Training Camp Insurance - IT'S ALL ABOUT FUN

[Inner_GI]

So in light of the Detroit Pistons training camp insurance bank fiasco and concern that teams may not be deducting points BEFORE a player gets saved, I'm proposing a new suggestion all about FUN FUN FUN.

Training Camp insurance is FREE, but you can only insure a MAX of 2 players a season.

I think this allows each team to protect their favorite players and remove another checks and balance that honestly feels like another way for GMs to get screwed by making a human mistake.

LETS MAKE THE LEAGUE FUN AGAIN.

[Darth Vegito]

Best. Suggestion. Ever.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[Inner_GI]

For those concerned about # of players being insured:

2015: 49
2014: 64
2013: 57
2012: 57

I think having a constant 60 is probably fine for the league.

[TrayWithAnA]

For those concerned about # of players being insured:

2015: 49
2014: 64
2013: 57
2012: 57

I think having a constant 60 is probably fine for the league.

I wasn't worried but now I'm aware. Good thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheSyndicate]

Yeah, I mean obviously the proposition would help and hurt some in the short term, but over the long haul it probably works itself out.

[Darth Vegito]

I'm for it and it hurts me right now where I'm at with my team.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[Inner_GI]

Yea. I would even suggest that we remove the 27 age restriction. If you want to insure a 32 year old, be my guest. Again insurance is only a potential protection.

[IamQuailman]

On the contrary, (brought this up on skype) we could do a hybrid of current and this. 1 free insurance/team, then pay for subsequent insurances incremently increasing. Cap at max of 3 or 4?

Player 1 - free
Player 2 - 10pts
Player 3 - 20pts

Cost is same as present day, but every team gets to protect their "cornerstone". Max at 3 players per squad.

Player

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[Inner_GI]

On the contrary, (brought this up on skype) we could do a hybrid of current and this. 1 free insurance/team, then pay for subsequent insurances incremently increasing. Cap at max of 3 or 4?

Player 1 - free
Player 2 - 10pts
Player 3 - 20pts

Cost is same as present day, but every team gets to protect their "cornerstone". Max at 3 players per squad.

Player

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

While this is interesting, my goal here is to streamline the league, and remove unnecessary points where we are having to police other GMs in the league.

[WigNosy]

Couple of points...

1. I would use a veto on a proposal remove age restrictions entirely. The reason older players get worse is because if your potential drops below your current, THEN your current drops. That is what happens to older players' skills. Take away the age restriction and the first drop around age 31 is as bad they will ever get because their potentials will be restored and the next year their current drops back to where their current is already at. You don't want Kevin Love purple at age 60.

2. Part of the reason the media cap was raised and pick em points have been generously raised is that we had lots of points leaving the sim economy due to TC. The new point system was based on an economy of about 1000 points entering the league per year. The new media cap and more generous pick ems added about 500 more potential points. This was offset by the drain of about 600 points per season from TC insurance. Eliminating insurance entirely leaves far too many points for training and luxury tax at current prices. Put another way, the unintended consequence of this proposal is that it cuts relative tax and training prices by 1/3 to 1/2.

3. I think teams should be able to pay more points to protect more players or fewer points to protect fewer. Capping at only 2 players doesn't seem good.

4. Is it really THAT hard to put a link and/or update your bank when you pay insurance? I feel like the proposed fix is way out of proportion to the problem.

[ballsohard]

I think insuring people over 30 kind of kills the natural declining of skill we see irl. If I made the game I'd probably only make athletic skills decline after 30 until about 33/34 and then durability and the athletic skills fall off a cliff. But that's not really a choice .

I don't really mind this suggestion but am against removing the restriction.

[Inner_GI]

Couple of points...

1. I would use a veto on a proposal remove age restrictions entirely. The reason older players get worse is because if your potential drops below your current, THEN your current drops. That is what happens to older players' skills. Take away the age restriction and the first drop around age 31 is as bad they will ever get because their potentials will be restored and the next year their current drops back to where their current is already at. You don't want Kevin Love purple at age 60.

2. Part of the reason the media cap was raised and pick em points have been generously raised is that we had lots of points leaving the sim economy due to TC. The new point system was based on an economy of about 1000 points entering the league per year. The new media cap and more generous pick ems added about 500 more potential points. This was offset by the drain of about 600 points per season from TC insurance. Eliminating insurance entirely leaves far too many points for training and luxury tax at current prices. Put another way, the unintended consequence of this proposal is that it cuts relative tax and training prices by 1/3 to 1/2.

3. I think teams should be able to pay more points to protect more players or fewer points to protect fewer. Capping at only 2 players doesn't seem good.

4. Is it really THAT hard to put a link and/or update your bank when you pay insurance? I feel like the proposed fix is way out of proportion to the problem.

The age thing I totally get. I didn't realize it worked like that.

On the points/tracking issue. I'm really just looking to make the offseason process simpler. That's the end goal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ballsohard]

What if every 1st rounder had 2 free years of insurance instead ?

[Inner_GI]

What if every 1st rounder had 2 free years of insurance instead ?

Then you would pay for it after that? I guess my main goal was just to make this uniform and simple. Idk if it's worth changing for hybrid solutions, but maybe other disagree. I'm all ears.

[Inner_GI]

Bumping this with a link to NOLa's article.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5691

I think this is worth discussing further. New things on the discussion block:

1. Only Free TC Insurance for Rookie Contracts?
2. Free Insurance if you trade your Rookie Contract Trainings?
3. 1,2, or 3 free insurances?
4. Can you still pay for additional insurance after the free ones
5. Does saving teams 10-30 points a year in insurance mess up the league economy? Where would GMs spend those points if given the chance?
6. Does Free Insurance lower player movement?

Please add any other things I missed from recent chats.

[garbageman]

I know that it sucks when a player you like loses potential or gets worse, but I'm against adding protections. Aside from the points economy, we have a supply and demand economy of talent. If we start adding rules to protect more and more players and fewer players ever decline, especially rookie contract ones, it takes some of the risk and chance out of the game, and the skill of running a team includes dealing with risk and chance. I think being able to protect players more easily would put a damper on trading (which is I think one of the most important skill aspects of the game) because everyone will have the ability to just construct a safe team with few wrenches thrown in for adjustments.

To mitigate the cost of insurance, I think the media cap could be bumped up a little bit. Right now, 5 articles is a pretty lofty goal. If we removed the cap restriction, I doubt we'd see people pumping out infinite articles, but something like 40 points a season would allow anyone who wants to put in the work to put up 8 pieces of media in order to be able to insure 4 players will have well earned that.

We should take a look at whether the points that disappear in TC reappear as media points, which also come from nowhere. Right now, with 30 GMs allowed 25 points apiece, That gives us enough to insure 2 players and have 5 left over. The only other place points go is the tax, which should be covered by the points awards for winning. If you're way over the tax and not picking up the points to cover the tax, that should be a sign that your strategy is not working.

[Inner_GI]

I know that it sucks when a player you like loses potential or gets worse, but I'm against adding protections. Aside from the points economy, we have a supply and demand economy of talent. If we start adding rules to protect more and more players and fewer players ever decline, especially rookie contract ones, it takes some of the risk and chance out of the game, and the skill of running a team includes dealing with risk and chance. I think being able to protect players more easily would put a damper on trading (which is I think one of the most important skill aspects of the game) because everyone will have the ability to just construct a safe team with few wrenches thrown in for adjustments.

To mitigate the cost of insurance, I think the media cap could be bumped up a little bit. Right now, 5 articles is a pretty lofty goal. If we removed the cap restriction, I doubt we'd see people pumping out infinite articles, but something like 40 points a season would allow anyone who wants to put in the work to put up 8 pieces of media in order to be able to insure 4 players will have well earned that.

We should take a look at whether the points that disappear in TC reappear as media points, which also come from nowhere. Right now, with 30 GMs allowed 25 points apiece, That gives us enough to insure 2 players and have 5 left over. The only other place points go is the tax, which should be covered by the points awards for winning. If you're way over the tax and not picking up the points to cover the tax, that should be a sign that your strategy is not working.

My rebuttal to this is that Training Camp insurance does not actually protect a player from getting hit. It just restores their potential, but there is no guarantee, even with insurance, that a player ever gets out of a yellow or green potential. Also, a free training for 2 players on each team is 60 players. On average the league usually insures 60 players, so I don't think we'll have teams rebuilding that feel it's super safe to do so. If anything, a team acquiring 8 draft picks in 3 seasons, will have to make the hard decision on which rookies they insure and which they risk in TC or trade for a more balanced team.

Having free insurance doesn't reduce the risk. It does give GMs more buying power in improving, acquiring, and keeping talent though.

[IamQuailman]

I'm on board with a couple things:

- I'm okay with the caveat of exchanging RCT in favor of Rookie Contract Free Insurance. This is a suggestion from Wig himself, and he was on board with suggesting this as one or the other since it would require a lot of work on his part inputting.

1. how about the idea of if we do this you have to CLAIM your insured rookie guys in the TC thread? If not claimed, they are not insured.

• Non-rookie contract players would be available for paid training as currently set.

- New Idea, somewhat piggybacked off Garbageman (not that he suggested this, but more his post triggered this in my mind)... What if we were able to get a "refund" of half the points spent on players who were insured but not hit? That way we still have to pay for the protection, but if it goes unutilized, you at least aren't losing 10pts per player. At this point you it's a guessing game of throwing 10pts at a player, and if they don't get hit, you have "wasted" 10pts on protecting a guy who the game deemed worthy of not getting nerfed. People can in theory pay 40pts to insure and those 4 players are all not hit. 40 points can equal one season of points output for a team (rebuilding teams who maybe write like 3 articles). Getting back half of your protection investment at least doesn't gut a teams bank completely for protections from a random button push.

[Inner_GI]

I'm okay with both of those ideas, though I really don't get the reasoning behind trading in RCT for Insurance. It's not really a decision. Like it's so easy to make, that we'd never use RCT again, and if that's the point, why not just vote to remove that separately?

The value of protecting potentials vs MAX 24 points increased in ratings (if the rookie even has space for it in their potentials) isn't remotely even. Everyone would choose insurance.

[IamQuailman]

I'm okay with both of those ideas, though I really don't get the reasoning behind trading in RCT for Insurance. It's not really a decision. Like it's so easy to make, that we'd never use RCT again, and if that's the point, why not just vote to remove that separately?

The value of protecting potentials vs MAX 24 points increased in ratings (if the rookie even has space for it in their potentials) isn't remotely even. Everyone would choose insurance.

I think they would come as a pair in the same change, as wig has stated, it's a VERY time-intensive endeavor to keep both. So if one comes, the other goes.

[Inner_GI]

I'm fine with that.

I'm not sold on the free for rookie contracts and paying for others. I think my feet are firmly planted on just 2 free per team for anyone 27 AND under. I think limiting it to a very finite number alleviates concerns that garbageman brought up.

[IamQuailman]

I'm cool with the 2 or 3 free trainings per team as well, everything after is paid.

Any thoughts on the "partial refund"? Or hell even full refund?

I really wish more people would talk here, even if its like "yeah i like this" or "NAH"... we need MORE discussion before this goes to vote, and it's a very important topic.

[Inner_GI]

I want to remove the option of paying at all.

I'm indifferent to a refund, mostly because I don't want any paid insurance, but if we have free and paid insurance, I'd say you don't get a refund. The "refund" is not having to pay to insure 5 players, if that makes sense.

[WigNosy]

I'm cool with the 2 or 3 free trainings per team as well, everything after is paid.

Any thoughts on the "partial refund"? Or hell even full refund?

I really wish more people would talk here, even if its like "yeah i like this" or "NAH"... we need MORE discussion before this goes to vote, and it's a very important topic.

Emphasis mine.

At present, it seems like the consensus seems to be "2 free trainings" but there's not a consensus on "can you pay for trainings above and beyond 2" and I think at minimum that's a very important thing to settle before we bring to a vote.

Figuring out whether to keep or dump RCT as part of this proposal is also something that I'd personally like to see as it would decrease the complexity of the league and the time I have to spend on it, too. I think simpler is probably better.

[IamQuailman]

So lets discuss paid insurance after 2 freebies