Positionless players contract demands issue

[Cleasby]

Per viewtopic.php?f=324&t=32492

still and issue

Screenshots below






Note he signed for 7.7m way below his demands as a QB

[brooks_piggott]

Pretty sure if you offered him 7.7 as QB he'd still sign, especially 3 year deals when he's 36. The FB switch is just changing the "suggested contract" but the engine knows he's a QB.

Also note these are not "demands" but suggested contracts so people have some sort of place to start when making offers.

[Cleasby]

Pretty sure if you offered him 7.7 as QB he'd still sign, especially 3 year deals when he's 36. The FB switch is just changing the "suggested contract" but the engine knows he's a QB.

Also note these are not "demands" but suggested contracts so people have some sort of place to start when making offers.

Brooks I can still do this with any player and any position see below. Its clear that it has been fixed for maybe just the FB change of position but not others.

[brooks_piggott]

Ok, the only other thing I can think of is to basically loop through every position and basically set their suggested contract to the max of all possibilities. So if people are gaming the system it will still treat the player as a top notch whatever they previously were, but if a valid shift occurred and a player did learn a new position with a better rating then use those salary demands instead.

[TalonHIFL]

Ok, the only other thing I can think of is to basically loop through every position and basically set their suggested contract to the max of all possibilities. So if people are gaming the system it will still treat the player as a top notch whatever they previously were, but if a valid shift occurred and a player did learn a new position with a better rating then use those salary demands instead.

I think we have to start holding the players more accountable and not play with people who game the system. If you want to game the system you're always going to find a way to do it.

Restricting movement or forcing higher wage demands just makes it harder for people who aren't gaming the system to make things work.

It's hard enough as is when a 100 rated FB wants 11MM becuase he's rated so highly. Forget the fact he had 30 yards rushing and a low number of pancakes across 16 starts in a power run offense.

I get worried when I see all these changes being requested becuase it impacts more than just the people who are gaming the system.

My two cents.


Options to restrict vs across the board changes are better becuase if you buy the game you should be able to play it however you want. But If you run a league you should have the option or ability to restrict things but you should also be able to do that by just laying down ground rules to your users who play.

[Cleasby]

Ok, the only other thing I can think of is to basically loop through every position and basically set their suggested contract to the max of all possibilities. So if people are gaming the system it will still treat the player as a top notch whatever they previously were, but if a valid shift occurred and a player did learn a new position with a better rating then use those salary demands instead.

I think we have to start holding the players more accountable and not play with people who game the system. If you want to game the system you're always going to find a way to do it.

Restricting movement or forcing higher wage demands just makes it harder for people who aren't gaming the system to make things work.

It's hard enough as is when a 100 rated FB wants 11MM becuase he's rated so highly. Forget the fact he had 30 yards rushing and a low number of pancakes across 16 starts in a power run offense.

I get worried when I see all these changes being requested becuase it impacts more than just the people who are gaming the system.

My two cents.


Options to restrict vs across the board changes are better becuase if you buy the game you should be able to play it however you want. But If you run a league you should have the option or ability to restrict things but you should also be able to do that by just laying down ground rules to your users who play.

I don't agree with your view. What are you worried about that will impact more than people gaming the system with the issue flagged?

I do agree that the main issue you are flagging that overall rating is linked to contacts is not ideal. I agree is an issue I really hope they fix this for future versions and redesign the whole contract system. I am sure they are aware this is showing its age now. But this is a huge overhaul so lets just focus on fixing the ability to exploit the current system for now.

Yes people will always look to game a system thats human nature. But the point being this should be difficult to impossible to do. If it is as easy as i have highlighted you cannot expect a multiplayer league and admins to police 32 human GMs managing approx 1500 players. I am not sure why you are worried about a flaw being fixed in a game that benefits both single player and multplayer users.

Honestly I see no logical reason why in either multiplayer or single player you would want to leave an option that allows you to change the position of a player to sign a guy to an undervalued contract.

[Hawkeye40]

I feel like multiplayer doesn't get enough love compared to single player mode and it's getting frustrating. Have played 3 versions now and figured more progress would've been made by now for multiplayer, seems like it's baby steps at best. This makes me worry about the game going forward because the game engine needs a lot of TLC, it's not built for multiplayer.

[brooks_piggott]

I suspect it's not as big of a deal as it's being made (teams really are going to take their starting QB and put them at FB, lose them in a few games, deal with the training issues and roster setup, just to save 1 mil?), but it also is easy enough for me to put the restrictions in that we had in PF20 so easy enough.

Since I'm putting the position restriction checkbox in it also saves me the time of having to analyze and detect all of these other edge cases, so I'm cool with it.

[brooks_piggott]

I feel like multiplayer doesn't get enough love compared to single player mode and it's getting frustrating. Have played 3 versions now and figured more progress would've been made by now for multiplayer, seems like it's baby steps at best. This makes me worry about the game going forward because the game engine needs a lot of TLC, it's not built for multiplayer.

I'm not sure what types of things you're requesting for multiplayer... our entire beta team, and many of the first access folks are big multiplayer users and gave a lot of feedback. If we're missing something feel free to let us know and we'll see if we can take a look.