SSBA

again i have been asked by several gms if they can trade with cpu managed teams. we all hope that we can find new gms but we also know that we will have cpu managed teams from time to time.

No. The CPU just does not act rational enough for me.

No.  NO NO NO NO NO NO NO trading with the CPU.

First, i can't even belive there are 5 people who thinks that CPU is "easy" to rape. What the hell?

Second, there are less chances of ripping the CPU then the other GM (we all see one-sided traded all the time), so i voted yes.

This isn't just about raping the CPU.  This is about someone who's interested in the position getting the roster he was shown and agreed to.

There are so many reasons CPU trades are a bad idea it's not even funny.

Well that's another story. But if we don't have a GM for a longer time i don't see why we wouldn't do the deals with CPU.


Can you name them? From my own expirience it's almost impossible to rape CPU. It only holds the league back since you have less teams to deal with.

Leaving any team open for any period of time is a catastrophic failure.  Making the decision to allow CPU trades only compounds the problem, it doesn't solve it.


Have you already forgotten Bowie-gate?

No trading with CPU.

Having a team on a CPU control >> then having a team with no control whatsoever. Besides, i don't see a point in your post, it's not like you can't keep searchin for GM while CPU runs the team.


What about Bowie-gate? First, it's a small sample size, it's only ONE deal, we've seen TONS of one sided trades between 2 GM's and we'll probably see it again in the future. And second, it's not like Bowie is the next coming of Hakeem Olajuown or something. For all we know he can end up being a backup his entire career.

As i said, ripping another GM is way to easier then the GM itself. I'm sure of that.

No, that's just it.  It's not just "raping" the CPU that was the problem last year.  It's the position it put the new LakersGM in (one who lost interest in the league, FYI).  Let's follow the chain of events.

- I offer the job to a guy who expressed interest in the Lakers position.  I showed him the roster.  He expected if he accepted the position, he would get this roster.
- PacersGM makes a post in an obscure thread saying we can trade with the CPU.
- New LakersGM accepts the Lakers position.
- Before I check my e-mail, the "Lakers" (controlled by the CPU) trades the #2 pick in the draft, which was part of the new LakersGM wanting the team.

It's not just as simple as "you can continue looking while the CPU controls the team.
- It's easy to rip off the CPU in a trade.  It is.
- It gives people who have bought and purchased FBB an unfair advantage (if you play the game enough, you know what the CPU values/doesn't value).
- It screws over the prospective GM's who are considering taking over the open team, both in bad trades and in trading players who were part of their decision making process to accept the position.
- The CPU has no knowledge of the rules in our league.  A CPU isn't going to take into consideration how close he's getting to the luxury tax, for example.  He's also not going to realize he can cut a contract short with GM dollars, so he might trade away a contract to get rid of it whereas a human contestant wouldn't.

There are many, many reasons trading with a CPU is bad.  Having a spot open is bad.  Having a spot open then compounding it with a bad decision to allow CPU trading makes it worse.

I voted no trading with the cpu.

Gee..you sure like to complicate things. Again, you're using one single situation (the Lakers one) to back of your arguments. It's not like things like that would happen all the time.

Ok, here's my chain of events;

- I send a offer to Lakers (for example) and we negotiate. We're close to deal but still not yet.
- Commish makes a thread in the next few hours or the next day (before our deal) that he's having a guy who's interested in taking over the Lakers. Commish says no deals with that team is possible until he hears the final word from that guy.
- I say "OK". I put my deal on hold. If that guy decides to take over the team no deal for me. If he decides not to take the team afterall, my deal goes through.

Now, isn't that simple?

No. Because the CPU doesnt have a thought process. It doesnt think about cap situation, hard caps, rebuilding, values of picks or expiring contracts. Its just a random piece of equipment.

No.  I like to take into account the whole picture.  There's a difference. 

Your scenario is again not taking everything into account.  Why?  A number of scenarios would still be problematic in your "fix".
- We have the open teams posted publicly on our forums.  We're linked to from the FBB forums.  People come here, and register, daily.  The fact that a team is open is public knowledge, and there's always someone who could possibly be contemplating accepting a position.  So let's say someone finds the SSBA website, sees the Lakers are open.  Is contemplating accepting the position.  Contacts me saying they want the position.  Then the CPU trades their best player before I have a chance to read the e-mail.
- Other GM's contact their friends telling them a position is open.  A large percentage of new GM's come from current GM recommendations.  Let's say SpursGM contacts someone he knows.  That someone again e-mails me saying he wants the position.  Trade is made with CPU before they've been able to "stop" trading.
- Positions are offered to people pretty much constantly when they're open.  When I send an e-mail to a guy on the waiting list, and 3 teams are open, I would have to put all 3 teams on hold since he could accept any of them.  How does this help the league's activity?  The effect is the same.
- Your post addressed none of the concerns of the CPU not knowing our rules, and still screwing over the future GM.

sorry bods you are mixing to arguments and your logic has some holes as well.

for example we could have had a situtation last year that the new LAKERsgm could have been interested in the job before the cpu took bowie with the second pick which we all agree was horrible. so now in your scenario the new gm would loose any interest because he made his decision maybe 5 hours too late and lost the chance to get MJ.
there is no difference between trading a guy and drafting. A human gm wouldn´t have done anything like that in 90%.
And the second part of your arguments isn´t a fault of the cpu. it was miscomuncation between us. i had the information that we have no new Lakersgm and wouldn´t have in the near future.
if you had send me a message, i would have stopped the trade.
this vote has nothing to do with a gm coming or not. just vote if you would like to trade with the cpu yes or no.
like i posted before i will take any cpu team if that is the reason why we can´t get a good gm for this teams. but i really doubt that is the reason.

What does that have ANYTHING to do with trades?  The fact that the draft process for CPU controlled teams isn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't fix the trade process for CPU teams.  Allowing CPU's to trade DOESN'T FIX THE DRAFT PROCESS, it only brings one more problem to the table.  So, how does allowing CPU's to trade fix the draft process?


You're right.  Both need to be fixed.  Preventing one from being fixed (trades) doesn't do anything to fix the other.


That ignores the fact that others recommend us to prospective GM's and the myriad of other ways I person can accept where we wouldn't be able to "take the team off the market". 


I didn't get his acceptance until after the trade, because I was offline.


Yes.  It does.  Because trading with the CPU has consequences (like, whether a GM candidate is coming or going).


So you think it's a coincidence that we've lost 5 LakersGM's now?

I voted "no." Trading with the CPU causes more trouble than it's worth.

This is gone way out of hand, we're running in circles and complicating things too much IMO. I really, really doubt Lakers gave up cause he lost X guy in CPU trade. Even if that's the truth that's really a nit picking. I mean if you're interested in the league, take a challenge, you just can't quit cause of  one friggin player. If you're interested in the league that is.

I'm just sayin it's kinda stupid we're having some nice players being worthless on GM-less teams. I was always interested in Cheeks, Pressey, Kellog etc but they were never available cause a) we either had non active GM's from respective teams or b) they were useless cause we can't do the trades with CPU. It's a shame.

I say fuck it. Allow the trades. If a certain guy is interested he'll join the league anyway. And besides, Lakers situation was really coincidence. I mean, what are the next odds of a new GM joining the league at the exact same time as someone doing the deal with his future team?! From DJSL expirience it's not like we're doing the deals with CPU twice a day.

alright, let's throw that entire argument out.  Let's say the following two are true:
- The CPU will never be ripped off in a trade again.
- Nobody will ever be interested in a team again, only to have the CPU trade away some of its assets.

Let's make those two assumptions.  I believe it would be incredibly short-sighted to do so, but let's assume that.

How does that affect the CPU's (lack of) knowledge about our rules?

Lack of knowledge about what? Man you got tons of bad GM's outhere with no knowledge whatsoever. I mean how many times you've seen a real GM doing horrible deals, trading away good picks, trading for bad contracts, young for old?! It happens all the time! In every league!

I don't know what are you looking for? Perfection?

Uh...our salary structure?  The hard tax?  What we can do with the team bank?


That's fine.  But that's YOU making the decision on YOUR team affecting YOUR future.

final decision no cpu trading will be allowed.

In order to make a trade. You need to have Feelings.. And CPU don't have feelings..   :tup:

but imagine how good the Kings could be if Ivan didn't trust his feelings ...

 :lmao: