Tanking Rule Change -- Feedback Wanted Topic

jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Posted by plague on 11/3/2011 6:32:00 AM (view original):
 .


Get rid of the $4 credit for last place in a division. That is one of the most absurd awards of any game I have ever played. I never seen a game that awards someone more for taking 4th place compared to 2nd place.

For private worlds give owners a dropdown menu for the commish so he can set  when this rule should kick in. example, 0,45, 50, 55, 60, 65, or 160.....This gives worlds the option to ignore the feature, or even allow worlds to make it so no one can transfer cash to prospects.
+1
11/3/2011 12:33 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
+1 on tz's original suggestion on page 1.

+1 on getting rid of the $4 last place credit.  Replace it with my brilliant suggestion, which can be found here.
11/3/2011 12:55 PM
taz21
Posts: 470 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 93
Prospect
If you want to curtail tanking, you could also make things less predictable.  1st round flops, and less predicatability in the arbitration/FA signing period would be one area.  As it is right now, I know I can pretty much control any player for most of 11 seasons (20 day waiting period for season 1, 3 more pre-arbitration seasons, 2 seasons after arbitration and a 5 year deal) meaning I can draft a star at 18, move him up to the big when he hits 22 and have him under control until his 33, at which point the decline starts just as he's hitting FA for the first time.

Why not have some guys refuse to sign a LTC at any point, or perhaps only a LTC that will eat up some of the arbitration seasons.  I think its the predicatability that makes tanking attractive, you know your #1 pick is going to be a star, rack up 3 or 4 of them, plus a handful of top IFAs and you have a top notch core together in the bigs for 10 seasons.
11/3/2011 3:29 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No problem with the unpredictability of signing LT deals but, please, random busts is a horrible idea.    We "invest" $24.95 in a team.  A couple of those random failures, or maybe just one, might be enough to just move on to another world.  
11/3/2011 3:41 PM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
And if you say, "well, if there are first round flops, there will also be 7th round all-stars."  Who cares, if it all evens out?  If, in the end, I end up with with the same number of major leaguers, I don't care if they came from the first round or 10th round.  And as it is today, we have DITR, so you even get the occasional 5th round pick who may go from 25th man to ML regular, so you're getting the good parts w/o the 1st round bust.

Heck, I'm already mad enough when my 1st rounder goes down with a torn labrum.  Imagine how frustrating it would be if I got a message that he's a "turd in the diamonds".
11/3/2011 3:47 PM
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
The game does, and should, reward the time we invest in the product.

I'm all for making the development process less predictable, but randomizing it would take things too far in the wrong direction. I would rather DITRs reward owners who learned what qualities to look for and spent time ranking them highly and developing them instead of making the draft process a crapshoot. Owners who understand the game and spend time playing it should always have an advantage over owners who don't. Otherwise, what's the point in playing it?
11/3/2011 4:17 PM
new
Posts: 115 (0)
Hall of Famer
127 2 1 1 150
Prospect
I like TZ's suggestion.  What about making the penatly trigger adjustible (one time) in private leagues?  It would be easier for some worlds than a policy we need customer service to enforce.   
11/3/2011 5:20 PM
dwboyce
Posts: 28 (0)
Hall of Famer
71
Prospect
Posted by travisg on 11/3/2011 4:18:00 PM (view original):
The game does, and should, reward the time we invest in the product.

I'm all for making the development process less predictable, but randomizing it would take things too far in the wrong direction. I would rather DITRs reward owners who learned what qualities to look for and spent time ranking them highly and developing them instead of making the draft process a crapshoot. Owners who understand the game and spend time playing it should always have an advantage over owners who don't. Otherwise, what's the point in playing it?
+ 1
11/3/2011 5:59 PM
wafairb
Posts: 36 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 19 69
Prospect

I'll third or fourth getting rid of the $4 credit for last place. Get rid of it already. Has there ever been an argument for it?

11/3/2011 6:31 PM
a_ersberg
Posts: 1363 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 75
Prospect
Minor league tanking?  Should there be some penalties there too?  Ruining a teams prospects/star players could deter one from joining.... thus leaving worlds waiting to roll for weeks.
11/3/2011 6:50 PM
willsauve
Posts: 2255 (0)
Hall of Famer
168 1 1 1 200
Prospect
Posted by wafairb on 11/3/2011 6:31:00 PM (view original):

I'll third or fourth getting rid of the $4 credit for last place. Get rid of it already. Has there ever been an argument for it?

I dont mind it, I'd prefer they only give out bonus money, even the play off bonuses after the next season begins and only if you remain in the world.
11/3/2011 7:10 PM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 55 144 14
Prospect
I think just use this rule in public worlds, let private worlds choose how they deal with it. Diamondbacks has been debating this rule and has come up with a solution that works for us, but might not work in others.
11/3/2011 7:14 PM
kahrtmen
Posts: 307 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 1 78
Prospect
I agree that we should dump the credit for last place teams, but I doubt anyone tanks because of the credit.  The reason people tank is to get top draft picks and spend 50m+ on IFAs.  If we put a cap on the total money in prospect, that would solve this problem, but we have been down that road already in the past.
11/3/2011 7:21 PM
wafairb
Posts: 36 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 19 69
Prospect

Charge $5 if you win less than 50 and want to keep that team the next season. Then add it to the credits for the winners in the next season. 

11/3/2011 8:09 PM
t2bott
Posts: 589 (1)
Hall of Famer
37 5 11 16 106
Prospect
I agre there needs to be a tanking rule for all worlds. I just left a world I had played in for 19 seasons because an owner was tanking and the commish allowed it. He had won fewer thn 50 games for the second straight season and said he was trying, even though he did have albout 50 mil. Each year in his prospect budget.
11/3/2011 11:20 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...7 Next ▸
Tanking Rule Change -- Feedback Wanted Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.