Go to page 1
| Forum » General » 10% deduction explained | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Here's what's been agreed on: 1) No matter how or why it occurred and making no value judgment, acquiring free agents was a game balance problem. 2) The teams that took advantage of it broke no rules, but the free agents shouldn't have been available. Initially, a 20% penalty was imposed, for two reasons: 1) Managers took advantage of a bug 2) Players acquired this way would unbalance the game. Since managers who acted before @ranru's update post @ 4 am on Monday were deemed to have committed no foul, there should have been no penalty for their actions. Reason #2 remains, however, so some game balance must be restored... There were 2 issues at play , player total Average and player progression/max forecast First Average: So looking at a few examples (Starting lineup only) Original team avg = 42 (just after seed) 252+ Pick up 5 players @ 50 After 20% deduction = total 41.09 After 10% deduction = total 43.36 No deduction = total 45.6 Original team avg = 46 230 Picks up 5 @ 52, 1 @ 55 After 20% deduction = 43.8 After 10% deduction = 46.68 No deduction = 49 Now, I was up a LOT working to improve my team, so this will be an extreme case Original team avg = 51.5 (these are exact changes to my starting lineup) RDF 56 -> 71 -> 56 -> 64 LM 47 -> 50 -> 40 -> 45 LIM 53 -> 56 -> 45 -> 50 RIM 51 -> 62 -> 49 -> 56 RM 40 -> 52 -> 41 -> 47 After 20% = 50.1 After 10% = 52.9 After 0 = 55.54 now actually, the way it was applied is thusly. Players were assessed 20% deduction. Then given a 10% bonus. This is actually a net 12% deduction. (100 * .8) = 80 * 110% = 88 100-88 = 12% down (not 10% down) The following #'s are rounded high, to account for replacing lower than avg players with the pickups A 20% deduction results in an average (6%) to (2%), for doing nothing wrong A 12% deduction results in an average gain of 2% to 7% No deduction results in a 7+% increase topping out at about 11% So you have players that took advantage of an opportunity, and should not be penalized. Minimizing gains should be the objective, not punishing the managers that did it. So the likely middle ground is to restore 10% avg, minimizing gain, but keeping balance. Now age and forecasting Same principal, but I am only going to look at the top level team. Avg < 46 likely aren't training their squad heavily. New players avg age = ~ 19 On the top player (RDF), the 20% dropped his max FC from 84 -> 64 10% drop sent his max FC to 75. That may go up a few points, but it will likely never top 80 I don't train LM or RM, so that just extends their careers in all likelihood. LIM from 75->67, 10% = 70, will probably max at 72 when all said and done. RIM from 81->72, 10% = 77, will probably max at 79-80...best case. The negative 2 years extends this curve. I assume it will extend their careers 2 years. The career extension comes at a cost of potential. For most players, their curve is so flat, it makes no difference whatsoever. For the few players where they max out > 75 with high progressions, it will have an impact. The 10% redution effectively killed 1 player, and I got extremely lucky on the other two. But it hurt. I can tell you most of the super active teams with an average of 50+ will immediately look to replace any reduced players with higher forecasts. So the negative 2 years will have no impact on the players who have them now, it will keep the players in the game longer, but instead of a small percentage ascending to division 1 or 2, they are now division 3 or 4 players tops. Finally, Squads that took advantage of the rule will be able to sell any additional players they acquired. In a depressed market, this may not result in a huge gain. If a squad was carrying 21-22 to start, and acquired 4 players, then the max gain is probably 6-10 million. It seems like a lot, but it will pay for 1 upgrade from general to pro seating. In the long run, the money will not have a big enough impact to be considered in the equation. So, a 20% deduction for doing nothing wrong, and a mistake on admin was way too severe. Leaving it alone was out of the question, a middle ground was reached, resulting in the 10% deduction, and extending the careers of the players affected by 2 years, ignoring monetary concerns. There are a couple of issues that can be dealt with by admin on a case by case basis 1) Juniors who were promoted during either the +10% replacement (no impact on game, ignore occurances) (this increased avg, and lowered age, but didn't change forecast due to being so young, I can tell you first hand) 2) Juniors who were temp promoted during the -20% replacement (contact admin, on case by case basis if you feel you were impacted) 3) Managers who picked up players after knowing it was unbalancing, violating rule #2 (@rand) - this is particularly troubling. All players picked up after -20% and before +10% very well could be free and clear +10% - 2 years. This would result in a person picking up a 60/25 player, then having him transformed into a 66/23 player.... After knowing full well it was a foul to pick up the person. There may be other things out there, but I hope this shows how the 10% solution was pretty fair and equitable. Edited by rebsiot 22-06-2011 19:53 |
22/06/2011 18:29 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
Go to page 1
1
