View Single Post
Old 12-03-2008, 10:25 AM   #5
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuervo72 View Post
The problems I think are that not enough players get to FA, and players are renegotiated in ways that make for a little too much cap room (in FOFL we are floating a no-haggle rule where you just accept a reneg at what a player is asking, or don't reneg - which includes no tack-on minsal years for the young/role players). Of course, I usually do that anyway which is why I never have cap room (yes, I'm slow like that). Even so, I am able to hang on to most players I want to.
I still say that's picking gnat-poop outta pepper. If Jim's goal is to get rid of house rules in both SP and MP, just forcing people to accept the existing demands or cap out would get take up only a marginal amount of cap room.

Quote:
Now, each year shouldn't be a FA free-for-all either - there is something to be said for continuity and MP owners tend to become attached to players. There's a balance to be struck. I've just not given much thought on how to achieve it.
Great point. One thing that I just forgot to say in my response is that to get this right for MP, you almost have to have a 32-person very fast test league. (Quick-sim through drafting and seasons, and do free agency stage-by-stage for about 8 seasons, including trading.) If you want to wait until after the release to do it and just plan on a patch based on testing results, that's fine. But there's really no way to balance this in MP without seeing the results of at at least 8-10 seasons of human interaction (long enough for the initial contracts to turn over completely.)


One another note with regard to this, it occurred to me that there's a place here where the "realism" versus "fun" issue comes into play: depth. All FOF MP leagues that I know of use injury settings that are much lower than real life. (I believe Jim even explicitly recommends this in the documentation.) They do this because people have found it less fun having to deal with injuries, while admitting that it's less realistic. But as a result, there's not nearly as much strategic reason to have quality depth in FOF MP as in real life. My FOFL team is a great example of that. Injuries there are at 100, so unless a guy is a confirmed creeper or an obvious young starter-to-be, I just don't bother with paying most of my FOFL backups anything more than minimum salary for their experience level. And quite often, I'm just paying the *rookie* minimum. My team made the FOFL Bowl (and got creamed by Subby's boys, but still, we made the flippin' championship game) with around 15-20 undrafted minisal rookies on it. I don't know if it's feasible, but it might be worth exploring having a sliding scale where starters' salary demands increase as the injury setting decreases.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote