User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Suggestions > Epic Suggestions > Iron Man League (20-Man Roster Limit)
Page:
 
Link
 
Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Daily

Originally posted by dmfa41


Sounds fun!

Seems like a coding task, though.




No, not a coding task, just eliminate the OOP. I already covered it.



NO. Stop making this simple idea harder to code. Make the league identical in every respect, with the only change being a limit of 15 players per roster.
 
haole
the one who knocks
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by greengoose
Actually, I'd probably retire a lot of my guys if this flies and remake them as Ironman players. Players in this game would actually play, not be hoarded and rotated like they are in the main game.

People make players to play, and an Ironman format ensures that is exactly what they'd be doing - playing, and not 20 plays a game either.


Good points, hadn't even thought about it from that perspective.

Another point is that it's so hard for owners/GMs to communicate with 20 or more different agents on the same team. Iron Man teams would compress the number of agents and make these teams into small tight-knit communities.
 
supgreg
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Cmfix64
Originally posted by supgreg

Originally posted by greengoose


Actually, I'd probably retire a lot of my guys if this flies and remake them as Ironman players. Players in this game would actually play, not be hoarded and rotated like they are in the main game.

People make players to play, and an Ironman format ensures that is exactly what they'd be doing - playing, and not 20 plays a game either.


That is the only thing that makes any kind of sense as far as this idea goes.


lol why because you dont like it? simply reduce the roster size and voila you have this league... should be fairly simple to implement and lots of fun


And why would it be fun? Because your player would be on the field more. That's exactly what I already said. Do you have any other reasons why this is a good idea?
 
haole
the one who knocks
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Originally posted by supgreg

Originally posted by Daily


Originally posted by dmfa41



Sounds fun!

Seems like a coding task, though.




No, not a coding task, just eliminate the OOP. I already covered it.



NO. Stop making this simple idea harder to code. Make the league identical in every respect, with the only change being a limit of 15 players per roster.


Agreed. Everyone will have the same OOP penalties to strategize around. Is it better to build a team of primarily offensive or defensive players? Or maybe better to have a mix of both? Lots of strategies here just trying to come up with the best combinations.

Keep the OOPs, just limit the roster sizes.
 
supgreg
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader


NO. Stop making this simple idea harder to code. Make the league identical in every respect, with the only change being a limit of 15 players per roster.


Seems like it would be harder to write code for limiting roster size than deleting the OOP. Couldn't the roster size still be as large as the owner wants?
 
haole
the one who knocks
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Cmfix64

Originally posted by supgreg


Originally posted by greengoose



Actually, I'd probably retire a lot of my guys if this flies and remake them as Ironman players. Players in this game would actually play, not be hoarded and rotated like they are in the main game.

People make players to play, and an Ironman format ensures that is exactly what they'd be doing - playing, and not 20 plays a game either.


That is the only thing that makes any kind of sense as far as this idea goes.


lol why because you dont like it? simply reduce the roster size and voila you have this league... should be fairly simple to implement and lots of fun


And why would it be fun? Because your player would be on the field more. That's exactly what I already said. Do you have any other reasons why this is a good idea?


Less players means fewer agents per team, means more coordination and easier team communication.

Different strategies

More unique and complex builds.

It's something different.

 
AngryDragon
offline
Link
 
Yep, a roster limit would let owners and GMs decide who needs to play 2 ways and maybe have a little room for a specialized player or two.
 
Cmfix64
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by haole
Originally posted by supgreg


And why would it be fun? Because your player would be on the field more. That's exactly what I already said. Do you have any other reasons why this is a good idea?


Less players means fewer agents per team, means more coordination and easier team communication.

Different strategies

More unique and complex builds.

It's something different.



He pretty much covered it
 
haole
the one who knocks
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader



NO. Stop making this simple idea harder to code. Make the league identical in every respect, with the only change being a limit of 15 players per roster.


Seems like it would be harder to write code for limiting roster size than deleting the OOP. Couldn't the roster size still be as large as the owner wants?


That opens up a whole range of other problems to be fixed. What's to stop someone from building a complete offense and a complete defense and tearing up the league because they're not playing guys both ways? You'd have to put all kinds of other safeguards in place to enforce the spirit of Iron Man.

Just limit the roster size to 15, and you're forced to uphold the spirit of the league by sheer numbers.
 
Link
 
Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader



NO. Stop making this simple idea harder to code. Make the league identical in every respect, with the only change being a limit of 15 players per roster.


Seems like it would be harder to write code for limiting roster size than deleting the OOP. Couldn't the roster size still be as large as the owner wants?


"As large as owner wants" would equal "Regular Football". It would have the effect of eliminating the "Iron Man" from it. It would make no sense to play a player on both sides of the ball if there was no reason to do so.

 
supgreg
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by haole


Agreed. Everyone will have the same OOP penalties to strategize around. Is it better to build a team of primarily offensive or defensive players? Or maybe better to have a mix of both? Lots of strategies here just trying to come up with the best combinations.

Keep the OOPs, just limit the roster sizes.


I have to disagree. If you want to make a SS/HB, you are going to have to choose between making tackles or not fumbling. The player builds will come with a natural OOP for that reason. OT/DT tackling or blocking? QB/K throwing or kicking?
 
Link
 
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Yep, a roster limit would let owners and GMs decide who needs to play 2 ways and maybe have a little room for a specialized player or two.



Yep. Many teams would combine the kicker and punter and then have a (throwing) QB. That would leave 13 players that would conceivably play on both sides of the ball.
 
greengoose
offline
Link
 
Some residual advantages of the Ironman format.

1) Owners won't have to worry about EQ costs anymore - they will have just a fraction of the costs to deal with.
2) Players shouldn't have to worry at all about getting less than max XP, and lets be honest, there is no reason any player should be getting less than max XP if he's paying to play the game.
3) Awards, makes it much easier for players to compete for awards because they are in a much smaller player pool and are competing in many more categories.

This format would be one way for Bort to bring the game back to it's original roots - a game founded around the player, an not the convoluted mess that the game is currently in.
 
Cmfix64
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by haole



Agreed. Everyone will have the same OOP penalties to strategize around. Is it better to build a team of primarily offensive or defensive players? Or maybe better to have a mix of both? Lots of strategies here just trying to come up with the best combinations.

Keep the OOPs, just limit the roster sizes.


I have to disagree. If you want to make a SS/HB, you are going to have to choose between making tackles or not fumbling. The player builds will come with a natural OOP for that reason. OT/DT tackling or blocking? QB/K throwing or kicking?


Thats the whole point... making choices and trying to strategize whats best for your team
 
haole
the one who knocks
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by haole



Agreed. Everyone will have the same OOP penalties to strategize around. Is it better to build a team of primarily offensive or defensive players? Or maybe better to have a mix of both? Lots of strategies here just trying to come up with the best combinations.

Keep the OOPs, just limit the roster sizes.


I have to disagree. If you want to make a SS/HB, you are going to have to choose between making tackles or not fumbling. The player builds will come with a natural OOP for that reason. OT/DT tackling or blocking? QB/K throwing or kicking?


Exactly the spirit of Iron Man football
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.