no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Transfer Market - Read OP Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 7 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2013-02-05 20:57:57 (ID: 80894) Report Abuse | |
|
Swordpriest1 wrote:
might be this is as easy for you as you wrote. for me it is not, since i have to deal with all the complaints about cheaters and so on. the current system has its flaws, well known. a new system will raise others, and before i go for any implementation, i have to be sure about how to deal with these things. like that or not...it is the only possible way for meScottWAR wrote:
Agree to disagree? Not a problem..........I can adapt to the current system as well...........but when you have so many people that dont like something its a good idea to change it before they leave....not after.  "There is ALWAYS a next player..." That.... doesnt.... matter...
I can't agree to disagree or be inviting to the prospect that this is the system in place and that others like me should just shut up and work around it. I've said it before and I repeat... I'm not going to be apart of this TM. If there was a way for my team to be consistantly good w/o having to dabble in it... i'm all for it but as it stands if you do not participate in the TM you are at a SEVERE disadvantage in terms to long term success. The Draft is dicey and the YA can only go so far... The one aspect where you have absolute control of player personnel is TM and for it to be such a contrivance is inexcusable. I'm not apologizing to anyone on pointing out the lopsided fallacies of its mechanics. "I would agree if making the change for the better but replacing one flawed with another?"- Roger
No one is asking for the perfect system..... we just want one that is more conducive for everyone no matter of the time. I DONT care what system we have.... you take the 2min gimmick and the time specificity out and I can work with it. The Pros of "There is ALWAYS a next player" or the Cons of "The possibility of cheating" (both stated ad nausea) are equally irrelevant to me... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2013-02-05 21:10:51 (ID: 80897) Report Abuse |
|
I'm starting to think we might need to have a cap on fire breathing emoticons per poster a day. lol. Just teasing!!!
If the system changed then that is fine, I will adapt to it. I'm not in love with the current TM, but like Peter I don't want to make small fix adjustments thinking it is fixed but...uh oh...it is just different problem now. I am personally ok with it as is now. I've adjusted for now. When there is a "serious" majority (like, I don't know, 65-75% ish) that are chanting for change with reasons then it is the optimal time to do so. Right now that is not the case, so Peter is getting info and mulling it over so he is ready in the future. Without trying to sound like Beatles Hippie....but for right now we just have to "Let It Be."  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-02-05 21:31:21 (ID: 80903) Report Abuse | |
|
By the way, how would it help, if we
A.) remove the 2 minute extension? It would just harm the seller, IMO. B.) remove the deadline decision for the seller? We could add a random value on that..so the seller cannot influence the deadline anymore. I don't see how that helps, since the deadlines would be randomly spread over the 24 available hours... C.) Limit the bid war to bidders already placed a bid? If we say you can bid on every player during his first 2 days of the bid period, and once these 48 hours are over only those managers can place additional bids that were bidding during the initial 48 hour period...everyone would make a bid during that 48 hours, just to be able to place "sniper bids" D.) How can it help to extend the initial bid to a higher amount than 16,000? We would go back to the early days of RZA where managers cheated by adding useless chunk to the market for millions of dollars, and by a single bid they would achieve their goal...the same reason we have limits on raising a bid by a max of 50% E.) Blind bids...nobody knows about how to value players, nobody has an idea about what the player is worth for others. This is an issue for newbees IMO. On top of that the system would have to deal with hundreds of useless bids, since "thousands" of managers will place their 1k bid again and again just for nothing. The actual system is avoiding this completely. F.) Robot bidding, public, like Ebay...maybe there were changes, so I am talking about the system I know from my Ebay experience 10 years ago (something like that): A player sees the current price, and can place a bid that is hidden. If another user is bidding higher than the visible price, the system will double-check with the hidden bids and process the bidding stages as long as the new bid got over-bidden, or the new bid wins over the old one...This is possible till the last second of the bidding period. It is as sniper proon as the existing one. And it would have to provide something like the 2 minute extension, IMO. How does that stuff help those that would like to sleep at night instead sitting in front of the computer to get a player?? By the way, I fully agree that it shouldn't be necessary to stay up at midnight for getting a player - no doubt. Now you know my concerns in detail, tell me where I am wrong, but watch your tongues, please. Lets have a clean discussion instead pointless accusation and rant |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ScottWAR
|
posted: 2013-02-05 21:52:46 (ID: 80911) Report Abuse |
|
Use robot bidding and allow entering in one and one bid only............if your bid gets beat you cant put in another one......so put in what you are willing to spend to begin with. If you are sniped,,,....it was more than you were willing to pay anyway.
The only down side is new players not knowing how much players are worth.......but honestly........new players dont know the value of players as it is now.......some things just have to be learned and cant be spoon fed to you. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-02-05 22:19:29 (ID: 80921) Report Abuse | |
|
Chatral wrote:
missed that one completely...
@Holmeboy Thank you for the link. Pete summarized his position in that thread as 1) he doesn't like that system 2) it favors the richest player and 3) he doesn't like the system. On seeing this my conclusion swiftly became that I do not see merit in further debate. The reason is this - any game system normally has one or two fundamental mechanics, such as wealth, or in MMORPG sometimes a combination of wealth and experience (for your 93rd level Elf Archer-Assassin, or whatever it is). I don't think Pete knows how to control the flow of wealth in the RZA system (sorry Pete, you're a god but you have got this one wrong). Heck, it's a challenge in any game system; I've done consultancy work for Pro game companies and, after player-relations, game-balance is normally the biggest problem they face for sustainability reasons. I'm a free marketeer and would argue that 'you can only spend it once'. So what if Captain Rich has a billion $ in his account and wants to spend it all on a Draftee for sale by Mr Newbie, a Rookie Manager - it redistributes that in-game 'power' in an instant. It's super-efficient and rich clubs being able to blow their wad in a single hit is fantastic for the game. If you successfully constrain the spending of big clubs via whatever mechanic (in the case of the TM, time-dependent bidding), all they will do if they cannot be online at the end of an auction is bid-up other clubs and cause those - potentially smaller clubs - to spend more of their cash. It actually perpetuates wealth staying with the wealthy. It becomes impossible to spend (a complaint I've seen on a number of threads) unless you are BOTH a rich club AND online a lot. The current system doesn't limit the power of the rich - just those who are cash rich AND time poor. Why do I make this point? I'm not saying that - the forbidden system - is the only solution, but if the game designer doesn't want to let rich clubs spend their winnings on furthering their success, you will be unable to find a $-based solution to trades. All you will do is provide a forum in which people will get pissed at each other (which is largely what I found on that last thread). I fear you are on a hiding to nothing. The only solution I can see is that you FUNDAMENTALLY change the game so that for example $ is ONLY spent on player salaries, and that players can ONLY be acquired via a draft - like in the good old days of 1980s NFL. Anything else will just be changing the shape of the current problem, without fixing it. It's fine, it's Pete's game - but I feel his starting position will prohibit useful debate. Let's just live with what we've got (or go somewhere else). For me - let the spice (sorry, the cash) flow. . . the i dont like it statement was more meant to be a dirty joke, never mind.... please see my longer post above for some thoughts/fears i have |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-02-05 22:41:32 (ID: 80924) Report Abuse | |
|
last one for today...
you have to ask yourself if we go for a or b, there is no c a: we care about the cheating thing, and try to establish a system that is not cheatable that easy b: we dont care about cheating anymore, and therefore remove all controlling elements like limited initial bids and limited raise options...and dont act on cheat reports anymore for myself this is clearly a, but this limits the whole thing...do we need a poll on this? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
holmeboy
|
posted: 2013-02-05 22:47:39 (ID: 80926) Report Abuse |
|
Sorry guys havent had the time to u p d a t e yet. But I will do tomorrow morning most likely so everything will be nice and concise on the OP.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2013-02-06 05:15:15 (ID: 80959) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
There is ALWAYS a "next" player that comes along to fill that spot for you to bid on again. It still means those that can be online 24/7 have more opportunities. And a real key player for a manager might come along that is a once in a blue moon player and you can't bid. This sort of stuff is where championships are won and lost - it's that simple no matter how you "look at it". And then there is the drawn out bidding war issue even if you can be there "at the deadline". Anything that can nullify this, without introducing new problems, would be great. Like Ebay + a watchdog/veto page  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2013-02-06 08:49:34 (ID: 80977) Report Abuse |
|
I have another new idea. Perhaps it would help to limit the bids per team every season.
The league 1 team would have a basic bidnumber of 100. Every league level below would increase the basic bid number by 100. Every team below the best team would get additional 3 bids for every place behind team 1. The worst teams would get 31*3= 93 additional bids. (The numbers are only examples) Every manager has to budget with his bids. Top-managers can't bid on many players during the season and prizes might raise faster. Perhaps the prizes will be lower at the end of the season, because Top-managers have spend all their bid to early. In a bidwar not only the money in the bank would have an influence on the bidding but also the number of the bid account. Perhaps a good team has still enough money, but runs out of bids during a bidwar. Last edited on 2013-02-06 08:49:53 by Buffalo |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ScottWAR
|
posted: 2013-02-06 14:35:31 (ID: 81018) Report Abuse |
|
When I have to choose between the game and sleep, life, work,. etc....the game is eventually going to lose,...and I am going to walk away. Its sad,...becasue I like the game,...but the simple fact is,...its quickly becoming a job to get player off of the TM,...and I dont need another job,.......work isnt fun.
Last edited on 2013-02-06 14:54:50 by ScottWAR |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 7 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Transfer Market - Read OP | |
