Reminder: Set games to CPU play if not playing 100% of games

[Joborule]

Hey GMs,

Just a reminder that it's mandatory to have your games set to CPU play, so your opponent can play their matchup against you if you're unable to coordinate a time to play by the day before week advancement. On average there's about +40 games that are simmed per week, which appears to be too high of a number for a league as active as this one is.

Please ensure that you're adjusting your settings too allow your opponent to play against your club on the final day if you can't play. If this is still an issue for some, it may be necessary to force everyone to set their settings to CPU play no matter what to reach the solution.

Thanks.

[Iniggywetrust]

I would have no problem doing this if guys weren't playing games against the CPU half way through the week. It also wouldn't be as big of a problem if playing the CPU wasn't a guaranteed win for most guys.

BTW, I think you've done a good job of managing this whole thing jobo, this is just a tough thing.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Iniggywetrust

It also wouldn't be as big of a problem if playing the CPU wasn't a guaranteed win for most guys.
.

Completely agree.

[zukes]

The way around it is to play your games. I am a busy guy and in a different time zone, yet I have not missed a game.

I know that sometimes missing games is unavoidable, but it's basically an hour to 2 hours (based on 2-4 games) each 3 days. It's not that much of a commitment.

I feel if more people used the match-up threads and/or text + right when the game advances, there'd be much less of an issue.

[Iniggywetrust]

Originally Posted by zukes

The way around it is to play your games. I am a busy guy and in a different time zone, yet I have not missed a game.

I know that sometimes missing games is unavoidable, but it's basically an hour to 2 hours (based on 2-4 games) each 3 days. It's not that much of a commitment.

I feel if more people used the match-up threads and/or text + right when the game advances, there'd be much less of an issue.

While I agree it should be possible to play every game, and that using the match up thread would help that, not everyone does. I can't use txt plus on my phone. I do attempt.to make contact other ways though. The biggest problem is when guys take liberties and play games half way through the week. For me, I'd rather have a game simmed than a guaranteed loss against my CPU. At least that has a chance for a W and really is a good way of determining how good of a gm you are.

[Joborule]

People shouldn't be playing games against the CPU until GM gives them the OK too or it's the final day and no response from the GM. If someone has prematurely played against your team, let me know. It's a serious offense and I will remove GMs for doing it.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by zukes

The way around it is to play your games. I am a busy guy and in a different time zone, yet I have not missed a game.

I know that sometimes missing games is unavoidable, but it's basically an hour to 2 hours (based on 2-4 games) each 3 days. It's not that much of a commitment.

I feel if more people used the match-up threads and/or text + right when the game advances, there'd be much less of an issue.

Not everyone has the same schedules.

For example I was online from 5-9:30 yesterday and none of the teams I needed to play were on. I am not about to get angry that peoples lives do not revolve around their playstations. Another example was when me and another GM recently had issues with a game. He was available only in the afternoon (I work and im not skipping a day of work to play a videogame) and refused to put his team on CPU suggesting instead I should (when my availability was any evening) I set my team to CPU and took the easy loss.

I am not one who sits staring at my phone hoping someone will respond to text+ or post in the thread, I like most do not have time for that.

Since the change over to easy mode CPU settings A LOT more games are going to sim because people do not want to take the guaranteed loss (and yes its damn near guaranteed) from letting their CPU get manhandled, The setting is wayyyyyyyy to easy. However the users who complained because in the second week because they were not instantly good at the game won out and now the league has to suffer for the remainder of the season.

With more then half of the GMs letting games go to Sims the last few weeks IMO the setting needs to be revisited.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

He was available only in the afternoon (I work and im not skipping a day of work to play a videogame) and refused to put his team on CPU suggesting instead I should (when my availability was any evening) I set my team to CPU and took the easy loss.

Considering the prime play time is in the evening, the user who cannot play in the evening should have to sim. Majority of users aren't available around the afternoon so it's not fair that the one that's available in the evening has to sim.

Since the change over to easy mode CPU settings A LOT more games are going to sim because people do not want to take the guaranteed loss (and yes its damn near guaranteed) from letting their CPU get manhandled, The setting is wayyyyyyyy to easy. However the users who complained because in the second week because they were not instantly good at the game won out and now the league has to suffer for the remainder of the season.

With more then half of the GMs letting games go to Sims the last few weeks IMO the setting needs to be revisited.

Like I said when I made the change, it's final for the remainder of the season; it can be revisited in the off season. I'm not going to flip-flop settings constantly throughout the season.

If GMs are avoiding having their games played by CPU, making it very difficult for the other player to play against their team and thus forcing a sim, then it'll be mandatory for users to have their settings enabled for CPU play for every game so on the final day or earlier in the week games can be played by either one of the users. It may also be mandatory to post your availability in the matchup thread so then I can keep track of who's actually attempting to play their games or isn't trying to force their way to a sim.

I'll keep an eye on the simmed games for the next two league weeks. On average there's about ~80 total games per week. The fact that ~40 have to be simmed means half the games aren't being played, whereas 80% of games should be played since that seems reasonable. If I don't see that number down to a lower number like ~15 on Sunday, changes may have to be made.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Not everyone has the same schedules.

For example I was online from 5-9:30 yesterday and none of the teams I needed to play were on. I am not about to get angry that peoples lives do not revolve around their playstations. Another example was when me and another GM recently had issues with a game. He was available only in the afternoon (I work and im not skipping a day of work to play a videogame) and refused to put his team on CPU suggesting instead I should (when my availability was any evening) I set my team to CPU and took the easy loss.

This to me is unfair for you, and it brings up an important issue. Who plays the CPU when 2 players have made an agreement to try and play but the stars simply do not align? I have 2 games left this week and I've reached out to people to try and play, but life gets in the way and they don't always respond. If suddenly I'm unavailable tonight, does that mean I have to switch my team to cpu for them when I've already made an effort to play my games?

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Since the change over to easy mode CPU settings A LOT more games are going to sim because people do not want to take the guaranteed loss (and yes its damn near guaranteed) from letting their CPU get manhandled, The setting is wayyyyyyyy to easy. However the users who complained because in the second week because they were not instantly good at the game won out and now the league has to suffer for the remainder of the season.

With more then half of the GMs letting games go to Sims the last few weeks IMO the setting needs to be revisited.

I'm going to get my arguing pants on for this one.

You are inferring that users such as myself were complaining because "in the second week" we "were not instantly good". This is inaccurate despite the fact we have told you this time and time again. It was closer to 6 weeks into the season, and you claimed that people such as myself would continue to find things to bitch about because we won't be happy until we go 82-0.

In actuality, users that were pushing for the difficulty change are quite pleased with the result DESPITE no noticeable surge in winning. Perhaps I'm incorrect and they aren't pleased with the difficulty change, and if that's the case I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong, but in my conversations people seem happy.

You also think the surge in simming is a result of the cpu being too easy, but don't forget before the change there were plenty people that simply would not play the CPU because it was ridiculously difficult. In my opinion all we're seeing is a sway to the other side. You won't decrease forced simming by making things harder, you'll just encourage people to avoid playing the cpu. I find the people who favor simming over playing are taking it up the chute a little more than they used to, and I think that's a good thing. It was annoying to see people who sim everything near the top of the standings because what they thought was good gm'ing, was just unfair CPU difficulty.

My theory on the problems with simming? Life is getting in the way and this game is getting older. Personally I'm finding it a little harder to not only make time to play the games, but to connect with people as well (some are like you and plan really well, while others are a little more scattered). I believe if there is a jump in simming, it's because people aren't playing the game as consistently as they used to.

[Diemenz]

The game came out sept 11th, we started the league on the 17th. The change over happened Oct 1st, a week after it was brought up, so I am very correct in saying 2 weeks (the actual complaining starting 5 days in). You can tell me as many times as you want but 13 days does not equal 6 weeks. IMO I am absolutely justified in saying people complained that they were not instantly good because they gave it 13 days, Milk lasts longer. You can keep telling me "time and time again" but just because you repeat something doesn't make it true.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

The game came out sept 11th, we started the league on the 17th. The change over happened Oct 1st, a week after it was brought up, so I am very correct in saying 2 weeks (the actual complaining starting 5 days in). You can tell me as many times as you want but 13 days does not equal 6 weeks. IMO I am absolutely justified in saying people complained that they were not instantly good because they gave it 13 days, Milk lasts longer. You can keep telling me "time and time again" but just because you repeat something doesn't make it true.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding... we're talking different time. I meant 6 weeks of hockey games (cycles), not real time. We do about 5 cycles in 2 weeks. The 2 week time frame that you're claiming is so short was actually nearly 20% of the season.

The league was 13 days old, but the game was 21 and that's more than enough time to see the glaring problems. Many of us played tons of hardcore games in that time frame and nothing was changing. Right up until the bitter end most of the goals I witnessed (both for and against) were the direct result of a basic pass ending up in the wrong zone.

You contend now as you did then that the problem is people just weren't practicing it enough. My main disagreement is that several tried quite hard to get better at the passing, to very little result. Secondly, very few members of this league have time to practice beyond the games themselves.

What I keep telling you time and time again is actually correct, you just aren't accepting it because you don't want to. People weren't mad they were losing. If they were the complaints would have continued because the standings haven't changed dramatically. I don't understand how you don't see that.

[zukes]

Originally Posted by Russic

Ah, I see the misunderstanding... we're talking different time. I meant 6 weeks of hockey games (cycles), not real time. We do about 5 cycles in 2 weeks. The 2 week time frame that you're claiming is so short was actually nearly 20% of the season.

The league was 13 days old, but the game was 21 and that's more than enough time to see the glaring problems. Many of us played tons of hardcore games in that time frame and nothing was changing. Right up until the bitter end most of the goals I witnessed (both for and against) were the direct result of a basic pass ending up in the wrong zone.

You contend now as you did then that the problem is people just weren't practicing it enough. My main disagreement is that several tried quite hard to get better at the passing, to very little result. Secondly, very few members of this league have time to practice beyond the games themselves.

What I keep telling you time and time again is actually correct, you just aren't accepting it because you don't want to. People weren't mad they were losing. If they were the complaints would have continued because the standings haven't changed dramatically. I don't understand how you don't see that.

Bang on!

[zukes]

As for people having the same schedules/not having Text+ etc. The common denominator is that we are all on CP. Clearly not every game will be able to be played, but people aren't even making the effort.

The match-up threads here should be used by everyone, unless you know you will get a repsonse on Text+.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Russic

What I keep telling you time and time again is actually correct, you just aren't accepting it because you don't want to.

Bottom line.

Real world time was 2 weeks we don't live in a video game. By your standard I guess you could say you tried hardcore the entire lifetime of the average butterfly to make it sound larger.....however when it comes down to it the time was just 2 weeks.

Like i said previously, no matter how many times you repeat it, it was still an extremely small time frame. You are correct in stating I will not accept your point of view. The beautiful thing about an opinion is it can be mine, I am not obligated to agree with you especially when your opinion of time is so grossly exaggerated.

It would seem that the majority agreed with my opinion on normal mode however.....
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=120950

Originally Posted by Russic

It was annoying to see people who sim everything near the top of the standings because what they thought was good gm'ing, was just unfair CPU difficulty.

Wrong
Sorry bud but the top 5 teams on each side play their games, they do not sim.
I will state it again since it always seems to get missed when we have this discussion. My point is the same as always, IMO the move to normal will/has made the CPU an easy target for an extremely large number of players in this league. I am under the belief (you do not have to agree, its my opinion) this change is effecting people not wanting their CPUs played. I have made no mention of vs games.

Back to the point of this thread:

Jobo I like the idea you mentioned about having to move all teams to CPU enabled. I am sure you could come up with something fair like allowing open play on the CPUs the final day before the advance.....say after 8pm or something. IMO this would allow all people a FAIR chance to play their games instead of having to chase people around and throw the dice on a sim. It would also prevent the who's responsible to enable CPU argument.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

...

It would seem that the majority agreed with my opinion on normal mode however.....
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=120950

That is a slim majority (3 for, 5 against), and while I won't put words in his mouth, one of the people who spoke out against it is actually in favour. Doesn't matter though, that thread is a sample of 8 opinions which doesn't make it valid imo.

I know what you're thinking! The Text+ discussion where people were complaining about hardcore mode was probably just as invalid. The shocker here is that I'd actually agree with you (it was bound to happen). My position was always that the difficulty switch be taken to a CP vote so we could determine what the actual feelings were. As one never occurred, you and I are arguing from a point of heavy bias.

Wrong
Sorry bud but the top 5 teams on each side play their games, they do not sim.

Once the "bud" starts getting thrown around I know I've pissed you off and we're venturing into hostile territory, so I'll try to tone it back a bit.

I have no data to back up my belief, but I believe at the 2 week mark there were several people who were heavy users of simulation in the top half of the league. If anybody can confirm or deny I'll happily change my stance.

I will state it again since it always seems to get missed when we have this discussion. My point is the same as always, IMO the move to normal will/has made the CPU an easy target for an extremely large number of players in this league. I am under the belief (you do not have to agree, its my opinion) this change is effecting people not wanting their CPUs played. I have made no mention of vs games.

Hot damn it's happened again! I totally agree with you. It sucks, I know. The CPU is much simpler and there is an advantage to playing your games. My argument is since one group has to suffer (and the way EA made the mode, they do) it might as well be those who let the cpu play their games. It was stated early on that this was to be a league that encouraged playing.

I'm happy to end this argument here. While we don't agree, I think we at least understand each others points. I believe this is something that does need to be further discussed at the end of the season and put to an actual vote so the majority are heard.

To address what the thread is actually about, I think the move to CPU control on the teams is a great idea. To clear up confusion, I'd recommend a PM sent by Jobo to each member of the league stating:
1. you have to switch your team to cpu enabled
2. If you don't have your cap or roster number in order your team will be DECIMATED when the cpu tries to "fix" it for you
3. Playing a game against somebody's cpu without their clear consent is a potential bootable offence.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Russic

To address what the thread is actually about, I think the move to CPU control on the teams is a great idea. To clear up confusion, I'd recommend a PM sent by Jobo to each member of the league stating:
1. you have to switch your team to cpu enabled
2. If you don't have your cap or roster number in order your team will be DECIMATED when the cpu tries to "fix" it for you
3. Playing a game against somebody's cpu without their clear consent is a potential bootable offence.

I agree 100%

I especially like #2, I pretty much PM guys every time I see someone on waivers I want and its getting old.

add
4. After 8pm MNT (or whenever is decided) on the day before the advance GM's who HAVE NOT received a response from the opposition GM to schedule a game can play the CPU without disciplinary action.

[zukes]

I think those are all great ideas, but just to avoid anything happening, I don't feel that guys who have played 100% of their games, like myself, need to put their teams on CPU. Look, if I can't play, I will be able to find a couple minutes to change it. If I can't, I can get my wife to do it. Failing that, gardz has access to my account on his PS3 so he can do it.

[zukes]

With respect to the hardcore/default argument. The game is much more realistic now. Even the guys who said tey were good with hardcore passing were only completing 40% of their passes. That is unrealistic. People said they were passing a lot, but that was an exaggeration, everyone was carrying the puck at least to the red line before even attempting passes at least 90% of the time.

The way it is now, people attempt and make more passes, but there are also way more interecetions of passes. Much more realistic.

I look at the stats after every game, I am usually in the 50-60% passing range, my opponent is almost always higher, but it feels more like hockey as stretch passes are attempted, multiple passes on plays are successful completed.

My biggest issue was not the difficulty more that it was an unrealistic way to play. I am glad it is changed. Were it ever to go back, I would have to consider quitting. The game is just not fun on hardcore. Simple as that.

I understand that the game is too easy for some on this level when playing the CPU, not for me mind you, but I don't have a lot of time to play outside of this league, but I think as this league matures, it will naturally weed out the players who don't play the game and the games played percentage will go up, thus increasing everyone's enjoyment.

Now if there was something that could be done about poke check effectiveness.....

[IgiTang]

Nm

[IgiTang]

Half of the games arent getting played??? Wtf...

I had no idea it was that bad. A bit concerning actually. This is a good league with a good group of gm's. It would suck to see this continue and pethaps cripple the league.