Warrior General Games

This will create some of the following issues:

1) it will have an impact on strength of schedule, which could have an impact on teams fighting for the playoff spot.

2) it could have an impact on playoff seeding, since one of the tie breakers is points differential.

My suggestion is to implement a daily limit on roster moves per team. First 12 days of the season, 4 player transaction max per day (2 additions and 2 subtractions), the next 12 days til roster freeze, each team can have a max of 2 player transactions per day (1 addition and 1 subtraction). This will prevent fire sales just before roster freeze deadline, and at the same time, it won't impact teams from improving their rosters during the season (total of 36 additions in a season should be enough).

Can someone who has access to Bort please discuss this with him? I think it will benefit WL greatly.

Originally posted by datongw
This will create some of the following issues:

1) it will have an impact on strength of schedule, which could have an impact on teams fighting for the playoff spot.

2) it could have an impact on playoff seeding, since one of the tie breakers is points differential.

My suggestion is to implement a daily limit on roster moves per team. First 12 days of the season, 4 player transaction max per day (2 additions and 2 subtractions), the next 12 days til roster freeze, each team can have a max of 2 player transactions per day (1 addition and 1 subtraction). This will prevent fire sales just before roster freeze deadline, and at the same time, it won't impact teams from improving their rosters during the season (total of 36 additions in a season should be enough).

Can someone who has access to Bort please discuss this with him? I think it will benefit WL greatly.

Great idea Daton...You are are big idea man....

Originally posted by datongw
This will create some of the following issues:

1) it will have an impact on strength of schedule, which could have an impact on teams fighting for the playoff spot.

2) it could have an impact on playoff seeding, since one of the tie breakers is points differential.

My suggestion is to implement a daily limit on roster moves per team. First 12 days of the season, 4 player transaction max per day (2 additions and 2 subtractions), the next 12 days til roster freeze, each team can have a max of 2 player transactions per day (1 addition and 1 subtraction). This will prevent fire sales just before roster freeze deadline, and at the same time, it won't impact teams from improving their rosters during the season (total of 36 additions in a season should be enough).

Can someone who has access to Bort please discuss this with him? I think it will benefit WL greatly.

I like the idea. I also think it should be implemented with a change that wouldn't allow owners to sell mid-season too.

Originally posted by Sik Wit It
I like the idea. I also think it should be implemented with a change that wouldn't allow owners to sell mid-season too.

Yeah, that should be added as well.

Hell this would benefit the whole game if used in every league tbh.

Originally posted by datongw
This will create some of the following issues:

1) it will have an impact on strength of schedule, which could have an impact on teams fighting for the playoff spot.

2) it could have an impact on playoff seeding, since one of the tie breakers is points differential.

My suggestion is to implement a daily limit on roster moves per team. First 12 days of the season, 4 player transaction max per day (2 additions and 2 subtractions), the next 12 days til roster freeze, each team can have a max of 2 player transactions per day (1 addition and 1 subtraction). This will prevent fire sales just before roster freeze deadline, and at the same time, it won't impact teams from improving their rosters during the season (total of 36 additions in a season should be enough).

Can someone who has access to Bort please discuss this with him? I think it will benefit WL greatly.

or we could also stop giving incentives to team's to gut early at the very least. It's ridiculous that this has been allowed for so long, not only allowed, but encouraged. Right now, the only reason not to gut mid-season if you are a team planning on gutting at the end of the season is personal integrity and respect for other people. Unfortunately, as has been proven over and over again, most people don't have that. It's the lolinternets guys! Real life rules on common courtesy don't apply here and anyone who believes they do get made fun of and the best part is that the people who run this game do NOTHING to stop it. In fact, they continue to give power to people who perpetuate it.

Gutting early ruins seasons and with the stakes on the line that their are in the WL, making the playoffs is pretty big. Santiago and Stewart who were both WAY behind us and Manitoba in points scored now gain a massive advantage in the points scored category because of Tasmania gutting mid-season. However, I don't blame the players of the game for doing it. I never blame the players. Even when teams like Halifax pull the crap they did today, I don't blame them. I blame the people who can do something about it, that choose not to. Hell, Jed gutted his team mid-season a while back and more than one moderator has done the same. It is clear that Bort doesn't give a shit about it to take the literally dozens of steps that he could to prevent it.

Makes way too much sense for it to be implemented. Sorry.

+1 should have been implemented yesteryear

Originally posted by datongw
This will create some of the following issues:

1) it will have an impact on strength of schedule, which could have an impact on teams fighting for the playoff spot.

2) it could have an impact on playoff seeding, since one of the tie breakers is points differential.


You can't really prevent #1 - you can't force teams to be competitive enough to win if they've given up.
#2 is better solved by changing the tiebreakers.

That said, I don't have a problem with this concept, either. I just don't know that it will really fix the problem by itself.

Originally posted by joemiken
Makes way too much sense for it to be implemented. Sorry.

He should be glad it's got this many posts. Oftentimes, suggestions with no holes in them don't get more than 2-3 replies.

Originally posted by NiborRis
Originally posted by datongw

This will create some of the following issues:

1) it will have an impact on strength of schedule, which could have an impact on teams fighting for the playoff spot.

2) it could have an impact on playoff seeding, since one of the tie breakers is points differential.


You can't really prevent #1 - you can't force teams to be competitive enough to win if they've given up.
#2 is better solved by changing the tiebreakers.

That said, I don't have a problem with this concept, either. I just don't know that it will really fix the problem by itself.

I agree with this assessment.

Further, I am not a fan of trying to come up with a bunch of rules to punish people for essentially fucking off with their team OR to force people to stay on a dead duck for weeks. They paid $x for it; they can tank if they want to. People's dots have limited shelf lives - they should be free to seek greener pastures. It's not like this is anyone's livelihood or anything.

Originally posted by kurieg
I agree with this assessment.

Further, I am not a fan of trying to come up with a bunch of rules to punish people for essentially fucking off with their team OR to force people to stay on a dead duck for weeks. They paid $x for it; they can tank if they want to. People's dots have limited shelf lives - they should be free to seek greener pastures. It's not like this is anyone's livelihood or anything.



Let me knock a hole in this mindset. What people do with their dots effects other people's dots. It's kind of like leaving the scene of a wreck. Sure you weren't in the wreck or caused the wreck but if you let someone die because you didn't do anything you are at fault.

Example there are 3 teams playing for the last playoff spot in a random league all are .500 atm. Team A has played team B and already lost to them. Team C has yet to play team B but team B decides to gut. Now Team C has a free win over a team that already beat team A. Effectively knocking team A out of the playoffs because they have and had a harder schedule simply because team B wasn't gutted when they played. What team B did does effect other people's time and money as well.

Try as you might, you simply can't legislate fairness.

The OP ideas aren't bad though, and I would possibly support some sort of "special measures" or incentives that were unique to WL play.

Originally posted by MrNomad
Let me knock a hole in this mindset. What people do with their dots effects other people's dots. It's kind of like leaving the scene of a wreck. Sure you weren't in the wreck or caused the wreck but if you let someone die because you didn't do anything you are at fault.

Example there are 3 teams playing for the last playoff spot in a random league all are .500 atm. Team A has played team B and already lost to them. Team C has yet to play team B but team B decides to gut. Now Team C has a free win over a team that already beat team A. Effectively knocking team A out of the playoffs because they have and had a harder schedule simply because team B wasn't gutted when they played. What team B did does effect other people's time and money as well.

Look, first let's get something straight. "You let someone die" type arguments are worthless. Furthermore, for that argument to even be an analogy, the person lying their dying at the scene of the wreck would basically have put themselves in that position - because that's what happens when your team is barely good enough to even be in the hunt for a playoff spot. You're at the mercy of everyone else.