New Rule Proposal

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by jca312, Dec 27, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    How does everyone feel about making a rule that no one is allowed to sway players back no matter what? I think it's a good solution to the bug until it gets fixed. Since we don't know who is going to get it, if no one can sway players, it makes it fair to everyone.
    Forgot to bring this up on Skype last night, but thought we could have a discussion about it on the board.
     
  2. tuco418

    tuco418 Older and wiser than you

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,939
    good idea
     
  3. runthepound

    runthepound Get on the Bus!

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,354
    I like the idea, but the thing about it is, for example, ego.....when he has lost players, generally they haven't been the guys leaving for the draft so much as guys transferring.....so if we are going to make a rule like this...based on ego and say G-Units past problems, I would say lets just not allow anyone to sway players wanting to transfer. I think we should still be able to sway back players that want to leave early to go pro, that are under the rules able to be swayed back. I am not sure who all else has had these problems, but I think this would help make it more fair to everyone.
     
  4. JFunk34

    JFunk34 Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    Normally I wouldn't be a huge fan of that rule but since we do have that bug I wouldn't mind it I guess. But then again how will we know if the bug is fixed? I'm not sure on this yet. I'll have to talk to David.
     
  5. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    I think about half the league, if not more has gotten it. It seems like there are different variations of it and sometimes you can't upload transfers or early-entries I think, that was why I suggested not swaying anyone, but if that's not the case, then I would be for it only applying to transfers.
     
  6. Sabo

    Sabo Z2H Commish

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,763
    Seems like a good idea to me.
     
  7. GSUtiger

    GSUtiger GEAUX TIGERS!!

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,518
    i would say since we strive to be SIM..NO swaying back players trying to transfer..reason: in real life when a player wants to transfer a coach pretty much gives him his walking papers..None of us want a guy who doesn't want to be here(i for one sure in the hell dont)...We can sway players trying to go pro..Reason: Coaches try and do it all the time by telling a guy he will improve his draft stock or some other dream.
     
  8. Iron Mickey

    Iron Mickey I'd take her out for some casadias

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    12,445
    I say we just try not swaying transfers. I say sway if u can under the rules for pro dra
     
  9. JFunk34

    JFunk34 Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    Alright here's my thing and this is something I have talked to David about from the beginning, I HATE taking away from the way the game was designed. I hate taking away stuff as long as it's realistic and there is nothing about a coach trying to talk a player out of leaving that is unrealistic. You can succeed or fail and either way it costs you time to talk to recruits. I have bent my beliefs on some rules like the 5 stars and scholarship limits because schools don't have those restrictions in real life but I think those are to protect flaws in the game. Swaying players isn't a flaw. So let's not say we are doing it because it's sim, if we are gonna do it we can say it's because of the bug but not to be sim. And in reality if everyone's getting it why does it matter anyway? Just my humble opinion.
     
  10. Iron Mickey

    Iron Mickey I'd take her out for some casadias

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    12,445
    I completely agree...for me it has nothing to do with ''SIM'' because that's just ridiculous. Some people get too out of hand with SIM stuff just like they do with Sliders and constantly debating them.

    If anything we are doing it because of the bug and that's it.
     
  11. Dean

    Dean Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,100
    I really haven't had a problem with it, so whatever yall decide on if fine by me.
     
  12. jca312

    jca312 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,832
    The compromise of letting transfers go seems fair to me to deal with the bug, plus guys don't just transfer for no reason, whether it be lack of pt or broken promises, these things are all under the coaches control.
    Funk you ok with this or are you saying that we should just not have a rule at all? Anyone else with objections? I'm good either way, but the bug hasn't affected me too much. Just thought it'd be good to at least talk about.
     
  13. thoov08

    thoov08 Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    614
    I'm fine with the proposed changes.
     
  14. JFunk34

    JFunk34 Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    I am fine with the compromise. No swaying transfers.
     
  15. egofailure

    egofailure Sim habits die hard!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,309
    For the record, I wasn't saying (nor do I think) that allowing or not allowing players to be swayed is more "sim" than the other. Each league has their own view on it. If it wasn't for the bug, I'd be all for playing the game as it was designed. It's unfortunate that this bug doesn't allow us to, but I think the compromise discussed keeps the playing field level.
     
  16. JFunk34

    JFunk34 Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    Alright it's decided. No swaying transfers. Discussion over.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page