2k7 Issue

[VitoStallion]

COPIED FROM RNFL
COPIED FROM ENFL --
Are we ruling on this here?
-------------------------------------------------------------

FOF2k7 has reared its problematic ugly-ass head again.

Instead of re-summarizing it myself, I'll just copy and paste a discussion going on at the FOFL site:

Quote:
Allosaurus at FOFL Forum wrote:
Proposed Rule: No starters may be set to a playing time percentage lower than 50%.

This arose from discussion in the lounge today. QuikSand, SkyDog or another can describe the situation in a more detailed post if they wish, but the primary reason for this is to close an exploit which can grossly distort player contact demands.

Since a "hit recommend" gameplan will never cause a starter's playing time to dip below 50%, the only way to violate this rule would be with an intentional manual adjustment below that threshold.

I'd like to move this to vote ASAP so that it can be implemented before the start of the season.



The reason for this proposed rule change?

Quote:
SkyDog at FOFL Forum wrote:
The smaller issue is that you can get a guy with low endurance more playing time by setting him as the #2 guy, and the "starter" at 20% playing time. GWB confirmed this by posting a test at FOFC.

I did some more testing, though. The MUCH bigger issue is that you can do this with any position, with no penalty in terms of players getting upset with you, and with most players, little/no reduction in playing time from 100%. This is a big exploit because the renegotiation algorithms have a HEAVY "did-he-start-last-season" component, especially for RBs, apparently. I did this with the '06 Colts.

(After a season as "backups"--the #2 guy, but the #1 guy has 20% playing time)
Addai: 4yrs, $4.27M (B: $.24M...yes, $240K)
Harrison: 5yrs, $23.02M (B: $3.02M)
Wayne: 5yrs, $13.65M (B: $2.69M)

Re-load, re-run. Same game plan. Appropriate people put back in as starters with 100% playing time. Very similar stats, number of plays participated in, etc. However, their salary requests are now...

(After a season as "starters")
Addai: 5yrs, $42.2M, ($11.27M bonus)
Harrison: 5yrs, $33.91M (B: $13.23M)
Wayne: 5yrs, $16.81M (B: $4.01M)

Addai actually got a hair more carries and yards as a "backup" (with the starter having 20% playing time) than when I started him, so without a rule, this can and will be heavily exploited. In all likelihood, a team could do this with every good player, to the point where the salary cap would be nearly a non-issue for them.



I'd propose that we adopt the same rule here. Once the cat gets out of the bag on this kind of exploit (and parts of this have already been posted over at FOFC) there's no telling how widespread it will become. I don't think that our group of guys here is particularly attracted to unrealistic exploits, but I'd argue that we should establish the rule nevertheless. Better to have it on the books and not need it than to not have it on the books and need it.

I copied this from another league, this apparently just got found out in game as someone was trying to tweak RB carries by starting a poorer player with time set to 20% or so to get the true number 1 RB more carries. That part of the experiment worked, but brought up this contract problem.

[Coder]

I agree should try to implement it, but who will enforce it? As in, who will check every team's gameplan prior to every sim to make sure a team isn't abusing this rule?

Or what if someone is playing a backup to rest a "probable" starter for just one game? (I realize you probably wouldn't set the #1's playing time to 20% but you get the picture)

I think the important issue is that Jim should look at it ASAP. It's hard from a commissioner's standpoint to enforce, but it would seriously mess up a league if they didn't.

[JesterBlaze]

I agree should try to implement it, but who will enforce it? As in, who will check every team's gameplan prior to every sim to make sure a team isn't abusing this rule?

Or what if someone is playing a backup to rest a "probable" starter for just one game? (I realize you probably wouldn't set the #1's playing time to 20% but you get the picture)

I think the important issue is that Jim should look at it ASAP. It's hard from a commissioner's standpoint to enforce, but it would seriously mess up a league if they didn't.

Yeah, the only - and easy way - to 100% take care of this is for Jim to limit the playing time in the game to 50-100% instead of what it's at now.

[Cringer]

I understand a need for a rule here I guess, but as Coder said, enforcing it will be a major pain. I also think nothing is wrong with having starters under 50% playing time in certain cases. If your starter is not much better then you backup, or incase of injury.

[JesterBlaze]

I understand a need for a rule here I guess, but as Coder said, enforcing it will be a major pain. I also think nothing is wrong with having starters under 50% playing time in certain cases. If your starter is not much better then you backup, or incase of injury.

I was wondering about this myself and don't think there is a legitimate reason to have a starter at less than 50%. If you want said player to have less than 50% of the plays then he shouldn't be the starter. There's nothing special about the first play of the game in FOF and that's all the starter marker signifies, after that it's just a matter of multiplying the % you set for the starter every play to see if he's in on that particular play AFAIK.

[JesterBlaze]

Since we can't just go opening other GM's gameplans willy-nilly I'd recommend some type of rule based on stats until Jim hopefully fixes this via another patch. Like if someone spots one of your "backups" with more than 120% of the plays at his position compared to the "starter" and reports it then maybe the league management can open up the gameplan to look at that specific starter(s) % only.


Just spitballing here.

[SteveBsFan]

If Jim does do a quick patch, I hope he allows us to set under 50% in the pre-season.

[Kobeck]

I will of course follow any IFL guidlines, but I definatly could see the case for having a starter playing a small % of downs. Ageing veteran who you want to be effective on the snaps he does get, as stated earlier a low endurance/high skill player, injury avoidance. lots of reasons.

Again I gladly follow any IFL rules. Too bad using legitimate options such as lowering starters snaps can be exploited in MP so easily.

FWIW the Wayne contract was not that much different, but wow was the Harrison contract affected.

[George W Bush]

keep me out of this

[Matt]

FWIW, I think this is silly

Too many potential reasons why you'd WANT to reduce playing time for players.

[Hell Atlantic]

in the end this is just a game, not a real football league. if this is what some guys want to do so be it, if we can't get fired for turning in consecutive 1 or 2 win seasons like some of the IFL GMs have recently done then that's as unrealistic as this exploit. the only thing you can do is hope you have as many truthful and solid GMs as possible that we can police ourselves. if you stay awake at nite worrying about what the next big exploit will be you'll have a lot of sleepless nites.

[sovstar]

yadda yadda yadda

We won't start playing any games with 2007 until late July. If this is a big enough deal (seems like it is), then there will be a patch to address it. 'Nuff said.

[MrBigglesworth]

What Jeff said is probably correct, but even if it isn't addressed in a patch, why would we have to go into a gameplan to see this? Can't we just look at someone's roster, see that they are starting a 45/45 guy over a 70/70 guy, which would arouse enough suspicion to check out the guy's stats? I don't like a bunch of house rules that have to be remembered, especially when some people are in a number of leagues.