|
Somehow, I think we keep missing the point. No one (or very few of us) are saying we shouldn't follow rules or try to take advantage of them.
But any rule that can diluted by saying "oh, in that case it's ok" isn't a rule - it's a guideline - "to be defined at a later date by the Devs".
A game can't survive that way - or at least can't survive without constantly being questioned.
As it stands now, the Devs have said under certain conditions you can take your best players off the field if you're creating a themed team, or if your going to train them at a new position, or if your going to inactivate them - but yet by definition you are also not trying as hard to win.
Whether a situation is right or wrong it becomes subjective... what's wrong today in this case may not be wrong in 2 months when something similar happens again. And in the meantime, some people here are forever posting that "that" should be allowed while others are posting "that's" against the rules"
If we want the game to be as enjoyable as possible, all this has to be clear and concise, and coding is the only way to do that. If the game allows it, it's ok.
I know the Devs don't want to hear that, but right now it's open season on the rules to define what they really mean. If winning at all costs is the only way to play this game "legally" then it won't be flexible enough to do anything but play your best 25 players. If you want the largest customer base to enjoy the game for an entire 12 months, then you have to add the coding that removes options you don't want to see happen.
My 2 cents.
The game has to stop you from doing what is not acceptable. Period.
|