![](images/header_16_5a-smaller.jpg)
![](images/mitt_only2.jpg)
August 27, 2010 at 06:51PM View BBCode
I've added another option that leagues can turn on and off.August 28, 2010 at 05:41AM View BBCode
I like this option, though I think the threshold at 75 may be a bit high, but I doubt very much if this will be well received.August 28, 2010 at 05:44AM View BBCode
We sometimes get people that say things like, "I wish there was multiple ways to build a team besides losing a ton of games and getting the top pick". This option, along with the other two mentoring options, should allow that.August 29, 2010 at 09:24AM View BBCode
So are these new changes site wide that will be added in? Just checking this page out a bit seems kind of hard to keep up on all the new updates and new optionsAugust 29, 2010 at 03:01PM View BBCode
We are beta testing these items for a mid-September release. A list of all new updates will be posted in Latest News sometime next week.September 05, 2010 at 01:05AM View BBCode
I like the idea of a disincentive to losing, though I agree that that 75 might be a little bit high for a "break even" point. I don't like the idea of bumping winners even more. The rich get richer is a bad plan, IMO.September 05, 2010 at 06:29PM View BBCode
Why is the off-season taking so long to run? Are we waiting on the new improvement system?September 07, 2010 at 04:07PM View BBCode
I like the idea of a disincentive to losing, though I agree that that 75 might be a little bit high for a "break even" point. I don't like the idea of bumping winners even more. The rich get richer is a bad plan, IMO.Here's the general thinking. Right now, if you are building a team up, it is generally better to lose as many games as possible because that results in a better draft pick. My goal was to design a system where winning more games might be an equal path during a rebuild, or even a superior rebuilding strategy.
September 07, 2010 at 10:18PM View BBCode
I always felt that with Sim Dynasty, you played with small-market team strategy. If you can't buy your way out of the hole you dug, you have to build from the inside.September 08, 2010 at 02:24AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
I like the idea of a disincentive to losing, though I agree that that 75 might be a little bit high for a "break even" point. I don't like the idea of bumping winners even more. The rich get richer is a bad plan, IMO.Here's the general thinking. Right now, if you are building a team up, it is generally better to lose as many games as possible because that results in a better draft pick. My goal was to design a system where winning more games might be an equal path during a rebuild, or even a superior rebuilding strategy.
Tyson
September 08, 2010 at 02:52PM View BBCode
I'd like to give an incentive for winning each additional game, up until the point where you are really fighting for the playoffs which is at 91 or so. This should present a lot of interesting decisions for owners on whether they play a mentor, a young player, or a stud that is a bad mentor.Pages: 1