Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by F8n4tune
I like this and am of the sense that any idea that doesn't include smaller rosters will help nothing. Player agents are what drive/fund this game , they need to be kept active. Stats are what works , period. Also i'd like to add that teams should..........
1) Cost more to own
2) Not be allowed to sell back during season with a flex refund of any type. Say day -8 until that season ends you get zip zero nada.
We are likely going to do both of the above.
Teams should be able to go CPU during the season, but they shouldn't get flex back for it.
Any chance you want to elaborate as to why teams need to cost more to own, and why people shouldn't be unhappy about it?
My reason would be in the above post of mine. I don't think people would complain either , it would make owners build less players of their own for their team too I would think. Opens up the game a little.
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by F8n4tune
I like this and am of the sense that any idea that doesn't include smaller rosters will help nothing. Player agents are what drive/fund this game , they need to be kept active. Stats are what works , period. Also i'd like to add that teams should..........
1) Cost more to own
2) Not be allowed to sell back during season with a flex refund of any type. Say day -8 until that season ends you get zip zero nada.
We are likely going to do both of the above.
Teams should be able to go CPU during the season, but they shouldn't get flex back for it.
Any chance you want to elaborate as to why teams need to cost more to own, and why people shouldn't be unhappy about it?
My reason would be in the above post of mine. I don't think people would complain either , it would make owners build less players of their own for their team too I would think. Opens up the game a little.