Warrior General Games

I doubt it effects most, especially the one man shows, but teams that have multiple players really get screwed when players go inactive. Ive had many seasons now where key players go IA. This is another one. This season we lose a QB and a FS and might as well add a CB to the mix. It's very difficult for a passing finess team to throw and be effective with Hbs passing the ball because the QB has no energy and this after sacrificing the build to add stamina. Now we are pretty much done as far as gold goes. I mean we will compete and be competitive but is it really fair for a few players to ruin a months worth of gaming and boosting only to be handicapped?

I propose we allow the same level players to be signed for situations like so. I would honestly create an entire team just to have subs. I usually weed them out early in the season but some cases you just can't predict it. I just looked at the free agent market and there are quite a few QBs available in the level 9-12 zone. Just wondering if I would get any support for it if I propose it because ya know the pee wee haters will come flocking in droves at lol peewee. We do have age based leagues so somehow I am sure Bort can arrange same levels to be signed "in season". What do you guys think?

Yeah, it's bullshit to screw over many because of one or two agent's problems. Whether they are real life problems or just people being dicks....doesn't really make any difference.

I'd say it would have to match in age and not exceed the 3-boost rule.

+1

what ever happened to the "put players on hold" suggestion that was going around? Wasn't it started because an agent was getting deployed in Afghanistan or something and was gonna go MIA for a while, but didn't want to screw over his team mates? This suggestion falls in the same category, I think...so whatever happened there would be a good indicator of how Bort and company would take this idea.

i think it would need to carry a harsher penalty, more than the chemistry hit.

I think your suggestion would allow the higher flex owners to have too much flexibility.

You would be able to mix and match as needed for every game.

Boost for early season wins and swapping out for non boosted dots later in the season and then boost late for level13/14.

maybe consider limiting the number of transactions or something...

edit for ; maybe limit it to unboosted players, same age... if you boost early in the season, this adds to the gamble. just a thought

Maybe like FF, Have 3 IA spots

I agree with what you're saying about how it sucks and screws over a whole team.

But on the other hand this could be exploited. Come playoff time, a handful of SP's can make a difference. I can see some of the owners who have a ton of flex literally making 110 players. They'd use 55 all season and slow-build the other 55. Come playoff time they'd swap the entire roster. They could also boost 55 players early for an advantage and then later when they're all down 1 level replace them with your slow built players and boost them.

Maybe have a clause that says PeeWee teams can ONLY cut inactive players and they can only sign in-season the same number of players. That might be too complex, but I think you'll need something similar.

CPU QBs can throw a little bit, most come equipped with PF. They would be better than a HB I would think.

Yeah my first thought on this was the boosting problem. I think the best way to fix this would be to say that the substituted players can only be boosted once as opposed to three times.

This, however, would require all gold teams pretty much to have to start having 110 man teams (everyone wants to have the edge) filled with players ready to boost on command. Would not only make recruiting in the Gold league a part time job (people without hundreds of thousands of FP have to recruit most of their players, try recruiting 110 dots, requiring boosting and CEQ, but having to say that almost half of the 110 will never even be signed to the real team), but would really hurt the silver and copper owners trying to recruit.

Just my $.02, but why not just say that subs can't boost at all? I mean I would think that having an unboosted player would be better than some inactive player that hasn't trained, spent SP's, set tactics, etc... It would probably the easiest option to implement (this coming from someone who has no clue how difficult it would be).

Edit to add: There would be the issue of training and experience gains if they weren't allowed on a D-League team with the label of "Sub". I would think this would need to be established upon creation if they weren't going to be allowed to boost (or any variation of the boosting being discussed).

Edit to also add: Now, if the aforementioned "No-boost" clause was implemented, and assuming there was a way for them to train and gain XP, the fact that they could slow build would probably negate at least some of the difference between them and the players that were signed from the start and did boost.

Edit to ramble some more: All that being said, I'm half asleep and I'm guessing none of this makes any sense.

Edit to add: I like cheese

Originally posted by LordEvil
I doubt it effects most, especially the one man shows, but teams that have multiple players really get screwed when players go inactive. Ive had many seasons now where key players go IA. This is another one. This season we lose a QB and a FS and might as well add a CB to the mix. It's very difficult for a passing finess team to throw and be effective with Hbs passing the ball because the QB has no energy and this after sacrificing the build to add stamina. Now we are pretty much done as far as gold goes. I mean we will compete and be competitive but is it really fair for a few players to ruin a months worth of gaming and boosting only to be handicapped?

I propose we allow the same level players to be signed for situations like so. I would honestly create an entire team just to have subs. I usually weed them out early in the season but some cases you just can't predict it. I just looked at the free agent market and there are quite a few QBs available in the level 9-12 zone. Just wondering if I would get any support for it if I propose it because ya know the pee wee haters will come flocking in droves at lol peewee. We do have age based leagues so somehow I am sure Bort can arrange same levels to be signed "in season". What do you guys think?

I would not support it. It's part of the game. What is the difference between your agent going inactive, not boosting, etc. and Mike Vick getting busted for Pot?

It's part of the risk you take when you build a team.

When the Muskies were in Gold the first time, we had several players go inactive, or had players who promised to boost and custom--then when the time came, they went back on their word.

One in particular is still active today for several teams. I will leave him nameless--he knows who he is. I would not sign his sorry ass to a CPU team. Even today. F'ing whore.

It's a large reason I fly solo--I got sick of depending on other people.

How about just for inactive players?

Originally posted by zmj44
How about just for inactive players?

I can appreciate the problem, and can even appreciate the solution.

But I think players going inactive correlate to the real game. Players go down. Players go crazy and disappear for a few days. You just have to deal with it. Get that guy off the street (CPU) who is no where near as good as the guy that went down. You alter tactics.

I also would never give a skill position to an agent I thought would go inactive. Hard lessons learned for me.

Bort might go for something like you see in sports that have minor leagues supporting pro leagues. Periodically, players bump down to the minors because they suck, while other players get promoted to fill holes or whatever. So maybe Pee-wee's can pull from the d-leagues in the same way.

But we would need to be very careful to avoid the exploits that I hadn't thought of when I posted my earlier response.

Probably limiting how many "moves" a team can make is a good start.

Matching age is a requirement.

Limiting to inactives is a good idea, too...but I could see that getting exploited. People might sign questionable folks for key positions, just to sand bag during regular season and ditch them for a special slow build in play offs. So maybe it's better just to stick to the limited number of trades/replacements, and hell, then anybody can do it and it becomes one of the extra things you can do to be competitive. But day 31 player got nixed...so this prolly wouldn't fly either.

Injuries is the other thing that comes to mind. I've always thought that would be cool to add to this game. But if I had a few thousand flex tied up in a QB and he gets hurt...i'd be fuming.

Then again...I like what harmonkoz is saying...inactives are just part of the game...best to avoid giving key positions to questionable agents.

Of course, what if an agent has something happen in real life that causes the inactivity, like an accident (Riz / Tox) or the guys I mentioned before getting deployed. Is it fair to screw people over because of things like that? The way it is now, both the agent and the teams that depend on them are getting screwed when they go inactive. Well, maybe the agent's players will be ok if they are on auto-train and the inactivity isn't that long.

I dunno. Guess it's greyer than I was thinking before.

No matter what limitations you put on this (thus inhibiting it from helping anyone) it is going to be exploited (myself included) so it just isn't a sensible suggestion in my opinion.

Maybe they could raise the roster limits to like 58, but only let you dress 55. The three sitting out would get the minimum XP so sandbagging may not be a great idea. You could sub them in and out game to game but then all would be a bit behind on XP.

just an idea, to try and keep inactive dots somewhat useable.

sorta like auto train, let agents set automatic sp placement.

some sort of tab that lets you set parameters for sp's.

goto 68 strength then switch to agility type of thing.


Pros----
Inactive players would still follow the basic build plan.
Going on vacation...
Rage quitting but don't want to screw over your buddies in the process....
Easier building for agents with lots of dots.....

Cons----
you still have to find agents that would be willing to set these tactics.