Ok im just trying to make sure that i didn't "read wrong" or something. I didn't want to put words into your mouth. I could live with making in season limits on transactions or something to keep mergers from at least having to take place in the offseason.
Forum > North American Pro League > USA Conference > New York Gangsters are looking to merge with another team
Sam Bolster
offline
offline
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bigtisme
Interesting tubbychoochoo so are you saying (sorry if i misread) that during the offseason you would not have any oposition to this move?
You'd have to be creative with how it would work.. but in principle I would not oppose two teams wanting to merge in the off-season. But you'd have to add some regulations.
For example team A wants to "merge" with team B [ie..move 6 or more players]...
1- to move 6 players from one team to another you should have to get permission [from somebody ??]
2- one of the two teams must be "sold", you can't merge and then keep both teams
3- perhaps all players on both teams become free agents so if they don't like the "merger" they can leave.
[or maybe there is a "trigger" if your owner trades "X" amount of the team during the off-season everyone becomes a free agent or has the option to become one.]*
*Something has to be done, otherwise players left behind are often screwed and have no recourse.
etc etc... I do not know the inner workings and programming of the game so I'm not sure what options would even be available.
Again I'm sure with a few suggestions the makers of the game could get creative and make the game more realistic and fun for ALL.
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
Originally posted by bigtisme
Interesting tubbychoochoo so are you saying (sorry if i misread) that during the offseason you would not have any oposition to this move?
You'd have to be creative with how it would work.. but in principle I would not oppose two teams wanting to merge in the off-season. But you'd have to add some regulations.
For example team A wants to "merge" with team B [ie..move 6 or more players]...
1- to move 6 players from one team to another you should have to get permission [from somebody ??]
2- one of the two teams must be "sold", you can't merge and then keep both teams
3- perhaps all players on both teams become free agents so if they don't like the "merger" they can leave.
[or maybe there is a "trigger" if your owner trades "X" amount of the team during the off-season everyone becomes a free agent or has the option to become one.]*
*Something has to be done, otherwise players left behind are often screwed and have no recourse.
etc etc... I do not know the inner workings and programming of the game so I'm not sure what options would even be available.
Again I'm sure with a few suggestions the makers of the game could get creative and make the game more realistic and fun for ALL.
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
D-will
offline
offline
Originally posted by bolstersam
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bigtisme
Interesting tubbychoochoo so are you saying (sorry if i misread) that during the offseason you would not have any oposition to this move?
You'd have to be creative with how it would work.. but in principle I would not oppose two teams wanting to merge in the off-season. But you'd have to add some regulations.
For example team A wants to "merge" with team B [ie..move 6 or more players]...
1- to move 6 players from one team to another you should have to get permission [from somebody ??]
2- one of the two teams must be "sold", you can't merge and then keep both teams
3- perhaps all players on both teams become free agents so if they don't like the "merger" they can leave.
[or maybe there is a "trigger" if your owner trades "X" amount of the team during the off-season everyone becomes a free agent or has the option to become one.]*
*Something has to be done, otherwise players left behind are often screwed and have no recourse.
etc etc... I do not know the inner workings and programming of the game so I'm not sure what options would even be available.
Again I'm sure with a few suggestions the makers of the game could get creative and make the game more realistic and fun for ALL.
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
haha....he explained what frankel did hes gonna sell the team just like tuboo wanted.
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bigtisme
Interesting tubbychoochoo so are you saying (sorry if i misread) that during the offseason you would not have any oposition to this move?
You'd have to be creative with how it would work.. but in principle I would not oppose two teams wanting to merge in the off-season. But you'd have to add some regulations.
For example team A wants to "merge" with team B [ie..move 6 or more players]...
1- to move 6 players from one team to another you should have to get permission [from somebody ??]
2- one of the two teams must be "sold", you can't merge and then keep both teams
3- perhaps all players on both teams become free agents so if they don't like the "merger" they can leave.
[or maybe there is a "trigger" if your owner trades "X" amount of the team during the off-season everyone becomes a free agent or has the option to become one.]*
*Something has to be done, otherwise players left behind are often screwed and have no recourse.
etc etc... I do not know the inner workings and programming of the game so I'm not sure what options would even be available.
Again I'm sure with a few suggestions the makers of the game could get creative and make the game more realistic and fun for ALL.
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
haha....he explained what frankel did hes gonna sell the team just like tuboo wanted.
TubbyChooChoo
offline
offline
Originally posted by bolstersam
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
Sam Bolster
offline
offline
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bolstersam
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
Originally posted by bolstersam
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
TubbyChooChoo
offline
offline
Originally posted by bolstersam
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
I'll have to think about this more. Again, I don't know the inner workings of the game so I do not all the options/possibilities that are available to us. A programer of the game would have more insight and would hopefully be able to look at some options/suggestions and come up with an answer. Maybe there isn't a fair way to allow "mergers" and they should be banned.
They may have to eliminate cash from trades...and require trades to be balanced with players only.
They could also only allow players to be released in the off-season...that way you can't release and re-sign to avoid the trade restrictions/balancing. During the season players must be traded [no releasing - or at least no releasing player level 10 and up or something.]
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
I'll have to think about this more. Again, I don't know the inner workings of the game so I do not all the options/possibilities that are available to us. A programer of the game would have more insight and would hopefully be able to look at some options/suggestions and come up with an answer. Maybe there isn't a fair way to allow "mergers" and they should be banned.
They may have to eliminate cash from trades...and require trades to be balanced with players only.
They could also only allow players to be released in the off-season...that way you can't release and re-sign to avoid the trade restrictions/balancing. During the season players must be traded [no releasing - or at least no releasing player level 10 and up or something.]
bigtisme
offline
offline
No offense to anyone else. But tubby i think you understand this perfectly. It is a tough issue to grasp just what restrictions have to go where. I am not really into the whole "comitte" idea for more than one reason. Obviously the humans can (will) be biased to someone every time. Which is why i think you need to have some cold hard numbers associated with things. Now they have to be set to not cripple teams as well. I really think you are starting to think in the right direction though. You honestly are starting to make the same sort of logic i see.
Now there also needs to be some things defined...b/c nobody gets mad here if all it is is one person sending one player somehwere. So that means you have to find that line that divides things. And like i've said before it is tough to take away the individuals choice. And there are plenty of in game mechanisms to get around super strict standards. Such as letting contracts run out and then no re purchasing the team. Thats why it is a difficult road and decision for anyone to make.
Now there also needs to be some things defined...b/c nobody gets mad here if all it is is one person sending one player somehwere. So that means you have to find that line that divides things. And like i've said before it is tough to take away the individuals choice. And there are plenty of in game mechanisms to get around super strict standards. Such as letting contracts run out and then no re purchasing the team. Thats why it is a difficult road and decision for anyone to make.
drazz00
offline
offline
Right, and the difficulty is in finding the right ways to manage these issues. And bigt had a good point about making vocal good ideas to start these transactions from occuring. So, I posted these thoughts in the Collusion thread--if you like them, go post them as well over there
--do not allow a team ower or GM to release their own players. Its an abuse to the system when all other players have to honor their contracts or hope that their owners will abide by their requests. the Owner/GM has too much power over their own player in this situation. Imagine if a player's agent could release them from a contract. (Could even be included to prevent an owner/GM from trading their own players.)
--allow only 1 release per day. That would take an entire season to switch out all the players on a team, preventing gutting. There could be exceptions to this rule; CPU's and inactives would not count toward the total.
In addition, I think more lieniency could be allowed in the off-season; not the playoffs, the off-season.
Yeah, I think if this happened after the season was over, there would be far less of an oissue. Especially since frankel's ownership time would be up, and most of the contracts in that team woudl be epiring, giving the players more options for the next year.
In the end, the issue is this: one team lost assests without compensation while another gained those assests without paying. It made an uneven field for those competing with both teams. you want to argue that it was not 'gutting,' fine, but it is clearly collusion by Bort's own definition:
'Collusion' - Two or more people working together to build up one team at the expense of another.
Add in that facts that it was a deal made between Alpha players, in USA Pro, after its happen before, after there have been warnings against it, while there is a 800+ post thread about how to answer it, that mods support it, and that (maybe) DD himself was somehow involved...well, it makes the situation look real bad.
--do not allow a team ower or GM to release their own players. Its an abuse to the system when all other players have to honor their contracts or hope that their owners will abide by their requests. the Owner/GM has too much power over their own player in this situation. Imagine if a player's agent could release them from a contract. (Could even be included to prevent an owner/GM from trading their own players.)
--allow only 1 release per day. That would take an entire season to switch out all the players on a team, preventing gutting. There could be exceptions to this rule; CPU's and inactives would not count toward the total.
In addition, I think more lieniency could be allowed in the off-season; not the playoffs, the off-season.
Yeah, I think if this happened after the season was over, there would be far less of an oissue. Especially since frankel's ownership time would be up, and most of the contracts in that team woudl be epiring, giving the players more options for the next year.
In the end, the issue is this: one team lost assests without compensation while another gained those assests without paying. It made an uneven field for those competing with both teams. you want to argue that it was not 'gutting,' fine, but it is clearly collusion by Bort's own definition:
'Collusion' - Two or more people working together to build up one team at the expense of another.
Add in that facts that it was a deal made between Alpha players, in USA Pro, after its happen before, after there have been warnings against it, while there is a 800+ post thread about how to answer it, that mods support it, and that (maybe) DD himself was somehow involved...well, it makes the situation look real bad.
bigtisme
offline
offline
Thanks drazz...thats what im saying. We need to think thru logically what CAN be done. Obviously there are extremes....we let everything go.....we make you stay with the original team that "drafts" you (pro sports before FA). I think that 99.9% of us are looking for an area between there.
Honestly 1 release per day sounds like an amazing solution to many problems. I think allow more (maybe unlimited maybe not) during the offseason. But allow only 1 or 2 or whatever each day in the regular season. That would take a long time and an even bigger chemistry hit to attempt collusion with that system.
If you look on the first couple of pages of the collusion/gutting announcement you'll see i offered a few things....limit of trades between teams...and a limit of "value" in a traded...and also making transactions public knowledge. This with the 1 release per day could go a long way.
Im going to make a post in the announcment right now.
Honestly 1 release per day sounds like an amazing solution to many problems. I think allow more (maybe unlimited maybe not) during the offseason. But allow only 1 or 2 or whatever each day in the regular season. That would take a long time and an even bigger chemistry hit to attempt collusion with that system.
If you look on the first couple of pages of the collusion/gutting announcement you'll see i offered a few things....limit of trades between teams...and a limit of "value" in a traded...and also making transactions public knowledge. This with the 1 release per day could go a long way.
Im going to make a post in the announcment right now.
D-will
offline
offline
Finally were getting some logical thinking in this thread instead of fighting
Last edited May 10, 2008 22:20:17
dshban
offline
offline
Originally posted by bigtisme
Honestly 1 release per day sounds like an amazing solution to many problems. I think allow more (maybe unlimited maybe not) during the offseason. But allow only 1 or 2 or whatever each day in the regular season. That would take a long time and an even bigger chemistry hit to attempt collusion with that system.
This is a fantastic idea. Good work, drazz.
Honestly 1 release per day sounds like an amazing solution to many problems. I think allow more (maybe unlimited maybe not) during the offseason. But allow only 1 or 2 or whatever each day in the regular season. That would take a long time and an even bigger chemistry hit to attempt collusion with that system.
This is a fantastic idea. Good work, drazz.
D-will
offline
offline
Originally posted by dshban
Originally posted by bigtisme
Honestly 1 release per day sounds like an amazing solution to many problems. I think allow more (maybe unlimited maybe not) during the offseason. But allow only 1 or 2 or whatever each day in the regular season. That would take a long time and an even bigger chemistry hit to attempt collusion with that system.
This is a fantastic idea. Good work, drazz.goood idea.
Originally posted by bigtisme
Honestly 1 release per day sounds like an amazing solution to many problems. I think allow more (maybe unlimited maybe not) during the offseason. But allow only 1 or 2 or whatever each day in the regular season. That would take a long time and an even bigger chemistry hit to attempt collusion with that system.
This is a fantastic idea. Good work, drazz.goood idea.
PS3
offline
offline
Originally posted by bolstersam
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bolstersam
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
At least if the team was sold in the offseason, a new owner would have time to put together a good roster that would be competitive but now you have a completely gutted team in the middle of the season which just creates more imbalance.
Good luck to the new owner.
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bolstersam
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
At least if the team was sold in the offseason, a new owner would have time to put together a good roster that would be competitive but now you have a completely gutted team in the middle of the season which just creates more imbalance.
Good luck to the new owner.
lfrankel26
offline
offline
Originally posted by PS3
Originally posted by bolstersam
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bolstersam
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
At least if the team was sold in the offseason, a new owner would have time to put together a good roster that would be competitive but now you have a completely gutted team in the middle of the season which just creates more imbalance.
Good luck to the new owner.
I dont see a completely gutted team. The team has most of its starters except for a FP, 2 DEs, and an LB. Also, the new owner is bringing in 14 new players by monday so the team will have a full roster and 10 bench players by their game against DDT. They will also be better coached and prepared than they were 3 days ago.
Originally posted by bolstersam
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bolstersam
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
At least if the team was sold in the offseason, a new owner would have time to put together a good roster that would be competitive but now you have a completely gutted team in the middle of the season which just creates more imbalance.
Good luck to the new owner.
I dont see a completely gutted team. The team has most of its starters except for a FP, 2 DEs, and an LB. Also, the new owner is bringing in 14 new players by monday so the team will have a full roster and 10 bench players by their game against DDT. They will also be better coached and prepared than they were 3 days ago.
tiger5
offline
offline
Originally posted by lfrankel26
Originally posted by PS3
Originally posted by bolstersam
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bolstersam
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
At least if the team was sold in the offseason, a new owner would have time to put together a good roster that would be competitive but now you have a completely gutted team in the middle of the season which just creates more imbalance.
Good luck to the new owner.
I dont see a completely gutted team. The team has most of its starters except for a FP, 2 DEs, and an LB. Also, the new owner is bringing in 14 new players by monday so the team will have a full roster and 10 bench players by their game against DDT. They will also be better coached and prepared than they were 3 days ago.
That's great!
Who is the new owner?
Originally posted by PS3
Originally posted by bolstersam
Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by bolstersam
So say I merge with someone this off-season you would not have any problem with it if we ended up like selling one of the teams?
There would have to be more to it than that.... Assuming GLB wants to allow as much freedom as possible for players to do what they want with their own characters they need to consider how it effects other players, both opponents, players on their own rosters, and teams in the league[s] effected.
This merger was wrong.
It wasn't logical or realistic and it both gutted and team and had collusion by two owners within the same league.
It's not fair to the players left behind nor to the other teams in the league.
I don't mind of players want to merge their teams but we need to consider the big picture and make it fair to all.
The details of such a transaction must be regulated if they are going to allow it.
I see so if the players were to agree to it as well like 100% in teh offseason and one of us were to sell there team we moved players over and made sure that it was not a totally gutted team, would it be a "good merge"?
At least if the team was sold in the offseason, a new owner would have time to put together a good roster that would be competitive but now you have a completely gutted team in the middle of the season which just creates more imbalance.
Good luck to the new owner.
I dont see a completely gutted team. The team has most of its starters except for a FP, 2 DEs, and an LB. Also, the new owner is bringing in 14 new players by monday so the team will have a full roster and 10 bench players by their game against DDT. They will also be better coached and prepared than they were 3 days ago.
That's great!
Who is the new owner?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
