 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Name Changing Restriction
Admin
Is anyone in any leagues where this change would be a problem?
In some discussions in Suggest Enhancements, I think this is away to preserve the stars in the league, while still allowing the new owner to rename some players.
Tyson
Name Changing Restriction
April 03, 2009 at 08:03PM View BBCode
I've added a name changing restriction. Once a player has been an allstar, or won the ROY award, you can no longer change his name.Is anyone in any leagues where this change would be a problem?
In some discussions in Suggest Enhancements, I think this is away to preserve the stars in the league, while still allowing the new owner to rename some players.
Tyson
tworoosters
I'd still like it expanded, once ABE properly tracks days in the majors, to exclude name changes after a players ROY eligibility expires.
[Edited on 4-4-2009 by tworoosters]
April 04, 2009 at 02:42PM View BBCode
It's a nice start.I'd still like it expanded, once ABE properly tracks days in the majors, to exclude name changes after a players ROY eligibility expires.
[Edited on 4-4-2009 by tworoosters]
tjfla1
I still would like to see something like a player can only have his name changed 1 time and that is all.
If the first Owner changes his name that is his name forever or if the owner does not change his name but the guy makes the All Star team that is his name
For example,if someone changes Joe Blow to Joe Brown that is all-cant change his name again(the option would disappear)
April 05, 2009 at 06:05PM View BBCode
Like he said its a good start.No name changes after ROY or All Star butI still would like to see something like a player can only have his name changed 1 time and that is all.
If the first Owner changes his name that is his name forever or if the owner does not change his name but the guy makes the All Star team that is his name
For example,if someone changes Joe Blow to Joe Brown that is all-cant change his name again(the option would disappear)
Arastorm
I understand the reasoning behind the name change restriction, but I mostly disagree. No one has any personal investment/attachment in that player anymore. Anyone who did is ... well ... gone. If it was traded player where another previous league owner did have a personal attachment, it is unlikely the player is an all-star ... I suspect very few, if any, all-stars are traded.
Consequently, no league owner has a lingering personal investment in the expansion players left behind, except for the new owner. And so, who is being benefited by the name-changing restriction and who is being limited by it? No one is personally benefited, and the new paying owner is being limited. This is what is called a lose-lose situation in the real world.
[Edited on 4-5-2009 by Arastorm]
April 05, 2009 at 08:31PM View BBCode
I am a new first-ever league player of an expansion team and can only look at it from my perspective. Take my opinion with that limitation in mind.I understand the reasoning behind the name change restriction, but I mostly disagree. No one has any personal investment/attachment in that player anymore. Anyone who did is ... well ... gone. If it was traded player where another previous league owner did have a personal attachment, it is unlikely the player is an all-star ... I suspect very few, if any, all-stars are traded.
Consequently, no league owner has a lingering personal investment in the expansion players left behind, except for the new owner. And so, who is being benefited by the name-changing restriction and who is being limited by it? No one is personally benefited, and the new paying owner is being limited. This is what is called a lose-lose situation in the real world.
[Edited on 4-5-2009 by Arastorm]
Jughead
All-Stars are traded a lot in many leagues, especially when a team decides to tear it down and rebuild. The personal attachment does not inherently lie in the guy who left the league at renewal time.
Changing names only once will have its critics too. Some people, when they do CP trades, change the names of the players so they remember who to trade them back to. It also keeps a third team from making a trade offer for that player.
It's for these reasons that, similar to leaving some stuff to the state level instead of the federal level, name changes might be best off set at the league level, instead of gamewide.
Preventing people with a colored bar from having a name change is a good idea though. If the league creates a hall of fame, this will make things easier.
April 05, 2009 at 08:49PM View BBCode
Your viewpoint is understandable, and a lot of the points can be valid in some leagues.All-Stars are traded a lot in many leagues, especially when a team decides to tear it down and rebuild. The personal attachment does not inherently lie in the guy who left the league at renewal time.
Changing names only once will have its critics too. Some people, when they do CP trades, change the names of the players so they remember who to trade them back to. It also keeps a third team from making a trade offer for that player.
It's for these reasons that, similar to leaving some stuff to the state level instead of the federal level, name changes might be best off set at the league level, instead of gamewide.
Preventing people with a colored bar from having a name change is a good idea though. If the league creates a hall of fame, this will make things easier.
tworoosters
Actually this whole idea was started because other owners in leagues don't want players names changed, for league continuity.
Benefits are derived by the other owners who remain in the league, more than one single owner acquiring a team.
[Edited on 4-5-2009 by tworoosters]
April 05, 2009 at 08:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Arastorm
Consequently, no league owner has a lingering personal investment in the expansion players left behind, except for the new owner. And so, who is being benefited by the name-changing restriction and who is being limited by it? No one is personally benefited, and the new paying owner is being limited. This is what is called a lose-lose situation in the real world.
Actually this whole idea was started because other owners in leagues don't want players names changed, for league continuity.
Benefits are derived by the other owners who remain in the league, more than one single owner acquiring a team.
[Edited on 4-5-2009 by tworoosters]
Arastorm
And that is my limitation; as a brand new player, I don't see it from your perspective. Why should I care if your top pitcher is named Todd Rooster this year and named Rooster Cog next year? League continuity doesn't really matter, because YOU are my competition and how YOU draft and set up your team. The fictional Rooster isn't my personal attachment, while I expect him to be yours.
[Edited on 4-5-2009 by Arastorm]
April 05, 2009 at 09:04PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Actually this whole idea was started because other owners in leagues don't want players names changed, for league continuity.
Benefits are derived by the other owners who remain in the league, more than one single owner acquiring a team.
[Edited on 4-5-2009 by tworoosters]
And that is my limitation; as a brand new player, I don't see it from your perspective. Why should I care if your top pitcher is named Todd Rooster this year and named Rooster Cog next year? League continuity doesn't really matter, because YOU are my competition and how YOU draft and set up your team. The fictional Rooster isn't my personal attachment, while I expect him to be yours.
[Edited on 4-5-2009 by Arastorm]
tworoosters
Interesting perspective.
April 05, 2009 at 10:00PM View BBCode
So the fact that the majority, the other owners, receive benefit means nothing to you ?Interesting perspective.
barterer2002
The reason behind this idea (which has been coming for four years) is that I spend 10 years competing against Todd Rooster. Even though he's no longer on my team I've competed against him for a decade, faced him in the playoffs and battled with him throughout the decade. After those ten years, the owner of the team, for whatever reason, departs the league. The new owner comes in and says I'm renaming Rooster to Steve Jeltz because I loved the 1988 Phillies. Now as the new owner you say that I have no investment in Rooster but since I've been playing in the league for 40 seasons and against Rooster for 10 years and while he's never played on my team I would say I've got some investment in him.
For the record the leagues I play in have rules in place that require that a player not to have their player's renamed after they've played one year in the majors.
April 05, 2009 at 10:14PM View BBCode
ArastormThe reason behind this idea (which has been coming for four years) is that I spend 10 years competing against Todd Rooster. Even though he's no longer on my team I've competed against him for a decade, faced him in the playoffs and battled with him throughout the decade. After those ten years, the owner of the team, for whatever reason, departs the league. The new owner comes in and says I'm renaming Rooster to Steve Jeltz because I loved the 1988 Phillies. Now as the new owner you say that I have no investment in Rooster but since I've been playing in the league for 40 seasons and against Rooster for 10 years and while he's never played on my team I would say I've got some investment in him.
For the record the leagues I play in have rules in place that require that a player not to have their player's renamed after they've played one year in the majors.
Arastorm
Is it really the majority of other owners? Is there a way to tell? Was there a poll emailed to all player-owners to respond to, emailed just like injury and trade reports that go out? Or is your interpretation of majority simply a tally of the vocal message board participants which is normally a minority of the entire public? Were new players who are usually unaware of any message board tally offered a voice? I'm not attempting to be snide; simply wondering why you believe your opinion is the majority, and whether it is just a perception of majority.
For the third time, I confess that I do not have a long-term ownership, and that I do not identify with participants who do. My opinion is formed strictly by being a brand-new player. Probably a message board's different voice and outlook, and thereby certainly, at the very least, an interesting perspective. Thank you for the observation.
April 06, 2009 at 09:33AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
So the fact that the majority, the other owners, receive benefit means nothing to you ?
Interesting perspective.
Is it really the majority of other owners? Is there a way to tell? Was there a poll emailed to all player-owners to respond to, emailed just like injury and trade reports that go out? Or is your interpretation of majority simply a tally of the vocal message board participants which is normally a minority of the entire public? Were new players who are usually unaware of any message board tally offered a voice? I'm not attempting to be snide; simply wondering why you believe your opinion is the majority, and whether it is just a perception of majority.
For the third time, I confess that I do not have a long-term ownership, and that I do not identify with participants who do. My opinion is formed strictly by being a brand-new player. Probably a message board's different voice and outlook, and thereby certainly, at the very least, an interesting perspective. Thank you for the observation.
Arastorm
Since I haven't gone through the 40 years in the way that you have, I cannot state via experience that I identify with your investment in any two roosters, whether known as Todd or Cog. Perhaps my vision and outlook will change as I go through a long-term experience. However, I'm not there yet; I'm at the phase I like/identify with my players and don't give a hoot (or is it a cluck?) about yours. Hence, I'm not saying you're wrong to have your investment in someone else's player, just that I don't identify with it. My competition is you, the owner, not a fictional Todd Rooster or Rooster Cog.
April 06, 2009 at 09:45AM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
... Even though he's no longer on my team I've competed against him for a decade, faced him in the playoffs and battled with him throughout the decade. ... The new owner comes in and says I'm renaming Rooster to Steve Jeltz because I loved the 1988 Phillies. Now as the new owner you say that I have no investment in Rooster but since I've been playing in the league for 40 seasons and against Rooster for 10 years and while he's never played on my team I would say I've got some investment in him.
Since I haven't gone through the 40 years in the way that you have, I cannot state via experience that I identify with your investment in any two roosters, whether known as Todd or Cog. Perhaps my vision and outlook will change as I go through a long-term experience. However, I'm not there yet; I'm at the phase I like/identify with my players and don't give a hoot (or is it a cluck?) about yours. Hence, I'm not saying you're wrong to have your investment in someone else's player, just that I don't identify with it. My competition is you, the owner, not a fictional Todd Rooster or Rooster Cog.
Admin
We get complaints on this often. People come into a Dynasty league, change the names of some of the league's most known players, then depart 2 seasons later. A lot of people get upset about it - see Suggest Enhancements, there's a thread on this about every 3 months.
I feel this is a good compromise. It will still allow the guy to put his mark on his team through some name changes, but not rename some of the better known guys on the team.
Tyson
April 06, 2009 at 02:05PM View BBCode
As you can see, it is a balancing act which is why I only put the restriction in for all stars.We get complaints on this often. People come into a Dynasty league, change the names of some of the league's most known players, then depart 2 seasons later. A lot of people get upset about it - see Suggest Enhancements, there's a thread on this about every 3 months.
I feel this is a good compromise. It will still allow the guy to put his mark on his team through some name changes, but not rename some of the better known guys on the team.
Tyson
Hamilton2
I've played in a half dozen different leagues, and hundreds of simmed seasons. Every single time that a new player joins a league and changes the names of all the players there are complaints from multiple other owners in the league. Every time. No exceptions.
It is a simple matter of being able to look at a player's name and judge his performance easily. Not all A/A's are equal, some are low in the grades, some are high. When a player gets his name changed after a lengthy career, that player loses his recognizability and status in the league.
This is a great compromise, to only allow name changes prior to any all-star or award appearance. There is still plenty of freedom for a new owner to "make his mark" and yet there is also plenty of emphasis on league continuity and tradition.
April 06, 2009 at 03:40PM View BBCode
Arastorm, to address your question of whether this is a majority opinion:I've played in a half dozen different leagues, and hundreds of simmed seasons. Every single time that a new player joins a league and changes the names of all the players there are complaints from multiple other owners in the league. Every time. No exceptions.
It is a simple matter of being able to look at a player's name and judge his performance easily. Not all A/A's are equal, some are low in the grades, some are high. When a player gets his name changed after a lengthy career, that player loses his recognizability and status in the league.
This is a great compromise, to only allow name changes prior to any all-star or award appearance. There is still plenty of freedom for a new owner to "make his mark" and yet there is also plenty of emphasis on league continuity and tradition.
Pioneers47
April 08, 2009 at 05:44PM View BBCode
I agree with Ham on this one too...and I speak from experience coming into to a new league and being new to the game and changing names...lots of people didn't like it. And to be honest, the recognition of players by name and not by their skills is very beneficial to everyone. I can recognize the players ability by his name now and not have to look up his skill to see who I am facing. Outside of that, the other thing that makes a game like this enjoyable is to have some kind of 'attachment' to the player and that is why the option IMO is there to begin with. I find it hard to sometimes trade guys on my roster who I have named and played with for seasons just because of that...and it is really no different then real owners and their loyalty. We have had trades in our league to get great players who have played for 15 seasons with no ring to a team that has a shot...'just to get the guy a ring'.
celamantia
April 17, 2009 at 02:46PM View BBCode
I still would like to plug for leagues with name change restrictions to have, as an option, the ability to restore ABE's original name for the player even if other name changes are restricted after a period of time. This would require an extra field to hold the original name, of course, although it can probably be found with a news search.
CCondardo
When new people join the league this would prevent them from messing up previous records and any other reason why people would object name changes. I think you could just have several options in the league settings to turn on "no name changes option A, B, C" ect ect and have all the different options. That way it is league by league and everyone can be happy about it.
[Edited on 4-17-2009 by CCondardo]
April 17, 2009 at 03:04PM View BBCode
The best rule I have found is no name changes once the player eligible for ROY.When new people join the league this would prevent them from messing up previous records and any other reason why people would object name changes. I think you could just have several options in the league settings to turn on "no name changes option A, B, C" ect ect and have all the different options. That way it is league by league and everyone can be happy about it.
[Edited on 4-17-2009 by CCondardo]
chi925a
In addition to this many leagues have created fairly elaborate history tracking of a variety of things like league leaders (AL/NL) Gold glove awards etc. When a new owner suddenly changes a name the entire history so painstakenly created becomes disconnected. To this end, this is a nice and elegant solution.
April 20, 2009 at 08:54PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Arastorm, to address your question of whether this is a majority opinion:
I've played in a half dozen different leagues, and hundreds of simmed seasons. Every single time that a new player joins a league and changes the names of all the players there are complaints from multiple other owners in the league. Every time. No exceptions.
It is a simple matter of being able to look at a player's name and judge his performance easily. Not all A/A's are equal, some are low in the grades, some are high. When a player gets his name changed after a lengthy career, that player loses his recognizability and status in the league.
This is a great compromise, to only allow name changes prior to any all-star or award appearance. There is still plenty of freedom for a new owner to "make his mark" and yet there is also plenty of emphasis on league continuity and tradition.
In addition to this many leagues have created fairly elaborate history tracking of a variety of things like league leaders (AL/NL) Gold glove awards etc. When a new owner suddenly changes a name the entire history so painstakenly created becomes disconnected. To this end, this is a nice and elegant solution.
Pages: 1