter how a team is built (outside of gutting and colluding) what matters is how you game plan and how you play, if you don't understand the game and cant do those things, I don't care how you "form" your team, you wont have success.
I'm going to just use numbers to argue paragraph by paragraph:
1. I'm no arguing that you payed you're players high, I'm saying it's easy to simply offer lower-end contracts to players on a team from the owner in order to keep them on longer and eventually become highly overpowered in a few seasons.
2. If you train on relaxed enough, you gain the money quickly enough, especially when the stat bonuses for relaxed vs. intense are not that big at all.
3. You have to regulate how someone plays the game. That's what rules are for. For example, in an MMORPG I play, you cannot Player-Kill in front of portals, since you can easily sit and wait at them and start to PK people while their computer is still on the loading screen in-between areas. Rules like these monitor how people play, and it is necessary in all games to do this to a point. Spending money on the game will not make anyone above these rules either, and therefore the player limit is not that harsh, especially when I'm arguing for a limit of 5, which is a decent amount of players, but it allows communities say for example, Madden Wars (sorry for your use, you're just an example) to pull 8 friends and have a team.
4. Regulation is necessary sometimes, see paragraph three. Also remember that those who spend money on the game are at the same level of those who don't. Everyone is equal in front of the rules (not saying you broke any, just stating this as such) and the administration.
5. I'm not arguing against this, nor did I say it was illegal. Please do not make assumptions.
6. How do the moderators have an unfair advantage? If you do still think they do, then can you provide documentation for this?
7. See Paragraph 3.
8. No, I'm not arguing against this either, and I think a high limit like 5 will still allow this to happen to some extent.
9. No argument.
10. Wrong, it does matter how you build a team. Level 2s with a more superior gameplan will still not beat disorganized level 10s. Therefore the building of a team is something that needs to be moderated more in my eyes. The point is that in general the GLB administration has been incredibly lax as to the rules, and to what is allowed/disallowed. Now I don't like 1-user teams like the Michigan Blues, but it's certainly allowed and in the end it's something I'm not going to completely drone on about. Gutting and collusion are still huge problems though, and it's been rampant all around the leagues, and the administration has tried to take an individual case-by-case basis. This is incorrect, as if the administration would just punish those cases that are border-line, there's more of a feeling not to try it then. My problem here is that this reminds me of a case where teams "merged", and the owner who was getting rid of the team made trades to take the players off the team for money. Well that's still gutting in a sense, and gutting is illegal. I told them that it doesn't matter if you speed at 60 or 70 mph, if you're going down a 45 mph limit highway, a break is a break.
Originally posted by Spudsy2061
I still think it's unfair. There needs to be a limit to 5 players per team from one user. I think that's a fair number since only 4 friends are needed to get the starting line-up of 20, and 8 needed to get a whole team of 40. Sticking all your players on a team is very unfair in the situation in that you can offer all of them cheap contracts and lock them up forever on the team while giving them 1-2 seasons to level up and ultimately become an unstoppable force in the league they play in and then repeating their dominance after a season or two as they move up.
I GM another team with all different players and owners. All the players on that team and all the players I have signed on my team, have all taken contracts to help out the team finances. Contradictory to what you say, my players are some of the highest paid players on my team due to their levels being higher than others. Not all players out there demand tons of money from owners, I have plenty of players on my team that I have helped out money wise when they didn't even ask for it.
Also, when items come out for players to buy, I as an owner of my players will have to give them enough money to buy items and keep their morale up. And I will have to do the same for the rest of my teammates or I would be an "unfair" owner.
A limit to players on a team is absolute nonsense, that is regulating how some one plays the game. If I want to try my skill at owning a team and building it how I want and have the money to put players on my own team, I should be able to do so. In my situation if I had a limit to how many players I could have on my team, then I would have been stuck with computer players and quick fixes through free agency to finish off last season and that would have sucked. I felt the best option for me and the players I signed was to fill in the roster with my own created players.
Now I am not against an XP bonus for teams with owners who don't have multiple players, that is fine. But don't regulate how someone should play the game (unless of course they are cheating, gutting, colluding).
Owning multiple players is not cheating, and its not unethical if the owner is fair and follows the rules.
There are many aspects of this game that make it harder for some teams, I mean take the moderators or the Pro League teams, they have an unfair recruiting advantage because everyone wants to play for them. Should they not be able to own a team?
What about guys who band together a bunch of friends from outside and own a couple of players each, easy to manage for that owner, all the players are his buddies, easy to get low contracts, should he have team split up?
What about people who met on here and grouped up as GM's and work a few teams and move players around to better fit their teams (without gutting and colluding) should they not be allowed to trade?
The truth comes down to the fact that their are alot of advantages to this game and disadvantages, thats life...NFL players take hometown discounts on contracts so that the Front Office can sign huge names and continue adding to already good teams, one example of many.
No matter how a team is built (outside of gutting and colluding) what matters is how you game plan and how you play, if you don't understand the game and cant do those things, I don't care how you "form" your team, you wont have success.
I'm going to just use numbers to argue paragraph by paragraph:
1. I'm no arguing that you payed you're players high, I'm saying it's easy to simply offer lower-end contracts to players on a team from the owner in order to keep them on longer and eventually become highly overpowered in a few seasons.
2. If you train on relaxed enough, you gain the money quickly enough, especially when the stat bonuses for relaxed vs. intense are not that big at all.
3. You have to regulate how someone plays the game. That's what rules are for. For example, in an MMORPG I play, you cannot Player-Kill in front of portals, since you can easily sit and wait at them and start to PK people while their computer is still on the loading screen in-between areas. Rules like these monitor how people play, and it is necessary in all games to do this to a point. Spending money on the game will not make anyone above these rules either, and therefore the player limit is not that harsh, especially when I'm arguing for a limit of 5, which is a decent amount of players, but it allows communities say for example, Madden Wars (sorry for your use, you're just an example) to pull 8 friends and have a team.
4. Regulation is necessary sometimes, see paragraph three. Also remember that those who spend money on the game are at the same level of those who don't. Everyone is equal in front of the rules (not saying you broke any, just stating this as such) and the administration.
5. I'm not arguing against this, nor did I say it was illegal. Please do not make assumptions.
6. How do the moderators have an unfair advantage? If you do still think they do, then can you provide documentation for this?
7. See Paragraph 3.
8. No, I'm not arguing against this either, and I think a high limit like 5 will still allow this to happen to some extent.
9. No argument.
10. Wrong, it does matter how you build a team. Level 2s with a more superior gameplan will still not beat disorganized level 10s. Therefore the building of a team is something that needs to be moderated more in my eyes. The point is that in general the GLB administration has been incredibly lax as to the rules, and to what is allowed/disallowed. Now I don't like 1-user teams like the Michigan Blues, but it's certainly allowed and in the end it's something I'm not going to completely drone on about. Gutting and collusion are still huge problems though, and it's been rampant all around the leagues, and the administration has tried to take an individual case-by-case basis. This is incorrect, as if the administration would just punish those cases that are border-line, there's more of a feeling not to try it then. My problem here is that this reminds me of a case where teams "merged", and the owner who was getting rid of the team made trades to take the players off the team for money. Well that's still gutting in a sense, and gutting is illegal. I told them that it doesn't matter if you speed at 60 or 70 mph, if you're going down a 45 mph limit highway, a break is a break.
hutchins929
offline
offline
I thought I read something from the mods that they are adding some penalties for things like signing high level guys for very little and having more than a few guys that are way abouve the league median level. things like that to try to avoid this stuff from happening.
BerkeyTerps
offline
offline
Originally posted by hutchins929
I thought I read something from the mods that they are adding some penalties for things like signing high level guys for very little and having more than a few guys that are way abouve the league median level. things like that to try to avoid this stuff from happening.
yea they are going to add this penalty but its really only gonna be for rapid movements like lets say i had 5 players of mine on my team since we got it there won't be a penalty for that. the penalty is really gonna attack FA market and massive player movements.
I thought I read something from the mods that they are adding some penalties for things like signing high level guys for very little and having more than a few guys that are way abouve the league median level. things like that to try to avoid this stuff from happening.
yea they are going to add this penalty but its really only gonna be for rapid movements like lets say i had 5 players of mine on my team since we got it there won't be a penalty for that. the penalty is really gonna attack FA market and massive player movements.
Pariah
offline
offline
Originally posted by hutchins929
I thought I read something from the mods that they are adding some penalties for things like signing high level guys for very little and having more than a few guys that are way abouve the league median level. things like that to try to avoid this stuff from happening.
See I created and added my players to fit my team, and I am out leveled by most teams in the league. I need to fill my roster and there was crap for free agents at the time. I would rather have some of my players on a couple of different teams, but at the time I just needed to fill a roster.
I don't want to continue the argument because I can just agree to disagree, I think there will always be a division of this topic around here.
But as Hutchins and Berkey stated, the admin are going to implement penalties and bonuses to try and discourage owners from building a bunch of players and then buying a team during expansion and having a bunch of high level guys signed cheap on an expansion team. That is an unfair advantage.
The difference with my team is I bought a gutted team and am way behind on the curve in this league, and I am fine with it. I just don't think I or the rest of the players on my team should take a penalty when I am below or at the league average. I actually turned down some higher level players because they were all about themselves and I would rather be out leveled and have a cohesive team, then sign a bunch of high level guys who only care about playing time and stats.
I agree with some of the points you make Spudsy, and others I don't. But like I said I will agree to disagree because the argument will never end.
Best of luck to all the teams this year, this league is filled with some cool guys (minus Darius and his bun buddy) and I am glad to be a part of it.
I thought I read something from the mods that they are adding some penalties for things like signing high level guys for very little and having more than a few guys that are way abouve the league median level. things like that to try to avoid this stuff from happening.
See I created and added my players to fit my team, and I am out leveled by most teams in the league. I need to fill my roster and there was crap for free agents at the time. I would rather have some of my players on a couple of different teams, but at the time I just needed to fill a roster.
I don't want to continue the argument because I can just agree to disagree, I think there will always be a division of this topic around here.
But as Hutchins and Berkey stated, the admin are going to implement penalties and bonuses to try and discourage owners from building a bunch of players and then buying a team during expansion and having a bunch of high level guys signed cheap on an expansion team. That is an unfair advantage.
The difference with my team is I bought a gutted team and am way behind on the curve in this league, and I am fine with it. I just don't think I or the rest of the players on my team should take a penalty when I am below or at the league average. I actually turned down some higher level players because they were all about themselves and I would rather be out leveled and have a cohesive team, then sign a bunch of high level guys who only care about playing time and stats.
I agree with some of the points you make Spudsy, and others I don't. But like I said I will agree to disagree because the argument will never end.
Best of luck to all the teams this year, this league is filled with some cool guys (minus Darius and his bun buddy) and I am glad to be a part of it.
Pariah
offline
offline
Originally posted by Spudsy2061
10. Wrong, it does matter how you build a team. Level 2s with a more superior gameplan will still not beat disorganized level 10s. Therefore the building of a team is something that needs to be moderated more in my eyes.
Sorry clarification, I was referring to semi-equal teams in levels. Yes I agree a level 10 team will destroy a level 2 team.
10. Wrong, it does matter how you build a team. Level 2s with a more superior gameplan will still not beat disorganized level 10s. Therefore the building of a team is something that needs to be moderated more in my eyes.
Sorry clarification, I was referring to semi-equal teams in levels. Yes I agree a level 10 team will destroy a level 2 team.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
