Quote: Originally Posted By austinfan1 on 1/11/2010With the absolute cap, wouldn't tanking be counterproductive for teams wishing to sign the best IFA? The #1 pick costs at least 4 M, and then each subsequent pick costs less, so the team with the #1 pick will have a hard time outbidding those below that team for the best IFA. I imagine this was part of admin's thinking...

Quote: Originally Posted By timf on 1/11/2010
I am not as experienced as alot of guys on here but why do so many people ***** about transferring budget to sign INTL FA's? Of course some guys are going to do it and they will end up with the best prospects but aren't you other guys missing something? The guys that have to do this are not good managers or they would be able to make trades, draft better and sign the cheaper INTL FA's and at the same time they could field a competitive team. There are far better ways to win besides tanking to get INTL FA's and high draft picks. Sign FA's wisely, draft well, manage your team and budget properly and these tankers won't be a problem because they still won't know how to manage a winning team while you will have the experience necessary to do just that.





in-gmae "managing" (manager settings until or unless we ever get LIVE play) is a small component of this game.

after 4 or 5 seasons of drafting a franchise player AND signing at least one more franchise player through the international market, these organizations can be STACKED with talent to the point that the AI could run off consecutive championships.

THE REAL PROBLEM is that there are no "real world consequences" (i.e. lost box-office draw, fewer merchandising dollars, bankruptcy) under the current model. and since these owners are obviously not shamed out of a league after fielding an embarrasingly amatuerish team for years, plunking down another $24.95 to continue hoarding exciting young talent is well worth it in the eyes of the tanker. i have been shot down with my proposed "dynamic budgets" system in the past. personally i still think it's a workable idea (though i admit i have no idea how difficult it would be to write the code for such a comlicated system), but at least capping budget transfers is a step in the right direction.

Quote: Originally Posted By gjello10 on 1/11/2010
Unintended consequence warning: Beware tanking owners trying to use their extra cash, which can no longer be moved to prospect budget, to buy prospects, in some form or another, through trades.

Quote: Originally Posted By zbrent716 on 1/11/2010

Quote: Originally posted by austinfan1 on 1/11/2010 With the absolute cap, wouldn't tanking be counterproductive for teams wishing to sign the best IFA? The #1 pick costs at least 4 M, and then each subsequent pick costs less, so the team with the #1 pick will have a hard time outbidding those below that team for the best IFA. I imagine this was part of admin's thinking...

It's also counterproductive to completely tank because the first tie-breaker is "Playoff contention (based on last seasons winning %)". So, tankers may have to straddle the line of losing enough to get a high draft pick, but winning enough to be able to win the tie-breaker over any other tankers for the best Int'l guy

Quote: Originally posted by patrickm885 on 1/11/2010We are going to limit the amount of money that is allowed to be transferred to the prospect budget when we release the HOF.

Quote: Originally Posted By The_Stiffs on 1/11/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zbrent716 on 1/11/2010

Quote: Originally posted by austinfan1 on 1/11/2010
With the absolute cap, wouldn't tanking be counterproductive for teams wishing to sign the best IFA? The #1 pick costs at least 4 M, and then each subsequent pick costs less, so the team with the #1 pick will have a hard time outbidding those below that team for the best IFA. I imagine this was part of admin's thinking...

It's also counterproductive to completely tank because the first tie-breaker is "Playoff contention (based on last seasons winning %)". So, tankers may have to straddle the line of losing enough to get a high draft pick, but winning enough to be able to win the tie-breaker over any other tankers for the best Int'l guy.

there it is. that, coupled with the $30M cap (and the fact that the #1 overall pick should be the most expensive pick in the draft), tanking is far less attractive as "tankapotomous" is no longer guaranteed to land the two best prospects he can land every year. now he gets the best player he sees in the amatuer draft, but maybe only the 3rd or 4th best IFA he sees (which is an improvement even if it's the 2nd best IFA he sees). and that's assuming he tanks properly...

Quote: We also talked about getting rid of the budget transfer page altogether, is that something that you would rather see?

Quote: Originally Posted By patrickm885 on 1/11/2010
We also talked about getting rid of the budget transfer page altogether, is that something that you would rather see?

Quote: Originally Posted By The_Stiffs on 1/11/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By timf on 1/11/2010

I am not as experienced as alot of guys on here but why do so many people ***** about transferring budget to sign INTL FA's? Of course some guys are going to do it and they will end up with the best prospects but aren't you other guys missing something? The guys that have to do this are not good managers or they would be able to make trades, draft better and sign the cheaper INTL FA's and at the same time they could field a competitive team. There are far better ways to win besides tanking to get INTL FA's and high draft picks. Sign FA's wisely, draft well, manage your team and budget properly and these tankers won't be a problem because they still won't know how to manage a winning team while you will have the experience necessary to do just that.






in-gmae "managing" (manager settings until or unless we ever get LIVE play) is a small component of this game.

after 4 or 5 seasons of drafting a franchise player AND signing at least one more franchise player through the international market, these organizations can be STACKED with talent to the point that the AI could run off consecutive championships.

THE REAL PROBLEM is that there are no "real world consequences" (i.e. lost box-office draw, fewer merchandising dollars, bankruptcy) under the current model. and since these owners are obviously not shamed out of a league after fielding an embarrasingly amatuerish team for years, plunking down another $24.95 to continue hoarding exciting young talent is well worth it in the eyes of the tanker. i have been shot down with my proposed "dynamic budgets" system in the past. personally i still think it's a workable idea (though i admit i have no idea how difficult it would be to write the code for such a comlicated system), but at least capping budget transfers is a step in the right direction.

Quote: Originally posted by timf on 1/11/2010 Tanking and getting prospects is just one element to winning. I woud classify these guys as 'losers' and generally they wouldn't know how to win or they wouldn't bother going this route. A good manager will be able to get the better ML team through trades and FA signings and always be one step ahead of the tanker in that regard.