 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Roster Glitch - Needs to be Fixed
tworoosters
Basically I guess you should set up something where teams can't waive players, or they can't be auto-waived, if the roster will drop below 45. If the team is still over the cap with 45 then a performance penalty, like in salary baseball leagues, should be applied .
[Edited on 4-16-2011 by tworoosters]
Roster Glitch - Needs to be Fixed
April 15, 2011 at 03:35PM View BBCode
Haven't seen this before but teams should not be allowed to play with less than a 45 man roster.Currently Hamilton has only 34 players on the roster due to the salary cap .Basically I guess you should set up something where teams can't waive players, or they can't be auto-waived, if the roster will drop below 45. If the team is still over the cap with 45 then a performance penalty, like in salary baseball leagues, should be applied .
[Edited on 4-16-2011 by tworoosters]
Hamilton2
April 15, 2011 at 07:15PM View BBCode
Having 34 players is a performance penalty. I'm just getting really really lucky.
Hamilton2
April 15, 2011 at 07:16PM View BBCode
(Also, I tried to complete a trade to get under the cap and still keep 45 players, but Chris wasn't around to fix an issue with the ability to trade between BOS and I until after the trade deadline, so the system just auto-waived people instead.)
tworoosters
The bottom line is:
1) Teams should be forced to have 45 players on their roster
2) If they are unable to do that without going over the cap then players on that team should take a 10%, or whatever %, hit in their skills across the board.
Otherwise this presents a huge loophole and virtually eliminates any effectiveness of the salary cap.
April 15, 2011 at 07:24PM View BBCode
Oh I'm not blaming you hammy, I just don't think it should be allowed to happen. While having 34 players may limit your options I don't think your players skills are being reduced as is the case with over the cap teams in baseball.The bottom line is:
1) Teams should be forced to have 45 players on their roster
2) If they are unable to do that without going over the cap then players on that team should take a 10%, or whatever %, hit in their skills across the board.
Otherwise this presents a huge loophole and virtually eliminates any effectiveness of the salary cap.
redcped
Also, on another point, did anyone notice Chicago has no kicker or punter this season. He's got a safety who is kicking FG at a decent clip despite C ratings.
April 15, 2011 at 08:02PM View BBCode
Shouldn't there be an increased injury risk at some point? I would imagine that there must be challenges getting everyone the rest they normally would require.Also, on another point, did anyone notice Chicago has no kicker or punter this season. He's got a safety who is kicking FG at a decent clip despite C ratings.
Hamilton2
My counter argument to this is simple:
Why should teams be penalized for doing well in the initial draft?
I spent a lot of time setting up my initial draft bids and ranking players and stuff. The results? Pretty convincing at this point in the season. I only have 34 players and I'm 12-1 and have already clinched a 1st round playoff bye.
Why should anyone be forced to trade/waive their good players because they did well at gaining top 3 picks in multiple positions?
I know why the salary cap is in place. It is intended to help with parity and to force teams to manage a semi-realistic roster (not star-packed). However, as the current initial draft system is set up, it is really just an arbitrary and unfair way to penalize those who do well in the draft.
I was prepared to trade Earl Miller, an A- overall DE at nearly 10,000, to BOS in exchange for Mike Oberg, a 3,000 B+. Is that really the kind of trades that we want to be forcing people to make in order to maintain a 45 man roster?
April 16, 2011 at 01:35PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
The bottom line is:
1) Teams should be forced to have 45 players on their roster
2) If they are unable to do that without going over the cap then players on that team should take a 10%, or whatever %, hit in their skills across the board.
Otherwise this presents a huge loophole and virtually eliminates any effectiveness of the salary cap.
My counter argument to this is simple:
Why should teams be penalized for doing well in the initial draft?
I spent a lot of time setting up my initial draft bids and ranking players and stuff. The results? Pretty convincing at this point in the season. I only have 34 players and I'm 12-1 and have already clinched a 1st round playoff bye.
Why should anyone be forced to trade/waive their good players because they did well at gaining top 3 picks in multiple positions?
I know why the salary cap is in place. It is intended to help with parity and to force teams to manage a semi-realistic roster (not star-packed). However, as the current initial draft system is set up, it is really just an arbitrary and unfair way to penalize those who do well in the draft.
I was prepared to trade Earl Miller, an A- overall DE at nearly 10,000, to BOS in exchange for Mike Oberg, a 3,000 B+. Is that really the kind of trades that we want to be forcing people to make in order to maintain a 45 man roster?
redcped
If I'd been in a multi-season league, I would never have considered that option. But here with so little time to get your roster straightened out, it was the only semi-decent move.
April 16, 2011 at 02:25PM View BBCode
I made a ridiculous trade to meet the cap. I sent a $7K stud OT for a $700 replacement, plus a $3K punter I promptly waived.If I'd been in a multi-season league, I would never have considered that option. But here with so little time to get your roster straightened out, it was the only semi-decent move.
tworoosters
This is an obvious exploit that needs to be addressed.
April 16, 2011 at 08:51PM View BBCode
Any surprise that the top two records in the league belong to the only two teams playing with less than 45 players ?This is an obvious exploit that needs to be addressed.
Hamilton2
April 17, 2011 at 01:24AM View BBCode
I'm still waiting for a rational response to the "why should I be penalized for drafting well" argument. (I'd like one because I tried to give one in a separate thread, posted from a different user, very early after the first release of the sim. His actual question was, "why should I be penalized for bidding well and getting a lot of high picks?")
redcped
And it should not be encouraged for teams to field puny rosters, because that should result in more exhaustion, injuries, poor play.
April 17, 2011 at 03:24AM View BBCode
I think there's a different issue, Hamilton. It should be possible to draft very well without being brutally over the cap and having to waive so many guys. It should be possible to get to 53 players without exceeding the cap in a normal draft.And it should not be encouraged for teams to field puny rosters, because that should result in more exhaustion, injuries, poor play.
Admin
Teams lacking depth will indeed play poorly. It will, unfortunately, be very easy to tank in this game, so much so that there is little way to counter it without taking away a lot of control. Likewise, people who want to set records can abuse the strategies to do it; the NFL field goal record is only what it is because teams have good reasons not to go for long field goals, but a tanker can set his strategies to go for 80 yard field goals, and someday he will hit one (with the wind at his back).
--Chris
--Chris
[Edited on 4-17-2011 by Admin]
April 17, 2011 at 04:43AM View BBCode
The minimum number of uninjured active players on a roster at the start of a game is 24, per NFL rules. If a team is below this number, the game will automatically activate and/or claim players to fill the missing slots. A team may carry any number of active players between 24 and 45.Teams lacking depth will indeed play poorly. It will, unfortunately, be very easy to tank in this game, so much so that there is little way to counter it without taking away a lot of control. Likewise, people who want to set records can abuse the strategies to do it; the NFL field goal record is only what it is because teams have good reasons not to go for long field goals, but a tanker can set his strategies to go for 80 yard field goals, and someday he will hit one (with the wind at his back).
--Chris
--Chris
[Edited on 4-17-2011 by Admin]
Fulla
April 17, 2011 at 04:58AM View BBCode
The baseball game has roster move blocks in place in the event you don't meet the 25 man roster or have 2 catchers. This could be blocked over here. If you have less than 15 in the minors, you chance missing improvements. Same could be done here.
cowboymatt43
Thanks!
April 18, 2011 at 12:29AM View BBCode
Chris, can you link me to the source of the 24-man roster rule that you cited?Thanks!
Admin
Interestingly, there seems to also be a 42-man minimum limit but that is not an NFL rule, it's part of the CBA, so if we feel like having too few players is a way of abusing something, we can justify a higher limit based on that. But having too few players is really no benefit. You don't "concentrate" your IC's, you just lose all the IC's that aren't used. If you want to force the players you have to play more you can do that by droping your SubOut as low as possible. If you want to tank there are a hundred ways to do it.
--Chris
April 18, 2011 at 06:33AM View BBCode
Unfortunately, I never was able to find a definitive answer on the NFL's site but there were a few third-party sites that mentioned a 24-man minimum, such as http://www.ehow.com/facts_4815748_official-nfl-roster-rules.html .Interestingly, there seems to also be a 42-man minimum limit but that is not an NFL rule, it's part of the CBA, so if we feel like having too few players is a way of abusing something, we can justify a higher limit based on that. But having too few players is really no benefit. You don't "concentrate" your IC's, you just lose all the IC's that aren't used. If you want to force the players you have to play more you can do that by droping your SubOut as low as possible. If you want to tank there are a hundred ways to do it.
--Chris
KLKRTR
April 18, 2011 at 07:35AM View BBCode
Interesting...I think next season, I'll go with that approach (what I used to draft like before I was going like 50k over the cap). Go with a smaller roster and see how it works.
tworoosters
I consciously draft in a manner that limits going over the cap, being able to only carry 34 players allows for better talent in the starting roles and it's obvious the penalties aren't very effective.
Chicago went to the conference final without a kicker or punter, though it did bite their ass in the end with two missed PAT , and Hamilton won the Super Bowl without having a backup RB or TE and only 7 interior linemen on the roster.
April 18, 2011 at 03:27PM View BBCode
I really think we should enforce a roster minimum, 42 seems alright though realistically every NFL team carries 45.I consciously draft in a manner that limits going over the cap, being able to only carry 34 players allows for better talent in the starting roles and it's obvious the penalties aren't very effective.
Chicago went to the conference final without a kicker or punter, though it did bite their ass in the end with two missed PAT , and Hamilton won the Super Bowl without having a backup RB or TE and only 7 interior linemen on the roster.
Admin
well, I am willing to make changes if need be. Ideally, if all owners are involved in the draft and the draft goes normally, everyone should be at or slightly over the cap with 75 players and easily under it at 53. In real life, there are additional demands on the cap that aren't an issue here. I do want a cap on single season to make it harder for two owners to collude to concentrate all their talent on one team. So I guess the questions are:
- Is the cap too low?
- Are the salaries too high? (They are adjusted by position. Particular areas of concern might be RB's, especially FB's, and WR's)
-Is there really a benefit other than lots of cap space by running with only 30-35 players?
- Is there not enough intrinsic penalty for lack of depth on the roster? (Fatigue/injuries/"shaken up" should seriously take their toll without depth; are these still not happening enough? Maybe injury frequency needs to ramp to more realistic levels.)
- Should there be a limit to how many #1 picks you can get through careful bidding?
Now, the short season length of football means anything can happen... a waiver wire team can win it all if they get the right breaks on the random number generator at the right time, so I think over a longer season Hamilton would have felt a lot more pain. But having star players does help a lot, as well it should.
I am guessing that the minimum roster rule for the NFL goes back to the 30's and is largey ignored because teams are striving to find ways to get MORE players on the roster. not less, in real life. But I also nerver imagined a team would be able to amass 34 players to get over the cap just on the draft alone either.
One possible solution is to reduce the "resolution" of the bidding process... give you, say, only 100 points to spread across rounds rather than 1000. This would make it harder to just edge someone out, and by extension make it harder for one person to command a number of #1 picks. So the default fror each position would be 10 instead of 100. I suspect a lot of people sacrifice one position and bid 101 on everything else to make sure they edge out all the people who don't bid at all.
--Chris
April 18, 2011 at 05:30PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
I know why the salary cap is in place. It is intended to help with parity and to force teams to manage a semi-realistic roster (not star-packed). However, as the current initial draft system is set up, it is really just an arbitrary and unfair way to penalize those who do well in the draft.
well, I am willing to make changes if need be. Ideally, if all owners are involved in the draft and the draft goes normally, everyone should be at or slightly over the cap with 75 players and easily under it at 53. In real life, there are additional demands on the cap that aren't an issue here. I do want a cap on single season to make it harder for two owners to collude to concentrate all their talent on one team. So I guess the questions are:
- Is the cap too low?
- Are the salaries too high? (They are adjusted by position. Particular areas of concern might be RB's, especially FB's, and WR's)
-Is there really a benefit other than lots of cap space by running with only 30-35 players?
- Is there not enough intrinsic penalty for lack of depth on the roster? (Fatigue/injuries/"shaken up" should seriously take their toll without depth; are these still not happening enough? Maybe injury frequency needs to ramp to more realistic levels.)
- Should there be a limit to how many #1 picks you can get through careful bidding?
Now, the short season length of football means anything can happen... a waiver wire team can win it all if they get the right breaks on the random number generator at the right time, so I think over a longer season Hamilton would have felt a lot more pain. But having star players does help a lot, as well it should.
I am guessing that the minimum roster rule for the NFL goes back to the 30's and is largey ignored because teams are striving to find ways to get MORE players on the roster. not less, in real life. But I also nerver imagined a team would be able to amass 34 players to get over the cap just on the draft alone either.
One possible solution is to reduce the "resolution" of the bidding process... give you, say, only 100 points to spread across rounds rather than 1000. This would make it harder to just edge someone out, and by extension make it harder for one person to command a number of #1 picks. So the default fror each position would be 10 instead of 100. I suspect a lot of people sacrifice one position and bid 101 on everything else to make sure they edge out all the people who don't bid at all.
--Chris
tworoosters
I generally have to make some tough decisions in order to stay under the cap and field a legitimate roster, you know one where the guards aren't backup RBs and the DBs aren't handling the place kicking, but I've certainly been competitive.
Enforcing a 42 man minimum and increasing the fatigue performance plus increasing injuries are, to my mind, all things we should be testing in this league .
There were only 92 injuries in the league last year and only 46 that were more than 14 days which seems very low to me.
As for fatigue, well Hamilton had only 16 players on defense and only 16 on offense, I would wager in real life they would not have been able to lift their arms by the 4th quarter of any game so I think we're a bit off there,
[Edited on 4-18-2011 by tworoosters]
April 18, 2011 at 06:22PM View BBCode
I don't think there is any problem with the salaries or bidding.I generally have to make some tough decisions in order to stay under the cap and field a legitimate roster, you know one where the guards aren't backup RBs and the DBs aren't handling the place kicking, but I've certainly been competitive.
Enforcing a 42 man minimum and increasing the fatigue performance plus increasing injuries are, to my mind, all things we should be testing in this league .
There were only 92 injuries in the league last year and only 46 that were more than 14 days which seems very low to me.
As for fatigue, well Hamilton had only 16 players on defense and only 16 on offense, I would wager in real life they would not have been able to lift their arms by the 4th quarter of any game so I think we're a bit off there,
[Edited on 4-18-2011 by tworoosters]
tworoosters
For example round 1-12 would feature all the offensive starters QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 T, 2 G, C and PK with the 1000 point spread, or 1200 to make it simpler.
Round 13-24 would do the same for defense. Then repeat for rounds 25-48 before making 49-60 any position, also stop at 60 to broaden the free agent pool and eliminate the 1st thing I do, which is cot 10-15 players before we even play an exhibition game.
April 18, 2011 at 06:31PM View BBCode
One thing that I think would help with bidding is to not have offensive players, particularly skill ones, and defensive players in the same grid.For example round 1-12 would feature all the offensive starters QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 T, 2 G, C and PK with the 1000 point spread, or 1200 to make it simpler.
Round 13-24 would do the same for defense. Then repeat for rounds 25-48 before making 49-60 any position, also stop at 60 to broaden the free agent pool and eliminate the 1st thing I do, which is cot 10-15 players before we even play an exhibition game.
redcped
A lot of those guys are very low in the RB ranking, and it would spread them out more effectively.
April 18, 2011 at 07:22PM View BBCode
I would also recommend a separate round of drafting Fullbacks.A lot of those guys are very low in the RB ranking, and it would spread them out more effectively.
Pages: 1