Originally posted by merenoise
Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by merenoise
Originally posted by yello1
Its the question of whether the proposed mechanics of the idea works and would improve the games playability, entertainment, viability and longevity.
The thing speaks for itself, basically. No matter how good or poor a job you do in understanding the idea or its benefits or I do in explaining them to you, or how much you or I love or hate it, the idea is what it is.
This idea would be an improvement to the game and help it last longer. Whether or not you I or Bort like or grasp that fact, thats the way it is. Not because I think so, but because of the facts at hand.
Originally posted by hatchman
lets look at this rationally for a second so try to stay with me.
1.) You suggested to raise the teams owned limit from what we have now. and you wanted this because there were so many CPU owned teams in Natty Pro.
these are the points people made that countered your suggestion and these were basically proven that they would work alot better than your suggestion.
1.) Not enough players to actually fill teams so adding more owners would further kill the player pool. thus killing the competition level even more.
2.) League contraction actually taking 32 teams out of Natty Pro and Regional Pro would essentially fix the problem of CPU owned teams and thus would not need your suggestion at all.
3.) Having 9 teams at a time just increases the likelihood of a real life emergency taking an owner away from multiple teams at a time which in turn leads to a bad experience for up to 495 individual agents. It is bad enough when one agent goes inactive and owns a team of 55 different dots, when you expand that number across 9 teams it is devastating to the game you purport to love. A single inactive user ruining that many experiences is far more damaging than a few CPU teams.
4.) Teams who have owners who have their attention spread too thin essentially become the equivalent of CPU teams..
Besides, it would just lead to the sale of or just the abandonment of teams that have losing records midseason.
5.) With 99 leagues there are potentially 174,240 roster spots. Is it your contention that there are 58,000 players, by your estimation 1/3 of all players, that half ass play the game? Really? Based on the players that I see rostered when I scout, the average inactives I see are about 5 or 6. That would put that number closer to 10% which would push the total player population closer to 125k-130k, 45,000-50,000 players off from filling every team that exists now.
Bort could easily contract 20% of all teams in the game, go down to 80 total leagues, and still have homes for every human owned dot. That would still accommodate 154,000 players, more than the player estimates.
Please read this again yello, before you continue to embarrass yourself.
Yes as to the Minor leagues, the OP wouldnt work for those reasons as I have agreed.
As to the National Pro and Reg Pro level to which I have focused my idea though, I suggest you read my reply thereto, and in general my statements about how easy it would be to garner the players for the relatively small number of CPU teams at the National and Reg Pro levels from the existing rosters of the other teams at that age group, from their deep benches, and from owners own stables as they build more players to fill their new teams difficult to recruit for positions.
And when one of those owners decides to leave the game midseason or has an unforeseen emergency or is unable to sign on to the internet for whatever reason we screw over hundreds of agents in Nat./Reg Pro? Sounds logical....
Yeah that was raised above and its a good reason to have SOME cap.
But I think the solution is to have the cap slide either automatically or merely be raised by Bort to meet the CPU team numbers.
Remember the OP title is RAISE the limit, not get rid of it.
And of course it can be lowered too if the CPU problem goes away (though you grandfather the existing teams the way they did when they set the limits to begin with).
Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by merenoise
Originally posted by yello1
Its the question of whether the proposed mechanics of the idea works and would improve the games playability, entertainment, viability and longevity.
The thing speaks for itself, basically. No matter how good or poor a job you do in understanding the idea or its benefits or I do in explaining them to you, or how much you or I love or hate it, the idea is what it is.
This idea would be an improvement to the game and help it last longer. Whether or not you I or Bort like or grasp that fact, thats the way it is. Not because I think so, but because of the facts at hand.
Originally posted by hatchman
lets look at this rationally for a second so try to stay with me.
1.) You suggested to raise the teams owned limit from what we have now. and you wanted this because there were so many CPU owned teams in Natty Pro.
these are the points people made that countered your suggestion and these were basically proven that they would work alot better than your suggestion.
1.) Not enough players to actually fill teams so adding more owners would further kill the player pool. thus killing the competition level even more.
2.) League contraction actually taking 32 teams out of Natty Pro and Regional Pro would essentially fix the problem of CPU owned teams and thus would not need your suggestion at all.
3.) Having 9 teams at a time just increases the likelihood of a real life emergency taking an owner away from multiple teams at a time which in turn leads to a bad experience for up to 495 individual agents. It is bad enough when one agent goes inactive and owns a team of 55 different dots, when you expand that number across 9 teams it is devastating to the game you purport to love. A single inactive user ruining that many experiences is far more damaging than a few CPU teams.
4.) Teams who have owners who have their attention spread too thin essentially become the equivalent of CPU teams..
Besides, it would just lead to the sale of or just the abandonment of teams that have losing records midseason.
5.) With 99 leagues there are potentially 174,240 roster spots. Is it your contention that there are 58,000 players, by your estimation 1/3 of all players, that half ass play the game? Really? Based on the players that I see rostered when I scout, the average inactives I see are about 5 or 6. That would put that number closer to 10% which would push the total player population closer to 125k-130k, 45,000-50,000 players off from filling every team that exists now.
Bort could easily contract 20% of all teams in the game, go down to 80 total leagues, and still have homes for every human owned dot. That would still accommodate 154,000 players, more than the player estimates.
Please read this again yello, before you continue to embarrass yourself.
Yes as to the Minor leagues, the OP wouldnt work for those reasons as I have agreed.
As to the National Pro and Reg Pro level to which I have focused my idea though, I suggest you read my reply thereto, and in general my statements about how easy it would be to garner the players for the relatively small number of CPU teams at the National and Reg Pro levels from the existing rosters of the other teams at that age group, from their deep benches, and from owners own stables as they build more players to fill their new teams difficult to recruit for positions.
And when one of those owners decides to leave the game midseason or has an unforeseen emergency or is unable to sign on to the internet for whatever reason we screw over hundreds of agents in Nat./Reg Pro? Sounds logical....
Yeah that was raised above and its a good reason to have SOME cap.
But I think the solution is to have the cap slide either automatically or merely be raised by Bort to meet the CPU team numbers.
Remember the OP title is RAISE the limit, not get rid of it.
And of course it can be lowered too if the CPU problem goes away (though you grandfather the existing teams the way they did when they set the limits to begin with).
