+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: League Suggestions (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Winterball Idea!!!!!!!!! (/showthread.php?tid=24287)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Winterball Idea!!!!!!!!! - rockybull - 03-07-2014
(03-06-2014, 10:50 PM)mattynokes Wrote: Removing winterball would only further teams stockpiling cash, so I don't think that's an option. Here's something I've came up with:
Winterball Rules:
- Cost is 10M
- Teams can acquire one more winterball slot than they're allotted (20M for extra slot)
Players can be sent based on:
- Never received a positive winterball previously
- 79 overall or lower and 80+ peak
- Any overall if drafted in previous year
1 Slot = .585+ W%
2 Slots = .500-.584 W%
3 Slots = .499- W%
Results will be input on March 1st and are produced by randomizer.org based on the following outcomes:
1-4: 250 day injury
5-10: 50 day injury
11-45: No change
46-140: +1 predicted
141-175: +1 predicted, +1 peak
176-185: +2 predicted, +1 peak
186-195: +2 predicted, +2 peak
196-200: +3 predicted, +2 peak
----------
1) Teams can pick up one additional slot. The extra slot will cost double, so it would help get cash out of the league as well as not making WB trading a get-rich-quick scheme.
2) If a player gets an injury or no change roll, they can go back through next year (as long as they still fit the rating requirements). Again, this gets cash out of the league.
3) While 80+ peak encourages better players to be sent, it will also decrease the chances other players in the file receiving a random drop.
4) As suggested before, allowing recent draftees to be WB'd only expands the pool of eligible players.
4) The new WB allotments limits the overall total of players that can be WB'd.
I don't see why it should matter what peak the player has. If he has 73 peak and 60 overall and someone wants to send him to WB for the 1st time, then so be it. Not likely WB is going to help someone like that anyway or not much. Maybe a team drafts a player in the draft and he is a 83 peak, but drops (whether it's a random drop or because of b-day) to a 79 or 78, and the team drafted him with the intention of sending him to WB as soon as they could, but would be screwed this way.
I just don't see a real good reason that you have to be a 80+ peak to go to WB. There isn't much difference between a 80 and a 78 peak player and in a lot of instances some 78 peak players in this league are better than 80 peak guys.
RE: Winterball Idea!!!!!!!!! - mike - 03-07-2014
I think the intention of the 80+ peak is to keep random drops to a minimum. If guys started sending below 80 peak and if they rolled a good number it could increase them over the 80 threshold which would mean a 80 spec somewhere else would have to drop. Of course this doesnt prevent 89 peak specs jump to 90 and making someones 90 spec drop but it helps curb problems a bit.
RE: Winterball Idea!!!!!!!!! - rockybull - 03-07-2014
(03-07-2014, 03:03 AM)mike Wrote: I think the intention of the 80+ peak is to keep random drops to a minimum. If guys started sending below 80 peak and if they rolled a good number it could increase them over the 80 threshold which would mean a 80 spec somewhere else would have to drop. Of course this doesnt prevent 89 peak specs jump to 90 and making someones 90 spec drop but it helps curb problems a bit.
I get it, but I don't like it. Just saying you can't send any 70's peak isn't a valid reason IMO when there are plenty of 78 guys just as good as 80 peak guys. If we're going to do it like that, then lets change the age requirements too. There is no age requirement now, but why should a 25 year old 77/88 go, but yet a 60/78 19 year old not be allowed to go? We're hating on the guys below 80 peak for no real good reason, other than stopping a few possible drops. If you want to do that, then fine, but lets talk about age requirement as well if we're going that route.
I'm personally not going to be sending too many 70's peak players to WB, but if I feel that I have a young guy better than what his peak shows, then it's a possibility and should be for others as well. Also if we want less drops, then we absolutely shouldn't be allowing for teams to sell their WB slot to a team that wants to use it and will use it on a player, which could make another spec fall. Some teams don't use WB, which is fine, that also helps keep drops at a minimum. I'd much rather we have WB where you can send 70's peak guys while not able to sell a WB slot. Selling your WB slot (when some wouldn't use it) would cause MORE drops (not less) than if you prevent teams from sending 70's peak players.
RE: Winterball Idea!!!!!!!!! - mattynokes - 03-16-2014
The trading of WB slots isn't necessary. Here's how it reads without them.
Winterball Rules:
- Cost is 10M
Players can be sent based on:
- Never received a positive winterball previously
- 79 overall or lower and 80+ peak
- Any overall if drafted in previous year
1 Slot = .585+ W%
2 Slots = .500-.584 W%
3 Slots = .499- W%
Results will be input on March 1st and are produced by randomizer.org based on the following outcomes:
1-4: 250 day injury
5-10: 50 day injury
11-45: No change
46-140: +1 predicted
141-175: +1 predicted, +1 peak
176-185: +2 predicted, +1 peak
186-195: +2 predicted, +2 peak
196-200: +3 predicted, +2 peak