| Forum » General » -20% avg Rule Poll | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Do you agree with the -20%avg rule for free-gained players during inter-season?
|
||
|
Username
997 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@Rand said: Romasik2000 said: @Rand said: Romasik2000 said: Also... Admins, remember that this game is not for you but for the players (I'm a paying customer) and at the moment big majority of them don't agree with your decision.... think about it. Edited by Romasik2000 20-06-2011 15:56 100% agree. Thanks. The problem for you, is that you are the minority. We won't allow a few of you, actually, it's only 287 users who got a player for free, to make the game unfair for the rest, who is a vast majority. ( There are 18.000 teams ). We're doing this for the sake of the fairness of the game. Nothing more. 18000 teams - yes.... But how many active players? Still quite a lot more than 287. That's for sure. Ok, but if the rest of the active teams did not want to use their resources to search and sign free agents how is that my fault? |
20/06/2011 16:43 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
45 msgs.
Child's coach
|
Can an admin answer to these questions please? paus united said: At least, there should be a possibility to stop the auctions before the sudden decrease... Now I'm selling a good player for peanuts! This will also affect the fairness of the game Cultif said: How is it possible that not a single admin took the time to send a system message to tell managers that this is against the rules and violators would be punished? paus united said: Cultif said: pizzawd said: Actually, I have raised this as a bug, but admin said my information is invalid, so , how to explain it then? What went wrong here? If that admin didn't even know it was a bug, how could we even know then? Edited by paus united 20-06-2011 16:44 |
20/06/2011 16:43 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
140 msgs.
Substitute
|
While I agree that there was something that needed to have been done about the excess of free players, this isn't what most of us had in mind. The biggest problem I think people have is the suddenness of the change. Had the admins given ONE WEEK WARNING, this wouldn't go over so badly. It would give time for the active users to readjust their teams or decide how to proceed from that point. I've been saying this over and over: The next stage of keeping the player users at this point, is communication. Sure there's some in that we're aware of what happened, but we're going to want to know what's GOING to happen. Getting feedback before making decisions is important in any executive decision making. Truly the management of this game needs to be re-looked at if they're serious about going forward. There's potential, but right now one of the killer issues is lack of communication. In responding to the actual issue, I don't think you can say this is a "bug". It was a mistake by the admins. Surely they should have known that the massive amount of inactive teams would also correlate to a massive amount of FAs. At the same time, the prices they set, while reasonable for the most part, were plain silly. Had they lowered the initial bidding prices by a fair bit, this wouldn't have been as serious. Edited by Ninocchi 20-06-2011 16:49 |
20/06/2011 16:45 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
221 msgs.
Substitute
|
True that, their should be more communication of admin-talk to others instead of just apllying Update/Rule-changing without any warning. | 20/06/2011 16:48 |
| Kings XI Punjab - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
54 msgs.
Rookie
|
This is getting out of control, there are third world countries that are being managed better then this... | 20/06/2011 16:48 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
8 msgs.
Cadet
|
Why do I have to pay for a bug in the game? I agree that that has to solve that problem, but the worst way is to harm users | 20/06/2011 16:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
21 msgs.
Child's coach
|
oh great!! because of the useless and pathetic method the admins has created to solve this problem, they have caused me to lose on my first game =.=" and what more worst? the team i am vs is a ghost team with manger not ACTIVE at all!!! i am dam pissed off with the way u ADMINS are dealing with the situation!! i have asked 2times already regarding whether will there be a change in the deduction to different avg player!!! And no answer are given!! Given in the future, if the same problem occurs, so u Admins are still going to reuse the same pathetic method? and i dont know why i lose to a team with no tactic at all =.= this is really sucks for me!!! Edited by michaelowen 20-06-2011 16:57 |
20/06/2011 16:55 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
51 msgs.
Rookie
|
Romasik2000 said: @Rand said: Romasik2000 said: @Rand said: Romasik2000 said: Also... Admins, remember that this game is not for you but for the players (I'm a paying customer) and at the moment big majority of them don't agree with your decision.... think about it. Edited by Romasik2000 20-06-2011 15:56 100% agree. Thanks. The problem for you, is that you are the minority. We won't allow a few of you, actually, it's only 287 users who got a player for free, to make the game unfair for the rest, who is a vast majority. ( There are 18.000 teams ). We're doing this for the sake of the fairness of the game. Nothing more. 18000 teams - yes.... But how many active players? Still quite a lot more than 287. That's for sure. Ok, but if the rest of the active teams did not want to use their resources to search and sign free agents how is that my fault? Its not a question of 287 vs 18000. The point is fairness of the game. But fairness means one cannot be punished for another person's fault. One of the admins have already mentioned that s/he thought something was amiss. He fired the player when he accidentally recruited one. If the admins knew something was wrong, or there was a fault they should have immediately raised the issue. Moreover, the attitude of one of the admins is to suggest everyone is a cheat. This is entirely wrong. For one has the right to sign a player for free if the player is not attached to any club. When the players were not dead even after the auction was over, the players had every right to accommodate them in their own teams. Something similar happened earlier also. The admins have raised the point at that time the players were sold. I do not find a difference between somebody getting a player for free and somebody buying a player without spending a penny. |
20/06/2011 16:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
64 msgs.
Rookie
|
michaelowen said: oh great!! because of the useless and pathetic method the admins has created to solve this problem, they have caused me to lose on my first game =.=" and what more worst? the team i am vs is a ghost team with manger not ACTIVE at all!!! i am dam pissed off with the way u ADMINS are dealing with the situation!! i have asked 2times already regarding whether will there be a change in the deduction to different avg player!!! And no answer are given!! Given in the future, if the same problem occurs, so u Admins are still going to reuse the same pathetic method? Same here mate. Lost to a system bot. I am like so upset. Maybe they get their kicks from stuff like this. |
20/06/2011 16:58 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
997 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
Ninocchi said: In responding to the actual issue, I don't think you can say this is a "bug". It was a mistake by the admins. Surely they should have known that the massive amount of inactive teams would also correlate to a massive amount of FAs. At the same time, the prices they set, while reasonable for the most part, were plain silly. Had they lowered the initial bidding prices by a fair bit, this wouldn't have been as serious. Edited by Ninocchi 20-06-2011 16:49 Agreed, just simply do: 30+ - free 40+ - $500,000 50+ - $1,000,000 60+ - $1,500,000 70+ - $2,000,000 and let the player bidding do the rest. But since they can't reverse it, they decide to just punish players who were proactive and used the tools provided to them to better their teams. Suggestion to admins. At the end of the season back up a copy of the web site so if you need to do a change like that, you can reverse back to the end of the season. |
20/06/2011 16:58 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
12
