Tanking in MP--some suggestions for FOF future

[Ben E Lou]

Relying on owners to go all-out all the time just doesn't cut it. In the FOF MP environment, there's just far more incentive to try to lose if you aren't going to make the playoffs (or even if you are and are locked into a seed) than to try to win. I'd much rather go 3-13 than 7-9, and that needs to change.

Policing tanking at the commish/league administration level is extremely difficult, if not impossible. There are dozens of ways to decrease your odds of winning, many of them virtually undetectable, and many more of them defensible. ("I'm starting this 34/50 guy over my 60/60 guy because the 34/50 guy improved +1 in his rookie camp and he might be better..." or "I don't have time to game plan this season, so I'm just Rexing offense even though I've got a custom offensive game plan that puts up 400 yards per game routinely.")

So, what about some in-game incentives that would make a guy sitting there at 3-9 strive to go 7-9? Right now, 9 times out of 10, the guy sitting there at 3-9 is hoping he can go 3-13. The "realistic" solution (firing) isn't feasible in MP leagues, so here are a few suggestions, and I wonder if there are others out there...

• More emphasis on "Play For Winner"
  • When a team with a bad record or a terrible roster rating offers a guy with a high Play for Winner rating, let's have the offer flat-out rejected. "I'm sorry. I am not interested in playing for a team that doesn't appear to be committed to winning." (Of course, to do this, the cap has to matter much more so that people actually have good players hitting free agency in the first place)
  • The more games you lose, the bigger chance that higher PfW guys will hold out.
• Owner incentives
  • Beginning of year email from the owner: "I'm sorry. I refuse to pay top-flight prices for a bottom flight team. I am limited you to using only x% of the cap until you have a winning season."
  • Same thing with free agents and renegs: "You only won six games combined in the last two seasons. I'm reducing your maxbonus and maxsalary to x." Right now, those figures are so high that they very rarely even come into play. Make them matter for teams that have stunk.
• Fanbase Incentives
  • Make the fans stay away more if the product on the field has been poor recently.
  • Make the community far less likely to pay for stadium improvements.
  • For any of the home town incentives to be a deterrent, finances need more teeth. (Again, the maxbonus and maxsalary numbers are virtually meaningless in the current game. Lower them.)

The thing is, if you put these sort of checks in and balance them properly, the more severe ones would rarely/never come into play. Just having them there would be enough to encourage people to go all-out. If you just stair-step the severity, then maybe a team that goes an honest 3-13 one time is stuck at using 90% of the cap for a couple of years, which probably wouldn't hurt them all that much anyway. Plus, for those of us who find SP too easy, it could provide a real challenge in taking over a long-time bad team that has several "sanctions" on it.

[Ben E Lou]

some other comments from an old thread at IHOF...

MP is funny in that there really is no compelling reason to be in the middle. You can't get fired, fans can't revolt. I suppose it is detrimental in FOF to perform poorly, but with a financial system that is largely ignored, does it really hurt that much as opposed to securing a top-5 pick or three? Far as I can tell FA still take your money too, unless "play for winner" has a lot more impact than any of us have been able to ascertain. So why not be bad? If you don't really care for pride issues, it could be argued that's the route you *should* go. It stinks, but for long-term competitiveness it's the smart move.

It is my opinion that "tanking" is common because it is very easy to do without being obvious. Just do not upgrade your roster and put in a gameplan, which only you can see, that doesn't play to your strengths and you get a high draft pick.

I think first we need to define the problem, right? I mean we can't solve the problem if we don't know what the problem is, right?

So, is tanking the problem? If so, define tanking. Once we've defined it, then are there ways to identify it? If so, then we should be able to prevent and/or punish it. If it IS the problem but we can't define it or identify it, then it becomes more difficult to prevent and/or punish it, if not impossible. If tanking isn't the problem, then what is? And can we identify when it happens or what would cause it?

Definition of tanking (my stab at defining it) - Purposely fielding an inferior team or gameplan (or any other component) in an effort to improve your own draft position.

Probably a crappy definition that will need to be modified or changed altogether. However, whatever definition we come up with, I think the next part is where things get sticky. How can you tell when a team is tanking? Unless it is just blatantly obvious, an owner is most likely going to be able to explain away or justify their decisions. I was playing rookies to get them development time. Oh, that number in my gameplan was just a typo. Oops, I meant to activate Boatman once he got healthy. Crap, I swear I read that there was a bug where those two numbers were reversed. Well, yeah, his ratings are worse, but my other guy played like shit in game 1, so I benched him. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

So, if we can't identify it and thus prevent/punish it, perhaps we can implement things that make it less attractive and therefore less likely to happen (can you say...lottery?). Sounds good in theory, but it seems like this could punish honest teams. Likewise, it could provide additional incentive to teams that otherwise might be outside of temptation. "I'm 10th in the draft order, but if I lose my last two games I can make it into the lottery and have a chance at #1." Of course there may be other alternatives that avoid these pitfalls yet provide disincentive to tank, but so far I don't think we've identified them.

So, my belief is that it is very difficult to prove that a team/owner is tanking and that the best option is to remove/reduce the incentive. However, so far I don't think anyone has identified what *I* consider a viable solution that doesn't potentially create more problems than it solves.

As I said at the beginning, just some thoughts on the issue.

In real life, there are reasons that a team would rather be 7-9 than 1-15. Generally, 7-9 gets you another year. 1-15 gets you fired. In FOF, not so much. On the theory that most of us want to win a championship, it makes sense that we either have a year where we are pushing for a championship, or we have a year where we are doing everything we can to rebuild. Which does not (in my mind) mean losing on purpose. But it might mean trading a good player for a good pick. Whereas in real life, a team has to always put up enough of a fight to convince the fans not to revolt.

In this environment, 4 wins >>>>> 9 wins.

As it stands now, there's ample incentive to make little/no effort in free agency. For example, what {name removed to protect primelord} did was completely legitimate under our rules, but it would be better for league if he'd had some incentive to go out and sign some 45/45 free agents to start, rather than starting a bunch of undrafted rookie free agents.

The whole thing still strikes me as over legislating. I totally understand the problem here. But I think that it is an issue that needs to be addressed by future versions of FOF (possibly through increased financial penalties for teams that finish in the basement).

There are just so many ways to avoid trying to win, and many of them can be easily "justified." Why didn't you sign any decent FAs this offseason??? "I can't afford to spend that money. I need to be able to put more money into a decent staff next year." Why'd you start that 25/35 guy over the 45/45 guy? "The 25/35 was -1 in his first training camp. Sometimes -1 guys creep upward significantly. I wanted to develop him to see where he's headed." Why'd you use that defensive game plan with all that nickel and dime against a running team? "I played {great passing team} last week, and just forgot to change it." It could go on and on and on.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

More emphasis on "Play For Winner"

• • When a team with a bad record or a terrible roster rating offers a guy with a high Play for Winner rating, let's have the offer flat-out rejected. "I'm sorry. I am not interested in playing for a team that doesn't appear to be committed to winning." (Of course, to do this, the cap has to matter much more so that people actually have good players hitting free agency in the first place)
  • The more games you lose, the bigger chance that higher PfW guys will hold out.

With the latter the cap doesn't matter as much. If you also built this into their attitude (they get to "Demanding Trade" much quicker even if starting), you need to make an effort to keep your guys, otherwise you're out in FA fishing for replacements for guys you could not resign.

[Dutch]

The problem with tanking is not so much the exploitation of the game system, but the muted emphasis on beating 31 others at MP.

We know we can win at SP. That's why we want the MP challenge. The problem stems from lots of people putting lots of effort into playing this game. Finding out that you won by default because your whole division tanked (fictional scenario for emphasis) will erode your enthusiasm to continue playing.

Why?

Because it can become too much like SP. If 5 or 10 owners are plaing weak assed teams and rexing GP's (or worse)...then what's the point? I can get better competition from SP.

Integrity in the MP game is what is at stake when we tank. Stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about the community you are a part of. And then...beat the ever living shit out of them. That's MP.

[gstelmack]

Well, the other problem with tanking is when you trade some key guys, start the youngsters, and start winning. Tanking is actually harder than it looks, barring just completely borking a gameplan.

[RedHawk00]

WARNING: I am all over the place when it comes to what to do about tanking, but here are my thoughts.

1. It would be nice if the game handled it: less MP rules = happier owners who are less likely to leave because there are too many rules to follow. But any implementation will have its loopholes and people will find them...

2. I would advocate a reverse 1st half of the draft order. 1st team out of the playoffs gets 1.1, 2nd team gets 1.2 etc... Now that sounds radical, but needs 1 essential piece has to happen before it would be able to work. The first is cap space must matter, finances in general must matter.
If this is a team that is really on the verge of getting into the playoffs, it should be bumped up against the cap, adding 1.1 would be expensive and likely not fit into the cap the next year. This can cause wheeling & dealing on draft day (which most of us love).

3. Create a less scientific draft. In other words: more draft day busts. see Ryan Leaf, Rick Mirer, JaMarcus Russell, and innumerable other players. Make it so that a top 5 pick is not a guaranteed pro-bowler.

4. Make defense matter. This is an old tired point, but lets make scheming on defense matter. No more "BIG RED BARS" approach to defense. Lets be real about TANKING, owners are doing it to get the next BIG TIME QB or WR to take their team to the next level.

5. Get $$ involved in the system. This would take a whole new game (and who knows if it would be legal), but web based. With a tanking team they lose money, which would mean you have to sink more $$ into the team for the following year. I guess this goes back into a better financial model, but if you are the champs 3 years running & profiting, who cares what the fans say, spend your profits on a better weight room for the hogmollies up front.

6. could be as simple as the guys who finish 1.1 - 1.5 have to split the cost and pay for the web hosting service for the next season... (too harsh maybe??)

7. boy i am getting more & more drastic as i go, lets move to the most unrealistic solution. someone crack the FOF upload, create a validation scheme of sorts for the league, if his 55/55 QB is benched and healthy: let the world know, warn on the upload, or just make the commish known to the issue. Notice I want to be very careful about the gameplan cracking, not intended to "steal" other players plans, but a validation only, in other words, encrypt on upload, decrypt on scan where the commish has only access to the encryption key.

[sidthelid]

There are some great idea's here but all we're getting is a limited patch by the sounds of things for another year, so this stuff is just a pipe dream.

I also think you guys are showing just how much needs to be fixed.

Lastly a lot of the people who post on here can write applications, you have the ideas why don't you get together and put your own game together, i think it's clear you have a market place dying for a game that gives us all the ideas you have suggested.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by sidthelid

There are some great idea's here but all we're getting is a limited patch by

This post wasn't intended to be for the patch. I refer to "FOF future" for a reason.

[sidthelid]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

This post wasn't intended to be for the patch. I refer to "FOF future" for a reason.

Well if you have something to tell us then tell us please

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by sidthelid

Well if you have something to tell us then tell us please

Nothing to tell you at all. Jim said directly in the podcast that "even though I haven't been actively working on Front Office Football, it's still the future." That would lead me to believe that at some point in the future, there will be some new version of FOF.

[sidthelid]

I think we can all see by the continued varied posts there may not be a great community left to play it. I hope that's not the case but.........

[Jughead Spock]

4. Make defense matter. This is an old tired point, but lets make scheming on defense matter. No more "BIG RED BARS" approach to defense. Lets be real about TANKING, owners are doing it to get the next BIG TIME QB or WR to take their team to the next level.

I totally agree with everything here, but the former's not going to get fixed obviously. So, looking at the latter.

Someone (Ben?) was kicking around the idea of capping QBs (and WRs?) at some point, this is probably the biggest tanking-deterrent that could realistically be put in to play. RH is right, the primary, and probably only, reason for tanking is when you need that top-flight QB or WR. Those two positions are immensely overvalued over the rest.

I'm 4-10 in WOOF currently. I wish it were tanking, but it's not. That being said, my previous season I was 3-13, #2 in the draft, and missed out on a superstar QB (with no WRs in sight). I don't have it in me to tank, but it would obviously be tempting at this point to throw the last two.

It also gets extremely frustrating to pull off a win against a quality opponent only to hear 'oh, he's not really playing this season'. Only takes a few of those to really start questioning why you bother.

[RedKingGold]

Draft. Lottery.

I think it's time to ponder this as a potential solution in an FOF MP league (well, at least one that still has a draft).

Boom - Problem solved.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Draft. Lottery.

I think it's time to ponder this as a potential solution in an FOF MP league (well, at least one that still has a draft).

Boom - Problem solved.

This might be a viable solution until the next version of FOF comes out.

The problem comes down to how is it worked, I wouldn't like the NBA style where the worst record is guaranteed at least 1.3. Every slot for non-playoff teams should be up for grabs. Also, how is done so that all the teams know it's not rigged?

[claystone]

It becomes a slippery slope, because teams that are not tanking their teams will be punished. I like the idea with having money paid per season, which would help.

I'm one of those GM that have (2) bad teams going into my 3rd season. I'm in the rebuilding stage, which i love, but having trouble stringing together wins. There is nothing more rewarding than taking a bottom feeder team and take them to the top. I'm 4-11-1, which was a lot better than 1-15 the year before, and 0-10 with my other team. I find it dumb not finding the right game plan that works with your personnel. I actually had the #1 pick in the draft, but decided to trade out. In turn i found a decent QB in the 4th round that put up decent numbers for me.

I do agree with you guys. Tanking your team kills the league, but the teams that aren't tanking their teams will be lumped in with them and punished along with them also.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by claystone

It becomes a slippery slope, because teams that are not tanking their teams will be punished. I like the idea with having money paid per season, which would help.

I'm one of those GM that have (2) bad teams going into my 3rd season. I'm in the rebuilding stage, which i love, but having trouble stringing together wins. There is nothing more rewarding than taking a bottom feeder team and take them to the top. I'm 4-11-1, which was a lot better than 1-15 the year before, and 0-10 with my other team. I find it dumb not finding the right game plan that works with your personnel. I actually had the #1 pick in the draft, but decided to trade out. In turn i found a decent QB in the 4th round that put up decent numbers for me.

I do agree with you guys. Tanking your team kills the league, but the teams that aren't tanking their teams will be lumped in with them and punished along with them also.

Money won't work unless it's a local league IMO.

I don't see how a draft lottery is unfair to untanking teams...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

This might be a viable solution until the next version of FOF comes out.

The problem comes down to how is it worked, I wouldn't like the NBA style where the worst record is guaranteed at least 1.3. Every slot for non-playoff teams should be up for grabs. Also, how is done so that all the teams know it's not rigged?

For FOF, I'd suggest:

1. Put all non-playoff teams in the lottery.

2. Give a slight advantage to teams with better records in the lottery for #1. I'm thinking something like...

20	20	6.1%
19	19.5	6.0%
18	19	5.8%
17	18.5	5.6%
16	18	5.5%
15	17.5	5.3%
14	17	5.2%
13	16.5	5.0%
12	16	4.9%
11	15.5	4.7%
10	15	4.6%
9	15	4.6%
8	15	4.6%
7	15	4.6%
6	15	4.6%
5	15	4.6%
4	15	4.6%
3	15	4.6%
2	15	4.6%
1	15	4.6%

This keeps people pushing to win late in the season, but the advantage to finishing as the best non-playoff team isn't so great that the truly bad teams don't have a decent chance of getting 1(1)

3. Make the lottery for picks 1 through 5. Worst record gets guaranteed no better than pick #6. Unless it's a CRAZY good draft class, that's not going to net the stud QB or WR to anchor a franchise. That would remove the incentive to lose.

As far as not rigging, I would be willing to write a php program that any league could use to generate an order of those 20 teams. All you'd need to do would be to browse to a location. If there's a trust issue, just send the link to a non-league member or post it at FOFC and just do a "first person to browse to this link, please copy and paste the results" type thing. He browses to the link, copies and pastes the results.

[Chubby]

a program would be great, what about something that can be run in a real time format (run in a chatroom or similar to solevision that people can all log into and watch at the same time)?

no idea if that's possible or if that's already what you were thinking

[Bisbo]

Too bad the game couldn't be set up to have promotion and relegation among divisions, a la soccer.

[Subby]

There is no tanking in FOWL.

[Daimyo]

I never really minded tanking so much (in FOF or OOTP leagues) because I felt it added a lot to the challenge of the leagues for me. Everyone always focuses on how it makes the bad teams worse, but it also makes the good teams a lot better and thus makes it a lot harder to have a realistic chance at the championship year after year. FWIW, in almost all cases I was involved in, the rules devised to limit tanking were so much more detrimental to my enjoyment than the actual tanking.

[Daimyo]

Ez, at least I think it was ez, always used to say if you wanted to stop tanking it would be pretty easy... just reverse the order of the draft. First team to miss the playoffs gets 1(1), worst team gets 1(20) and the playoff teams go in reverse order of finish (#12 gets 1-21, Superbowl winner gets 1-32). I guess most people's natural desire for "fairness" wouldn't allow that sort of system... but otherwise, why not?

[stevew]

I wish it actually had a deeper financial model. Like your owner would say, you have X total dollars available to spend for the year. So if you mail it in, suck, etc, you might only get a few million above the salary floor. An owner isn't going to want to lay out 30-40m bonuses for the a top 5 pick a few years in a row.

Also, it was probably right when the game came out, but the top 5 picks don't seem to get nearly enough money on their rookie contracts. For instance, my 1.1 QB in 2010(roughly a 120m cap) got a contract of 5/37.

Also, in general QB's should be demanding more money in rookie negotiations. I liked the old style EA FOF model of actually negotiating with the picks instead of options 1-4.

[MartinD]

A thought about the draft lottery idea...

How about carrying out a lottery to give the 'better' non-playoff teams a chance of the high picks, but the picks are entered into the game in the standard draft order?

In other words, the team with the worst record in the previous season may only end up with pick 1.6 (for example), but has to give that player the expensive 1.1 contract. On the flip side, a team that gets lucky in the lottery gets the first pick of the draft, but may only have to give that player the 1.10 contract (or wherever that team would have drafted without the lottery).

Given that the draft is carried out outside the game in MP, this shouldn't be too big a deal to implement.

I realise that the rookie contracts aren't all that big compared to the salary cap, and that the cap isn't that big a deal for most MP teams, but it is a way of penalising the worst teams without necessarily giving them the reward of a high draft pick.

[Sef0r]

Originally Posted by Subby

There is no tanking in FOWL.

If only Jim would allow for the game to be customizable to the point that Ben wouldn't have to spend so much time doing the draft for any other leagues that might want to follow the FOWL setup.

The incentive is to build how you want, paying premium for what might be considered late 1st early 2nd rounders but also building to defend against your division opponents.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by stevew

Also, in general QB's should be demanding more money in rookie negotiations. I liked the old style EA FOF model of actually negotiating with the picks instead of options 1-4.

That's unworkable in FOF MP. People want to fast forward through the phase between the draft and the start of the season, they really don't want 10 mid-week typ of sims to get a chance to negotiate contracts.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

That's unworkable in FOF MP. People want to fast forward through the phase between the draft and the start of the season, they really don't want 10 mid-week typ of sims to get a chance to negotiate contracts.

Except it's already there, it's called "Late Free Agency" and there are 5 stages of it now.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by Subby

There is no tanking in FOWL.

There is no tanking in Fight Club, either.

[Bisbo]

What about imposing a 3 year minimum win requirement (10, 11, 12 games), with the owner being fired if it's not met? Could also add a 1 year minimum (e.g. 3 games). Maybe its not so workable at a time when leagues are having a hard time filling open teams.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Except it's already there, it's called "Late Free Agency" and there are 5 stages of it now.

Sure, but most 'veteran fof players' prefer to quick sim through late free agency and pre-season.

I like your thinking, as it would give something meaningful to the stages between the draft and the season start, but I'm afraid established leagues will be loaded with people who don't like this part of the game.

[stevew]

You wouldn't have to run a ton of midweeks. If the default offer the guy made to you was, say, a super option 4. You could just take that and sign your rookies quickly.

I'd actually think it was funny if the AI contract logic got advanced enough to when you try to lowball a guy, he comes back at you with a new offer 125% more than the previous one he'd accept.

[Ben E Lou]

Even the fastest leagues I know of would have five shots to sign players before games start.

FA2:1
FA2:2
FA2:3-5
TC
Pre1

That's plenty of time to negotiate. If you can't get it done in four shots, just offer the guy what he wants and move on.

[MLA]

Anti-tanking is only applicable in leagues of hardcore FOFers. The parity of the draft and the salary cap are part of what makes the NFL great but the principle of helping out those who suck matters more than worrying about tanking. Clearly the social stigma of tanking doesn't seem to apply to hardcore FOFers but it is an issue that needs to be addressed by the league in question rather than as part of the gameset. For the hardcore, anti-tanking should be seriously punitive but I bet I'd hardly win a game against most of you in a league and that doesn't mean I'm not trying.

[MIJB#19]

Ben, I think you left out one pretty good observation in the thread you referred to:

FWIW, I think that shortening the seaons by playing 3 games a week is also an incentive to "tanking" as the reward (high pick) comes faster.

Longer season means each season counts more.

Shorter season means : Oh well, we suck this year, let's at least suck bad so we have a high pick faster.

Thinking about it, I actually think it makes sense. There's a lot less incentive in tanking if it takes a full year real time to see results of your 'efforts'.

[cuervo72]

A lot less incentive to stick around in a league if you suck, too.

[MIJB#19]

Then you're not hardcore to begin with.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Ben, I think you left out one pretty good observation in the thread you referred to:
Thinking about it, I actually think it makes sense. There's a lot less incentive in tanking if it takes a full year real time to see results of your 'efforts'.

Nope. I left out a poor observation in the thread I referred to.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Then you're not hardcore to begin with.

Unfortunately, the number of "hardcore" is diminishing.

(hell, primelord "tanked" and was then gone from his leagues a few seasons after)

[Dutch]

I'm more and more inclined to believe that a draft lottery is a real alternative to the NFL version.

But it would have to be a public way of determing draft order.

Perhaps the "original" draft order would pick #'s for an upcoming daily lottery and then the closest # wins 1.1 and the next closest wins #1.2....no duplicates and ties go to the team that picked the under.

[Subby]

I just don't even like the idea of a draft. Why reward mediocrity?

That said, I think a free agent free-for-all is too complex and time intensive for 95% of the leagues out there.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Subby

I just don't even like the idea of a draft. Why reward mediocrity?

That said, I think a free agent free-for-all is too complex and time intensive for 95% of the leagues out there.

Do you know of any attempt to ever just draft a bunch of dud-kickers and see what happens to the pre-draft studs in the free agent market? The reason I ask is that I wouldn't put it passed Jim to have coded undrafted FA's to "die"....most FA2 rookies seem to be duds afterall...

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you know of any attempt to ever just draft a bunch of dud-kickers and see what happens to the pre-draft studs in the free agent market? The reason I ask is that I wouldn't put it passed Jim to have coded undrafted FA's to "die"....most FA2 rookies seem to be duds afterall...

FOWL runs with exactly this premise. We see no fall off from undrafted rookies at all.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Alan T

FOWL runs with exactly this premise. We see no fall off from undrafted rookies at all.

Awesome.

I love the draft...but I HATE the length and waiting. Pushing all the players to FA would be soooo easy on scheduling. I wouldn't be opposed to this at all.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Nope. I left out a poor observation in the thread I referred to.

I'm sensing that you just copy pasted what you liked and filter what you didn't like. We're talking about the MP environment and in that setting the pace of the league will have an impact on how people act, whether you like it or not.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

I'm sensing that you just copy pasted what you liked and filter what you didn't like. We're talking about the MP environment and in that setting the pace of the league will have an impact on how people act, whether you like it or not.

Of course I copied the good stuff and filtered out the bad stuff. Sure, the pace will have an impact on how people act. People will check out or just plain quit when things move too slowly, thus my dismissal of that particular piece. What's the problem?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Of course I copied the good stuff and filtered out the bad stuff. Sure, the pace will have an impact on how people act. People will check out or just plain quit when things move too slowly, thus my dismissal of that particular piece. What's the problem?

My point is that the apporach for fighting tanking can be different for leagues with different paces. Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a big difference between waiting 2 weeks or 20 weeks to see some result from your tanking attempts.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

My point is that the apporach for fighting tanking can be different for leagues with different paces. Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a big difference between waiting 2 weeks or 20 weeks to see some result from your tanking attempts.

That's all well and good, but it's completely irrelevant to the point of the thread at the time I copied and pasted that stuff.

[MIJB#19]

Then so is the lottery draft stuff that's being talked about. We all know that's not going to be part of FOF.


What I'm worried about here is that of all the solutioned mentioned so far, the teams that for whatever reasons (retirements, CEI's, draft busts) have become bottom feeders will get treated the same way as the teams that pruposely lose games.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

So is the lottery draft stuff that's being talked about. We all know that's not going to be part of FOF.

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That's all well and good, but it's completely irrelevant to the point of the thread at the time I copied and pasted that stuff.

Missed that part?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Then so is the lottery draft stuff that's being talked about. We all know that's not going to be part of FOF.

No, but why not have the ability to edit the draft order? Figure out the order however you want outside the game, then enter it in-game.