I think this is ridiculous that guys are quitting out on the computer and restarting their games so they could win. If you lose, you lose you shouldn't be allowed to quit out on them something needs to be done IMO.
I agree 100%, but like its been said unfortunately we have no clear cut way of knowing shy of someone literally watching their online status during games and literally seeing someone losing "in the 4th Quarter" by 20 pts or more, suddenly "disconnect" and restart.
All I can say is what Big P pointed out.. if you're losing to the Cpu, then you're likely not going to beat any Human opponent. (least of all you with that cheat, that I told you to stop using every other play.
)
But all in all, if you ARE restarting due to a major injury happening or simply losing.. come on, is it truly that bad for you - that you need to do that? Fuck, I've considered restarting due to my Rookie QB throwing an INT (or 2
) when I was winning 65-3.. but never D/Cing when I was losing, or when a star got injured. I'll take a loss or injury before I'll take shit looking stats.
But seriously, I actually encourage injury because I feel it'd give me a challenge to find another way around that specific position. (especially injuries to positions I don't have major back-ups for) And if I'm losing to the cpu then I DESERVE to lose.
So at most all I can say is.. if anyone IS doing this.. knock it off and play like a Man, not a little bitch.
Baller - as for anything more than simply 'warning them' there isn't a lot I can do, however.. especially since (unfortunately) I know first hand how bullshit it is to be winning (or even losing) and have a game D/C me 2-8 times a session. (ask anyone I played, yourself included, last season)
I understand your point, but disagree with one thing about it. We do not know what will happen to our rosters next season, and as such we may dump 1 or more of the FAs we signed. I can almost guarantee I will do that with at least 1 of mine. I signed Larry Johnson to be my #2 back this season. Next year, Shonn Greene will go up another 6 points (79->85, becasue he is the f'n man) and Darren McFadden will go up probably 3 or 4 (85->88/89). I would then have no need for Larry Johnson (now an 88 overall), and thus will probably trade him next season. It isn't because I never needed him, rather I just don't need him anymore.
So unless we have to cut some good players next year (an idea I not only recommend, but LIKE and PREFER), I will trade him for a position of need.
Thats kinda the point though.. lets think of this in a real life setting.
If a team is no longer in
NEED of a player, even if they're considered "good".. would they hold them and never cut them, unless they get something in return? Or would they TRY to trade and cut them when no team is stupid enough to take the bait of a player EVERY team knows they'll cut, due to lack of use for that individual?
In other words.. if I'm going to allow trades for FAs you've just picked up (such as Larry Johnson), then its going to be at a very decreased value for them.
Meaning.. Larry Johnson, whos 30 yrs old/7 yr pro, at an 88 ovr.. would only be eligible for trade to a team that would use him as their starter.. and for anyone 5 ovr pts less than he is, thats also the same age/# of yr's pro. (so anyone 83 or under)
The objective of fairness I'm trying to pull off with this is simple.. NO NFL team is going to make a trade for a player 'said' team is no longer wanting, in exchange for a starter on their team that they likely NEED. (ie. Dallas couldn't trade Owens, so they cut him.)
Right now the rough idea is..
90 and over - 10 pts decreased value, (so 10 points off 90, would be 80 - yay we all took math class) and same # of yr's pro/or age difference. Player attempting to trade for, MUST be a back-up.
89 and under - 5 pts decreased value, (so 5 points off 89, would be 84) and same # of yr's pro/or age difference. Player attempting to trade for, MUST be a back-up.
Once again I know it sounds harsh and a very bad deal.. but think back to the reality of it. NO NFL TEAM is going to trade "starter A", for your 2nd/3rd string back-up. Even if 'said' player of yours would become their starter.
I hope this makes sense. If not, I'll continue trying to explain it.
This is where the suggestion of having to cut a good player or 2 comes in handy. In real life, teams cut good players, if they don't fit the system, or they are too expensive, or they suck as people (like Larry Johnson). We need to stop pillaging the CPU teams, and start replenishing them, otherwise there will be no competitive balance between the teams, and no one will want to join this franchise. Next season we should probably include the CPU in free agent signings when (if) you cut players from their rosters this offseason.
Next season I will implement the goal of trying to sign FA's to CPU teams as well. (You're going to make me literally draw 32 team names out of a hat at random, you bastard.)
Well if I am allowed to join I would hopefully be getting the Colts so there you go, another AFC team.
Anyone can join at any time. Just be forewarned at the unfortunate possibility that the current remaining Cpu teams may or may not have been "slightly altered." And by altered, I mean.. Brian fucked the Packers, Baller fucked the Bears, and if you pick Tampa Bay or Atlanta.. Marquis and I, will be fucking you.
I kid, I kid.
The Colts ARE still a cpu-used team. They also still have ALL their top starters. (Manning, Addai & Brown, Wayne & the rest of the WR core, Clark, 90% of their original OL - (a rookie w/ higher ovr replaced someone), and your entire Defense. (minus Clint Session who I traded for and gave Landon Johnson as a replacement)
If you want the Colts, you are more than Welcome to join. It'll be great to have another AFC human rep, as well as someone taking a team as solid as the Colts in an attempt to make them work.
Hey Will, by the looks of it tonight I might not be able to play my game until late tonight. I will have it done tonight, but it may be a late start time. I do apologize, but I will finish the game tonight, just will be later.
I see you've played your game, no problem. For future reference though, if you feel you can't meet a deadline - let me know before the day OF the deadline. lol I may have advanced the week, had I of been home.
I traded Portis and I think a WR for Jacobs, so that's not what Will is talking about. What's he talking about is say going into FA, Picking up Osi so you can trade for Ed Reed or Andre Johnson. Don't sign people with intent to trade them. However, he's also right in saying that its almost unheard of to sign a guy to a 4 - 5 year contract and the next year sign him. I can see it happening, but its very unlikely.
Exactly. I have Owens, who is in the 90's.. but I didn't sign him so I could go rape a Cpu team with a player I DIDN'T have cut. So I don't expect, nor want to see, anyone else trying to rape the FA system in this manner either.
Again.. the moderate rule change if we're going with one.. would be this..
90 and over - 10 pts decreased value, (so 10 points off 90, would be 80 - yay we all took math class) and same # of yr's pro/or age difference. Player attempting to trade for, MUST be a back-up.
89 and under - 5 pts decreased value, (so 5 points off 89, would be 84) and same # of yr's pro/or age difference. Player attempting to trade for, MUST be a back-up.
Once again I know it sounds harsh and a very bad deal.. but think back to the reality of it. NO NFL TEAM is going to trade "starter A", for your 2nd/3rd string back-up. Even if 'said' player of yours would become their starter.
