GM Firing in MP

[Jughead Spock]

Anyone ever kick around the idea of being 'fired' in a MP league? Dunno how it'd work, maybe a committee voting, or based on performance rating, etc... but just kinda hit me that it might be interesting if you actually had that hanging over your head. Reach the point where you'd be 'fired', and you have to swap teams at the next available opening.

[iBomb1st]

Seems like it would end tanking... I like it!!!

[Ben E Lou]

The idea has been mentioned before, but I've never seen anyone really try to flesh it out.

[cuervo72]

Did Anthony have the idea maybe? Think he might have.

An idea like that might be fine...if you had replacement owners lined up. We seem to be at a point where there are more teams available (many, many leagues) than owners. Why bother with this when you can jump right into another league?

[Ben E Lou]

Well, the way I read Jughead's idea is that you don't get booted from the league, just your team. I guess then you'd be forced to take an abandoned team (or if two people get fired, you switch). Not really sure that's much incentive not to tank, though. Could be just the opposite, really.

[Passacaglia]

Did Anthony have the idea maybe? Think he might have.

An idea like that might be fine...if you had replacement owners lined up. We seem to be at a point where there are more teams available (many, many leagues) than owners. Why bother with this when you can jump right into another league?

I've wanted to do something like this, but I agree that a full league is key -- which is why I think a league like this can't happen until a new game comes out and there's a lot of excitement. My thinking was that people can still participate if they're not the GM of a team by being an offensive or defensive coordinator or something, but I like SkyDog's idea of just switching teams -- that would work well with a non-full league, where if you get fired, you simply take over one of the computer-controlled teams.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, not my idea. Just how I interpreted Jughead's. I don't think it would help reduce tanking, though. I'd say just the opposite. Go 6-10, and a get to move up a few draft slots as you take over the 4-12 AI team.

[Jughead Spock]

but I like SkyDog's idea of just switching teams

HEY! :p

But yeah, no booting from the league, that would be seriously counterproductive. Just something like you reach that threshold of suckiness, for whatever reason, so next time an owner quits, you take that team. I know in the real world, I would've been fired from my WOOF team after a 3-13 season last year. :lol:

[sidthelid]

perhaps you should be made to fire your coaches instead

[headtrauma]

DWe seem to be at a point where there are more teams available (many, many leagues) than owners.

That's the big issue, in my opinion. It's not too hard to find 32 owners when the game is 3 months old, but a real challenge when the game is 3 years old.

[Kodos]

Maybe there'd be less incentive to tank if everyone in the league paid a fee each season, and the money was repaid at the end according to where you finished. Owners with losing teams would get back less than they put in, owners with winning teams would get back more.

I'm sure it'd suck in real life, but sounds okay in theory.

[Passacaglia]

Maybe there'd be less incentive to tank if everyone in the league paid a fee each season, and the money was repaid at the end according to where you finished. Owners with losing teams would get back less than they put in, owners with winning teams would get back more.

I'm sure it'd suck in real life, but sounds okay in theory.

I actually don't think that the idea is simply to prevent tanking, rather to add an element of realism, and give people the challenge of struggling to stay afloat and rebuilding with new teams.

[MalcPow]

We kicked it around here (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=65105). I think there were some decent ideas in there.

[iBomb1st]

Well, the way I read Jughead's idea is that you don't get booted from the league, just your team. I guess then you'd be forced to take an abandoned team (or if two people get fired, you switch). Not really sure that's much incentive not to tank, though. Could be just the opposite, really.

I don't know... I wouldn't want to waste the time I have invested in a team to swap for a random AI team to maybe move up in the draft a few slots. I would like to think my influence over a team over the course of as little as 1-2 seasons would be more valuable then a random swap. It seems like it would add a little urgency to win, and make it more difficult to tank for 2+ yrs.

[stevew]

My thoughts

Every GM gets hired initially to, say, a 4 year contract upon inception to the league. GM's earn renewals by making the playoffs, etc. GM's hit the hotseat by a variety of things. Poor record, playoff failures, etc. This stuff would have to get fleshed out more. Could be random dicerolls involved too, etc.

Ideally it would work better if you had, say, 36 committed GMs for a 32 team league, and just kept rotating people in and out of new teams. Figure there would be at least 4 people each year that could/should get fired. Maybe even 6-8(some of which would stay employed but get moved to a new situation).

At this stage of the 2k7 game, etc, though, I dunno. You have a lot of amazing leagues who can't fill up anymore. You have a lot of people sitting on the sidelines, too, that used to play.

It'd have to be a entirely new league, most likely based on real teams/players.

I do think it'd be fun to be coaching for your "job" and then spend the next season stewing and waiting for a new opening if you didn't get it done.

[stevew]

dola-

You'd also need a dedicated commish, probably who was not necessarily running a team. Or someone to be "gamesmaster" who for all intents is the god of the scenerio. I'm thinking something like this would work better in a faster paced league.

[Young Drachma]

dola-

You'd also need a dedicated commish, probably who was not necessarily running a team. Or someone to be "gamesmaster" who for all intents is the god of the scenerio. I'm thinking something like this would work better in a faster paced league.

I think things like agents and or human "coordinators" in MP is an interesting twist, but honestly, I think it'd be hard to implement it en masse. Unless the league were entirely designed that way.

I do think firing is cool as a concept, but really, it would only work in fast-sim, because when you're playing slowcook MP leagues, the cycles are too slow to really keep the activity where it'd need to be to do this.

That said, the gamemaster idea is one I've kicked around for ages in the MP realm, it's just a matter of the implementation that would determine how well it'd work. There's surely a place for it, but it'd probably have to be a league that's built around some sort of unique hook.

[stevew]

Hmm. What about a huge league. Have each franchise have up to 3 staff members. Probably wouldn't work but would be nice to have everyone in one league.

Like I might have fun just being a DC. Other people might want to be GM.

That's my proposal for the first new league if a new game comes out.

[Young Drachma]

Hmm. What about a huge league. Have each franchise have up to 3 staff members. Probably wouldn't work but would be nice to have everyone in one league.

Like I might have fun just being a DC. Other people might want to be GM.

That's my proposal for the first new league if a new game comes out.

It'd be fun for me to play that way, because I hate gameplanning, but love the GM side of things. In FOF it'd be more of an issue than in other online games, because it's so much about strategy and so, it'd be really interesting to see the sorts of battles for mercenary coordinators/head coaches to various teams, who might not be as concerned about contracts, etc.

The Commish could enforce contract universally (3-year deals for everybody...in fast-sim that's just a few weeks) and that way, people couldn't just bounce around every week (since there's no money changing hands, it'd be about something else.) And think of the hilarity of the Head Coach/OC who is tired of his gig with his current team, but still wants to show the other GMs that he's the goods so he can latch on with another squad.

It'd probably border on the whiny bitchiness that sometimes devolves in online leagues, but...I think it'd be a heck of an addition to the landscape, preferably in a fast-sim context.

[stevew]

I think you'd have to have these positions.

GM/Coach-Head honcho
Potentially OC and DC. So that'd be 96 available spots in a league. That'd probably never happen with that many people.

I think at one point you could have had 60-70 people interested in something like the IHOF though(high prestige league with lots of good utilities).

[CU Tiger]

I think you'd have to have these positions.

GM/Coach-Head honcho
Potentially OC and DC. So that'd be 96 available spots in a league. That'd probably never happen with that many people.

I think at one point you could have had 60-70 people interested in something like the IHOF though(high prestige league with lots of good utilities).


What if you just broke it down into Coach and GM

With the current game I have abandoned it largely because I hate the game planning interface, but love the GM side of things.

I think it would be awesome to collaborate with another player, where a commish would only accept GM stages (midweeks perhaps)from one owner and gameplans from another

Then you "only" need 64 players...