| Forum » General » punishment friendly | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
82 msgs.
Rookie
|
stowgood said: That is great but the only reason people did it was because the @s and others like the guy who won the striker cup played like 20+ games on the very first day without explanation. WHY DID THEY NOT EXPLAIN STRAIGHT AWAY?! Why use a crap idea/system that gets no where near covering the cost of weekly expenses. They messed it up big time. Extremely poor communication is the most inexcusable part. If they had sent out another message after the first day when they were doing it themselves and explained or the second day when they realised it was a problem because people were copying them or even the third day all this could have been avoided. They should have just taken away weekly expenses, I doubt they will ever admit that. They said three friendlies, so you stick with it and follow the rule. True, there was a lack of communication and the situation could have been dealt with better, but that doesn't offer someone the right to break the rule and exploit a bug. Remember, these admins have been working tirelessly fixing and clearing out the bugs and glitches so give them patience and constructive criticism instead of rants. |
30/09/2011 14:05 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
82 msgs.
Rookie
|
That's why I think the new @'s were appointed. | 30/09/2011 14:07 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
312 msgs.
First-team player
|
You must lead by example and or clearly explain. They did neither. The new guys are much better at posting in the forums etc so things should improve. It will be all good from here. The new SIM is ace well done to all those involved. |
30/09/2011 14:10 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
395 msgs.
First-team player
|
There actually were forum posts about the matter very soon after multiple friendlies were allowed. They didn't do the best job of announcing it to the whole system, but @Rand was very specific about what they were doing and why. | 30/09/2011 14:17 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
4 msgs.
Ball boy
|
mudetroit said: There actually were forum posts about the matter very soon after multiple friendlies were allowed. They didn't do the best job of announcing it to the whole system, but @Rand was very specific about what they were doing and why. There were forum posts from people guessing about what was going on. One of the people who at the time was not an @ (but now is) actually proposed that there be a earning limit in place of 15 or 20 million dollars instead of opening up what is basically a ban hammer on everyone. Everyone in the post thought that was a great idea. Obviously the people who run this game don't pay attention. I know personally that my low level team was docked 20 some million. A large club can handle that. I won't be able to, and I will lose my team. Way to punish the have-nots! I think it is totally stupid that the conversation was happening for days about whether we could play more than 3 (because we could see high level players doing it) without any official notice. @Rand has that capability, yet chose not to use it. |
30/09/2011 14:45 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
9 msgs.
Cadet
|
I dont get why it was so hard to implement an if(requestGames > 3){ no more friendles; } at the first place. Just removing the money and expierence earned would be okay, but giving also pushments when there was also some fault at the @ side, is kinda lame. | 30/09/2011 14:48 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1870 msgs.
International
|
would not have been more alert to the @ are playing more friendly to resolve the bugs and the other players we would not have fallen into the same trap | 30/09/2011 16:59 |
| ♓HC $ business♓ - Div2/Gr2 | ||
|
Username
580 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
i think the admins made it clear in another thread that they were playing more games just to understand the functioning of the simulator and to debug it... and they are right in imposing the fines... those who have played more games (like 200 or so) would have earned more (than those who say played 80 games) and thus now would lose also more money due to the 150% rule... so it is fair... the only problem is lack of communication on the part of admins (just like last season where players were bought for free)... @admins : it wont harm anybody if u communicate with the players more... |
30/09/2011 17:28 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
claiming ignorance on this topic is not going to work, here's the primary thread, started last monday, so if you continued to play many friendlies after this, then *I explicitly* said something, and that you should have been worried. http://uk.strikermanager.com/foros/hilo.php?id=263915&inicio=10 Here's @Rand's statements http://uk.strikermanager.com/foros/hilo.php?id=263095&m=765500#m765500) SEPTEMBER 22 " PS: We removed the x4 benefits from friendlies, because you can now ask for 3 friendlies per day, which compensates the x4 bonus." SEPTEMBER 22 http://uk.strikermanager.com/foros/hilo.php?id=263097 "You play 1.5 ( in average ) games at home per week ( league matches ) You can make up to 15 friendy matches during the 5 weekdays. " That clarifies the implication. and finally: SEPTEMBER 21 http://uk.strikermanager.com/foros/hilo.php?id=262778 "In addition, we have allowed you to ask for a maximum of 3 friendlies per day. This will hopefully help us in debugging the new simulator sooner, and it will also help you with the weekly payments that will come next sunday. " The language is pretty clear. If you were playing more than 3 friendlies a day, then you were taking advantage of a bug. So September 21, 3 friendly rule is made and permitted. Under certain circumstances, you were able to play more than 3. This was because the request button wasn't functioning correctly...and obviously allowed you to request/accept more than the "maximum" So. There was a known bug in the system. If you played more, then you should have easily known that this was occurring because of the bug. Even if you played some extra by accident. It was pretty evident that the extra games resulted from this bug. The extra entries resulted in a benefit, and taking large benefit purposely from this bug is exploiting the system. Everything else is irrelevant to the situation. I am the most vocal person on the boards when things are not communicated. But in this case the 3 friendly maximum was communicated no less than *3* times by @rand himself. So claiming "They didn't communicate" will fall on deaf ears. The fact is they did communicate this one very clearly. Which is exactly why I opened the thread on the 26th to discuss it. Because it was patently obvious that some people were taking advantage of this hole in the system. So 30-50 games, return excess funds gained. This takes into account that the extra games may have been played by accident, so no sanction. 50-75 (?... I think 75) If you are playing 51 games, you must have known that something was up, if you continued playing then you almost surely did so with full knowledge. Return funds + 25% penalty. More = you absolutely had to have known that something was up, and were cramming in friendlies very explicitly for personal gain. return funds + 50% penalty. So the limit was communicated, the penalty for violating it was not until after the fact. I don't see this as an issue. Seriously, you cannot claim ignorance. |
30/09/2011 18:08 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
4 msgs.
Ball boy
|
@rebsiot said: claiming ignorance on this topic is not going to work, here's the primary thread, started last monday, so if you continued to play many friendlies after this, then *I explicitly* said something, and that you should have been worried. http://uk.strikermanager.com/foros/hilo.php?id=263915&inicio=10 1. At the time you wrote this, you were not an @, so I would hardly consider the threat of punishment anything more than conjecture. In fact, you at one point advocated no punishment at all and basically implied that this is what was going to happen: "As chief manufacturer, I agree: "Let's get it done: Friendlies income cap of $20million (or even $15 million. Whatever) Reset player experience Move on and have fun!" Capiche?" Why when you got your @ did you not bring this up? 2. I wouldn't consider @Rands statements that there was a 3 friendly "maximum" (a word he never used), when the @'s themselves (and some of the other top players) were playing far more than that. I saw that as a tacit allowance of the act. If we are going to argue fairness, how is it fair that the top players are getting extra practice to perfect tactics? Doesn't that just increase the already lopsided nature of this game, where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor? Edited by stams 30-09-2011 21:12 |
30/09/2011 20:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
2
