| Forum » General » -20% avg Rule Poll | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Do you agree with the -20%avg rule for free-gained players during inter-season?
|
||
|
Username
19 msgs.
Cadet
|
Also you may think there is no fees but there will be agent fees, legal fees etc etc although there is no transfer figure the fees a team will pay are likely to still be a decent amount | 20/06/2011 22:55 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1772 msgs.
International
|
Someone keep saying we abused the system. I actually sent message to say if this is allowed. I was told yes by that person. I simply had some players on my short-list, and I offered contract to them, how was that abused? That's what happens in real football! Yes , I probably got greedy and started changing players for just sake of 2 average points. 20% is just too much. 10%will be fair! | 20/06/2011 22:58 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4257 msgs.
Best scorer
|
see some @ they used this technique and didnt think that it was a bug., and they used this technique this season and the last one... | 20/06/2011 22:59 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
280 msgs.
First-team player
|
jacobpark said: rebsiot said: "We lowered salaries 20% yet. If most of you agree that 2 years younger players would be a decent solution, we can lower that easily." There is no easy solution out of this one. Lowering the age leaves everyone a cheater and fixes nothing, the player is still trashed, it's just applying a band aid to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Admin first has to acknowledge what happened. Who's coordinating this mess? Is it really cheating? I could see a strong case made for the 20% deduction if people knowingly did it, but (in my case and in probably 90% of the other cases) many of us seriously thought it was due to it being the end of the season and contract renewals. If it's cheating or not, that's not the point. The point is, that it is unfair, to be able to get a full new squad from scratch by 0€. This is a long term game, a good team needs to be done daily, by doing a lot of negotiations with users, training your juniors daily, etc... it's not possible that you can become the best team in the game by far, just by being fast with your fingers or your network connection, so you can get free good players. This says nothing about how good manager you are. A good manager is a good long-term planner, not the fastest wih the fingers, or the lucky one to be online at a certain point. For me, the best team in the game should belong to the best manager. That is what i call "being fair". Now, with all this mess, if the hipotetical best manager of the game had been absent this weekend, he would have no chance of having the best team in the game for at least 4 or 5 seasons. That is not fair. |
20/06/2011 23:00 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Ok, great. so 20% is where it stays? that's it? What happens to the people who have purchased "tainted" players. Now spend millions only to have the players ability reduced 20%. As unfair as it is, 20% takes a team that went from 40 to 50 and levels them out. A team that went from 50 to 55 gets reduced to 48. A good manager seizes any and all opportunities presented to him. This was a fair and legal opportunity, and now 2nd tier managers in the 45-55 range who incrementally improved their squads are worse off in some cases. The long term managers will do fine after this, but anyone who jumped on the opportunity, even after being told it was fair in some cases, are hurt. A good manager is a good long term planner AND decisive in the face of rapidly changing conditions AND lucky. Not 1/3. This 20% penalty only gives consideration to the first third and penalizes the other 2 thirds. |
20/06/2011 23:05 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4257 msgs.
Best scorer
|
ur right man.. its unfair.. i spend all last season buying new players.. its unfair to get new ones for 0 .. i fired half of my squad when i saw that everyone is buying free players.. but why did most @ also buy these new players ? they did this season and the last one.. why didnt say anything before.. last season for example..or when they bought new players for 0 this season...they left it until the end to say its wrong.. |
20/06/2011 23:07 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
An equitable solution to me would be to restore 10% and lower the age 1 year. The upper level teams shouldn't be hurt by that percentage. The lower level teams that took advantage of the opportunity are rewarded on a small scale, and then the escape clauses and salaries are brought more in line with the age lowering. That seems to be a middle ground and possibly equitable solution. You justified the 20% reduction by saying the players violated the rules. If cheating isn't the point, you are now changing your reasoning to "balancing the game", moving the goalposts. Whether or not rules were broken is *exactly the point*. You said so yourself with your first post to this thread. |
20/06/2011 23:14 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1848 msgs.
International
|
akleb said: ur right man.. its unfair.. i spend all last season buying new players.. its unfair to get new ones for 0 .. i fired half of my squad when i saw that everyone is buying free players.. but why did most @ also buy these new players ? they did this season and the last one.. why didnt say anything before.. last season for example..or when they bought new players for 0 this season...they left it until the end to say its wrong.. Last season was different because all players started at £0 regardless of how good they were. |
20/06/2011 23:16 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
280 msgs.
First-team player
|
rebsiot said: An equitable solution to me would be to restore 10% and lower the age 1 year. The upper level teams shouldn't be hurt by that percentage. The lower level teams that took advantage of the opportunity are rewarded on a small scale, and then the escape clauses and salaries are brought more in line with the age lowering. That seems to be a middle ground and possibly equitable solution. You justified the 20% reduction by saying the players violated the rules. If cheating isn't the point, you are now changing your reasoning to "balancing the game", moving the goalposts. Whether or not rules were broken is *exactly the point*. You said so yourself with your first post to this thread. I apologise to you if i offended you all saying you violated the rules. It was not my intention to make you feel bad or whatsoever, so i apologize if i did that. I said that without thinkikng the context where i am now ( a fairly new game ) where not everyone knows what's going on. That being said, "balancing the game" is all that matters to me, and all that will matter to me in the future. Ok, i can agree with you, the managers who contract those players are good managers, because they care about their team, and took some work to find those players, and so on. Ok, i agree with this. But, what i cannot agree with, is that because of this, you can have the best team in the game by far. That is something that i can not live with. The future of a team cannot change this drastically in one single day of this game. It simply doesnt work like that. Edited by @Rand 20-06-2011 23:27 |
20/06/2011 23:24 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
280 msgs.
First-team player
|
rebsiot said: Ok, great. so 20% is where it stays? that's it? What happens to the people who have purchased "tainted" players. Now spend millions only to have the players ability reduced 20%. As unfair as it is, 20% takes a team that went from 40 to 50 and levels them out. A team that went from 50 to 55 gets reduced to 48. A good manager seizes any and all opportunities presented to him. This was a fair and legal opportunity, and now 2nd tier managers in the 45-55 range who incrementally improved their squads are worse off in some cases. The long term managers will do fine after this, but anyone who jumped on the opportunity, even after being told it was fair in some cases, are hurt. A good manager is a good long term planner AND decisive in the face of rapidly changing conditions AND lucky. Not 1/3. This 20% penalty only gives consideration to the first third and penalizes the other 2 thirds. I do not agree. There is ( or there should be! ) little chance to luck in a game like this. Not by far close to 33%. And rapidly changing conditions? Well, okay, but no if this means that missing a weekend can imply losing 10 points in my team lineup average. For me, it's more like 80% long term planning - 15% reacting to changing conditions, 5% luck. Edited by @Rand 20-06-2011 23:26 Edited by @Rand 20-06-2011 23:28 |
20/06/2011 23:26 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
24
