| Forum » General » -20% avg Rule Poll | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Do you agree with the -20%avg rule for free-gained players during inter-season?
|
||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Koppington the thread you cite discussed starting auction price, or fair value and had nothing to do with what happens after an auction ends or free agency. It also didn't discuss the merits of signing these free agents. These two issues are the whole point of this thread. Edited... You are right it was discussed see the thread where I post a defense for the accusations. All of the threads are listed in there Edited by rebsiot 21-06-2011 15:29 |
21/06/2011 15:17 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3 msgs.
Ball boy
|
rebsiot said: Koppington the thread you cite discussed starting auction price, or fair value and had nothing to do with what happens after an auction ends or free agency. It also didn't discuss the merits of signing these free agents. These two issues are the whole point of this thread. +1 |
21/06/2011 15:24 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
54 msgs.
Rookie
|
I was thinking about something else as a solution to this bug... Maybe you could implement a system, where if a player does not get sold during auction, and thus becomes a free player, that instead of getting him for free, you have to pay some sort of "signing bonus" to the player himself... That way the player doesnt have to be deleted, the manager does not get him for free, and everybody is happy? Something among the lines of 50% of the asking price during the auction? I think this would be a good solution for the bug. |
21/06/2011 15:24 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Restore 10% - 2 years + stamina sounds. equitable. It is a middle ground that will , keep the better teams level with what they started with and nominally help the teams that took advantage of the free agency. Besides, i think I suggest the 10% number. A clear statement that there was absolutely no wrongdoing on those managers parts would be nice. Finally, you will have to figure out what to do in those cases where one of these players was sold at market prior to having their ability reduced. Finally, for gods sake, please communicate these changes first. |
21/06/2011 15:27 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
476 msgs.
First-team player
|
Frantiiiiic said: I was thinking about something else as a solution to this bug... Maybe you could implement a system, where if a player does not get sold during auction, and thus becomes a free player, that instead of getting him for free, you have to pay some sort of "signing bonus" to the player himself... That way the player doesnt have to be deleted, the manager does not get him for free, and everybody is happy? Something among the lines of 50% of the asking price during the auction? I think this would be a good solution for the bug. Could be just like what happens in real world. Where managers try to woo the player by better signing-on fee and better salary. That player may get 5 days to make his mid up. So all the managers get the opportunity to sign him Also he may get tempted by playing in a better division or team with better players, who may have won their league previous season. Or can add other parameters such as size of crowds or better stadium. So a really good player doesn't go to say div 7 or 6. |
21/06/2011 15:42 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
772 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
rebsiot said: Restore 10% - 2 years + stamina sounds. equitable. It is a middle ground that will , keep the better teams level with what they started with and nominally help the teams that took advantage of the free agency. Besides, i think I suggest the 10% number. A clear statement that there was absolutely no wrongdoing on those managers parts would be nice. Finally, you will have to figure out what to do in those cases where one of these players was sold at market prior to having their ability reduced. Finally, for gods sake, please communicate these changes first. I don't mind the 10% as long as there are some that get hit with a financial penalty as well. These players were not meant to be sold as €0, and many players having read the above thread I listed, realized that it was a bug to avoid. Plenty of players have benefited from this. Ideally a restore probably should have occurred on Monday morning with a 2-3 day reset. But that probably wasn't possibly. So it should have been a more fair reduced in player avg, i.e. 70avg loses 25%, 60 loses 20%, 50 loses 15%; or whatever values would have been appropriate. Then those who signed the players, and then sold them making a large profit, should be hit financially. It probably would take considerable time and effort for the admins to resolve this totally fairly (may need to examine each case) which I doubt is worth the time as in another week this should have disappeared and we all should have moved on (whatever the resolve). |
21/06/2011 16:11 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
64 msgs.
Rookie
|
Koppington said: rebsiot said: Restore 10% - 2 years + stamina sounds. equitable. It is a middle ground that will , keep the better teams level with what they started with and nominally help the teams that took advantage of the free agency. Besides, i think I suggest the 10% number. A clear statement that there was absolutely no wrongdoing on those managers parts would be nice. Finally, you will have to figure out what to do in those cases where one of these players was sold at market prior to having their ability reduced. Finally, for gods sake, please communicate these changes first. I don't mind the 10% as long as there are some that get hit with a financial penalty as well. These players were not meant to be sold as €0, and many players having read the above thread I listed, realized that it was a bug to avoid. Plenty of players have benefited from this. Ideally a restore probably should have occurred on Monday morning with a 2-3 day reset. But that probably wasn't possibly. So it should have been a more fair reduced in player avg, i.e. 70avg loses 25%, 60 loses 20%, 50 loses 15%; or whatever values would have been appropriate. Then those who signed the players, and then sold them making a large profit, should be hit financially. It probably would take considerable time and effort for the admins to resolve this totally fairly (may need to examine each case) which I doubt is worth the time as in another week this should have disappeared and we all should have moved on (whatever the resolve). Why should be there a financial penalty ? Its not managers fault the players were available as free agents. If it bothers so many people so much, than i agree with you RESTORE would be the only fair solution to this. Whatever now is decided will be unfair in one way or another. |
21/06/2011 16:34 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
64 msgs.
Rookie
|
DaisyDoo said: Frantiiiiic said: I was thinking about something else as a solution to this bug... Maybe you could implement a system, where if a player does not get sold during auction, and thus becomes a free player, that instead of getting him for free, you have to pay some sort of "signing bonus" to the player himself... That way the player doesnt have to be deleted, the manager does not get him for free, and everybody is happy? Something among the lines of 50% of the asking price during the auction? I think this would be a good solution for the bug. Could be just like what happens in real world. Where managers try to woo the player by better signing-on fee and better salary. That player may get 5 days to make his mind up. So all the managers get the opportunity to sign him Also he may get tempted by playing in a better division or team with better players, who may have won their league previous season. Or can add other parameters such as size of crowds or better stadium. So a really good player doesn't go to say div 7 or 6. Now thats a Good and Fun idea. |
21/06/2011 16:35 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
16 msgs.
Cadet
|
@Rand said: I have already apologised for that, but i have no problems in doing that again. I am sorry if i offended you by saying you abused the rules, it wont happen again. I appreciate it @Rand (not because you apologized but you were ready/open to apologize). We too never knew that we were abusing the rules, we were thinking them as free agents while signing those players day and night (firing some decent players to make space in the squad). so suddenly to see those newly signed with reduced average looking more worse than the ones we fired, looked like we were penalized for something we were not entirely accountable for. Now I hope both the parties reach an amicable solution and move ahead. |
21/06/2011 16:52 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
772 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
inertia said: Why should be there a financial penalty ? Its not managers fault the players were available as free agents. If it bothers so many people so much, than i agree with you RESTORE would be the only fair solution to this. Whatever now is decided will be unfair in one way or another. I agree it's not the managers fault that they were available to sign for free. I already said that the admins should have communicated this clearly. But as I previously said, this was noted in the forum in the week leaving up to the end of season sale (as per last season), and it was recognized by many that signings of €0 were a bit of a bug rather than an intent, so many avoided. Bugs were to be reported rather than taken advantage of (intentionally or not). Unless each case is examined on an individual basis, then fairness won't be %100, and that is too time consuming. I agree with Daisy's suggestion that any free agents at the end of the season should be available for 5-6 days for all users to be able to sign (money would go to the player) rather than a Coach Sec search. |
21/06/2011 16:55 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
31
