Warrior General Games

get a back bone...go with your grand vision...

Originally posted by scorch2
Can you guys please stop rolling out huge lists of changes? Just stop... wait a couple days... figure it out. Then when you come back, give us the scoop and stick with it. I can accept whatever changes you feel like making assuming that you're doing what you think is best for the game. It's my call at that point if I'm sticking around or not. What I can't accept is reading through pages of changes to try to understand exactly what is going on only to hear a little later that you decided to go another way.

I like the fact they roll out ideas, and seem to listen to what peoples first reactions are to such changes, and then work to modifying some ideas to make it easier to accept.

The revision to the original ideas are already easier to accept for most players, the original plan was too much change at one time (I'm a guy that likes change and it was too much for even me to wrap my head around)

Originally posted by Bort
Gotta have a system that disallows movement of money from teams to players permanently, or we just have all the cash farming type stuff going on, and people frustrated they can't afford equipment. Only way that's going to happen is if EQ doesn't get paid for in cash.

But we still gotta pay the players something...and the fact that they get paid something has to mean something, or there might as well not be salaries or money at all.

So, either the money means the players don't play as well with less money, get less stuff (and by proxy don't play as well), or it's a limiting factor as to who you can sign.

So the only remaining option is...to not have money at all any more? That sounds pretty lame.

Bort,

Go with the original plan, that had money mean something without really dictating who could sign how many with who etc.

The Original change, had the players money mean something, it also deals with people getting frustrated over equipment.

Originally posted by Plankton
My concern is not regarding team's ability to merge. I think that is essentially collusion and should never have been allowed.

My concern is with a team that is built from the ground up (level 1 to level 60+) and built very well. In this system, does such a team need to plan to build fewer players since the cap will hurt them as the players mature? Should they intentionally build slightly above average players but not real good players simply to avoid the cap penalties and the risk of going broke?

If a team has started from the ground up, they would be fine. You can go over the salary cap, you just can't sign new players if you do.

Originally posted by sjmay
I was arguing in favor of the original change, not the revision....

I like the idea of a salary cap mind you.

yeah, i left out a few words. I would gladly take back the original proposal over this

Originally posted by sigepmagicmike
So basically you are telling me because one player went inactive I would have to cut players who have stuck with the team just so I can fill the void at one position? This is absurd.

Why wouldn't you cut the inactive QB once you found another one that would sign or be traded to your team?????

Here's the bottom line:
some of y'all are part of networks and you like the advantage it gives you and don't want anything that limits your ability to continue to enjoy the advantage.

Bort is trying to find a way to increase parity, which will address the blowouts and bad competition.

Put me in the camp that thinks blowouts and unequal competition is the major flaw plaguing the game. I support the change.

"5) There will be a salary cap and set salaries. The salary cap will be based on the average incoming team revenue for that league. Things that count towards incoming team revenue include but is not limited to: Ticket Sales, Concessions and Media Revenue. Salaries will be determined based on three criteria:

--Effective Level
--Skill Point Value
--Position

Teams will only negotiate contract length and whether or not there is a no trade clause when signing/re-signing players. If a team goes over the salary cap, they will be unable to sign any new players. Bort will be figuring out the set salary amounts within the next two weeks and we will publish that information as soon as he has done so.
"

The main thing that worries me about these new changes. I mean, well put together teams will have to stay on the same team (bye bye farm teams?) due to the cap. Also if you have an inactive agent, you risk not being able to replace him due to having too many other good agents on the team? It seems kind of like punishing people for building good dots.

perhaps a sort of reduction in salary based on how many seasons you've been with the team. That way the good, pre planned teams can replace an inactive player etc.

although I'm not really sure why we need the salary cap etc. I mean, I understand you are trying to spread the talent out a bit, but I thought the 3 tiered league system was kind of a way of making sure teams were in the same league as other teams of their skill. Forcing the rosters won't do a whole lot but piss people off. I'm quite sure that a lot of the teams that are in the lower tier leagues would be there regardless.

Good example is the pro team I was on a few seasons ago. We won or pro conference. Moved to world league and became a total door mat. It wasn't like our builds were that much worse, it probably was more game plan. Even if we had a "draft" so to speak and spread the talent out perfectly I'd bet we'd still be a lower tier team etc.

So I really don't see a reason to force the spreading of talent out

Originally posted by Staz
Risking the whole "brown noser" label, I'm on board with Bort.

The reason there is a salary cap in the NFL is to encourage parity. So many people were in favor of a lower roster limit because they thought it would help spread the talent around. Now, this sort of thing will help spread talent around in a manner very similar to the NFL, and people are against it?

You won't have super teams - Good. It forces those teams who form networks and bring hoards of top level players on to one team from doing that. I can see how you'd be frustrated, but it just seems that we have a Yankees type thing going on. If you're good, you go to a good team, only making the rich get richer type situation. You'll still be able to field a top notch team, but just not with these super mergers.

You won't be able to have teams of friends - Yes, you will. Do you have 56 friends on GLB that you'd like to be on a team with? If you have 55 or fewer, you could easily be on a team with all of your friends. Hell, I'd rather run my team all by myself and compete AGAINST some of my friends, but that's different. You'll still be able to field a team with friends, just maybe not as many players per agent as before, if they're top notch players.


A salary cap is a very real thing, and if we were able to tie player salary into effective level, I'm in favor of this 100%. Are there flaws in my logic? Quite possibly, but I know you'll all let me know about it.

I love the idea of a salary cap, but effective level is an absolutely moronic criteria. Why would you ever give a disincentive for building well?

Just using level instead of effective level would have been a better way to force people to make choices--that way you can recruit well-built players but you'll have to choose which positions will be superstars.

Also, the "you can renegotiate but can't sign over the cap" thing is exploitable as hell--all it will lead to is long-term slowbuild teams that are mathematically impossible to compete with. You would have to slap such a harsh luxury tax on the overage that a team would literally go bankrupt to prevent this.

In general, though, if those few issues are ironed out this will work better and induce less ragequitting. But the 'effective level' criteria is a huge problem

Originally posted by sjmay
Why wouldn't you cut the inactive QB once you found another one that would sign or be traded to your team?????

because in this scenario the team was over the salary cap, therefore you couldnt sign any new players.

Originally posted by sjmay
Why wouldn't you cut the inactive QB once you found another one that would sign or be traded to your team?????

In his hypothetical, he was already over the cap.. so he wouldn't be able to just sign another dot.

Great idea having one hardcore league for the agents that like doing the financial side of things and another who prefer the football side of things.

Originally posted by David Stern
yeah, i left out a few words. I would gladly take back the original proposal over this

LOL, no winning I guess?

Current system: doesn't work.
Original idea: too complicated somehow
New idea: not complicated enough?