Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by justafish2002

Bort, would you consider releasing players (FOR NO GAIN) like in the Firefox example is gutting?

If all the players on the team asked to be released, and the team isn't left broke for the next owner, then I don't have a problem with it. Besides, even if I don't like it, what the hell am I supposed to do about it? The owner sold the team and quit. I can't exactly take away his team or whatever. I'm not going to punish the players who got cut, because that's ridiculous too.

The thing is that there are always people joining and leaving the game. There's nothing we can do about it. The team owner could have just gone inactive before quitting and left the team to rot. Is that better?

After I put in the min-40 update with CPU additions, it shouldn't be much of an issue, but I'm sure people will still complain and offer no feasible ideas for solutions other than vague rules that are hard to enforce. I'm sure somebody will reply to this post and say something like "this really disturbs me" etc, but I have to say: give me an actual solution that can be implemented, not a random complaint about how other people disappoint you.

There is always going to be good teams and bad teams. We can't force every single team to be competitive in every league. It's just the nature of the game.



Well, this really disturbs me.


j/k

actually, like I said in your "Team Waiting List" thread, I think the "min-40 update with CPU additions" goes a long way towards alleviating the problem. In a way, I'm a bit sorry that I started this thread which seems to have created some drama. I just found it amazing that stuff like that happens way more in USA Pro, the league where everyone supposedly aspires to be in, than anywhere else.

How many teams cut top level talent for honest reasons?

Everybody signs a new one year deal at the beggining of the season, no way to get out of it after level 8 or so. Only trades, FAIR trades.

The contracts are owned by the team.

Worst case scenario is 40 people are in a nightmarish situation for 40 days, much better than the other 15 teams in the league as it is right now.

Owner wants to quit midstream, fine, he quits, but teams own the contracts, not the owner. If anything shady goes on, then a simple roll back of the transactions 24-48 hours prior to the team being sold.

Originally posted by Serenity
Originally posted by Bort

But this is a game with human owned players - they're more than just "team assets." Players have to be able to be moved around.



Then why can't you treat the "human" players on the other 15 teams with a little respect.

How do you determine which "humans" get treated with respect? i might be crazy here, but i say treat the ones who aren't upsetting the flow of the game, the ones who aren't going to run away paying customers.

How can you possibly expect people to remain happy, if it is allowed for anyone "who gets tired" or "burned out" to disrupt the game for the 40 players on each the other 15 teams. If they get tired or get burned out then why should they care if the team owns thier contract.

I go back to my original question, "How many teams cut top level talent for honest reasons?"

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by justafish2002

Bort, would you consider releasing players (FOR NO GAIN) like in the Firefox example is gutting?

If all the players on the team asked to be released, and the team isn't left broke for the next owner, then I don't have a problem with it. Besides, even if I don't like it, what the hell am I supposed to do about it? The owner sold the team and quit. I can't exactly take away his team or whatever. I'm not going to punish the players who got cut, because that's ridiculous too.

The thing is that there are always people joining and leaving the game. There's nothing we can do about it. The team owner could have just gone inactive before quitting and left the team to rot. Is that better?

After I put in the min-40 update with CPU additions, it shouldn't be much of an issue, but I'm sure people will still complain and offer no feasible ideas for solutions other than vague rules that are hard to enforce. I'm sure somebody will reply to this post and say something like "this really disturbs me" etc, but I have to say: give me an actual solution that can be implemented, not a random complaint about how other people disappoint you.

There is always going to be good teams and bad teams. We can't force every single team to be competitive in every league. It's just the nature of the game.



possible solution - Make a limit to amount of "cuts" a team can make per 24 hours. I dont ever see a need for a team using more then 2 or 3 in a day. Make cpu players unlimited cuts and put a 2 to 3 human cut limit per day rule in effect.

That way if a league sees a team gutting 6 to 9 humans in 3 days they can alert someone to step in and find out what the issue is.

Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
RE: The Last Gutting....

"it's called quitting, not gutting.

someone will buy the team and try to turn it around i'm sure"...Digital Daggers


Personally I call it gutting.

+1

This argument is ridiculous and there is already a tool in place to take care of a situation like this.

1. Eager owner takes over rebuilds the team.
2. During the rebuilding process team gets relegated down a league or two.
3. Champion of a lower league moves up and integrity is restored to the league.

Players should not just be cut. They at least need to be traded to where ever they want to go for at least minimum cash (if not more). When a team just cuts 6 level 18's, it's unfair for the next owner since he should at least have something to show for these guys. The franchise has invested money and playing time into these guys, the franchise should be compensated for these players. Would it be right if just a couple weeks after spending 3 million on free agents, the owner decided to sell the team and just cut the players with no compensation. People say that the team can just be rebuilt but how is that possible if the team has no assets.

I don't really understand the argument that it isn't fair for the players to have to play for a new owner. Why is it not fair? You can read a thousand threads about how a player isn't happy with an owner. In those situations, nothing is done. The player doesn't get an automatic release. Many times they are left to rot on the bench.

How about this for a solution:

An outgoing team owner can mark his team as transitional. This designation makes all contracts terminate 24 hours after the change in ownership. This protects the players from being shafted by an incoming ogre. It also helps the new owner to have a chance to establish a relationship and/or a contract with existing players on this team.

Players are protected from the new owner. The new owner is presented with a chance to retain some of the current players.

This would work better than unenforceable "rules."

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by texasdanger



I think there are definitely some imperatives that should be enforced:

1. Players not owned by the team owner should definitely be treated as assets to the team and transferred to the new owner

2. If a team owner wants to move his players from his team and sell the team, then allow it, but not until the new owner comes on board... and the new owner has to agree on the compensation for HIS team's loss



Yep, because we're psychic and know that the owner is planning on selling his team. We're supposed to read somebody's mind and say "you're going to sell your team soon! No cuts for you!"

It sounds like everybody just wants to disallow cutting players because an owner might someday sell a team and quit. Is that what you want? You get a team and have to stick with it forever because it might change the way the league looks? That might work if players were all CPU controlled and everyone was just a team owner. But this is a game with human owned players - they're more than just "team assets." Players have to be able to be moved around.


Sorry if I was not clear. These two imperatives (or a better word would be guidelines I guess) would have to be enforced via other program rules, similar to what has been posted in the other thread. Probably something like:

a. One release of a player per day per team
b. 2 trades per season between teams
c. If a player is traded once, that player may not be traded again for 5 days. (to limit intermediary teams getting around b)

So many times when one of these issues pops up, it's always the same -- alpha testers and friends vs. everybody else.

You'd think that most of these would get resolved on our side, since there are always way more of us, but it hasn't turned out that way.

I, personally, don't understand what is so hard about this. Those players should be released in the offseason. Just cutting and running now makes absolutely no sense on any level. Yeah it's great for those 40 players but it sucks for the other 1,400 players in that league.

Either limit cuts, make a voting panel in each league that can block transactions, or whatever. I put up with the unregulated outlaw nature of the game right now because it's beta, but there are some troubling trends that are going to end up disgusting a lot of people in the long run.

And frankly, I wouldn't take FairForever's advice ever, even on naming a wood nymph or helping me create a unicorn on my lite-brite.

Bort! You need better advisors!

Originally posted by futbol


And frankly, I wouldn't take FairForever's advice ever, even on naming a wood nymph or helping me create a unicorn on my lite-brite.


If we were allowed signatures, this would be mine.

one thing that i thought of that wouldnt totally alleviate the problem but would leave the new owner with some players and the old players with a chance to move on would be that when a team is sold to a new owner, every player on that teams current contract is reduced to expire at the end of that season (unless they were to expire before that date). This would give the new owner time to build rapport with his players and find new ones while still keeping the team at least somewhat competitive. Then, at the end of the season, the players can either leave or resign if they still like it. It cant be too much to ask for someone to stick around for the rest of the season as most of the gutting takes place later on in the season and not after game 1 or 2.

Just a thought. Waiting anxiously to see all of the people slam my idea like they do every other idea that has been brought up in this thread