Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader


"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.



Roster sizes would be limited by how much the owner needs to get away with running a good football team vs. saving money. If I could get away with 30 players on my team now, I would in the interest of saving money for equipment upgrades. Roster limitations would also be self regulated.

Originally posted by haole
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

So you agree, if players have a natural OOP, there is no need for a computer coded OOP.

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by haole

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

So you agree, if players have a natural OOP, there is no need for a computer coded OOP.

it doesn't matter, too much coding and the idea wouldn't happen, this way keeps it simple for bort to implement and if OOP changes are needed down the road then thats fine

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader



"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.



Roster sizes would be limited by how much the owner needs to get away with running a good football team vs. saving money. If I could get away with 30 players on my team now, I would in the interest of saving money for equipment upgrades. Roster limitations would also be self regulated.



You're talking about a brand of football that is completely different that what every other poster in this thread is discussing. Everyone (except you) is talking about football at its historical roots--players playing on both sides of the ball because of limited rosters, and removing specialization that clutters up what the game has evolved into. You, on the other hand, are discussing some "saving money" game that has no appeal to anybody else in the thread because in-game money is essentially worthless. If you want a "saving money" league, why not create your own suggestion for it?

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by haole

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

So you agree, if players have a natural OOP, there is no need for a computer coded OOP.

The computer-coded penalties vary from position to position and how adaptable certain players are to move elsewhere. WRs don't have a big OOP to move to CB compared to, say, moving to nose tackle.

Trying to remove or limit these OOPs already coded into the game will make this idea much less likely to happen. I'd rather play with the existing OOPs than to try to push for customized Iron Man OOPs and not have it happen at all.

What I miss from the game was Season 3, where a team of level 5-7 players could actually compete with a stacked level 13 team. Try that now and it's 45-0 at the end of the 1st quarter.

The game needs to get back to that - more simplicity.

The OOP seems to mostly be in place now to prevent one position from being used in all positions. For example DEs and C tend to get the best level gains. So if there were no OOP teams would load up on DEs and Cs to play most or all positions.

i fucking love this idea, to make it simple just a league with a 12-13 player limit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEDlOZJmCc

+1

Originally posted by makaw
i fucking love this idea, to make it simple just a league with a 12-13 player limit

I suggested 15 originally just to allow for some variations in each team's makeup, and to give some flexibility for creativity while still holding onto the spirit of Iron Man. Besides, if you're have a 12-man limit and someone goes inactive, you've got no safety net. You're screwed. If it happens a couple of times, you're going to say screw this, sell the team and move on to something else.

But I'd be open to some flexibility there. 15 just seemed like a nice number to start with.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

You're talking about a brand of football that is completely different that what every other poster in this thread is discussing. Everyone (except you) is talking about football at its historical roots--players playing on both sides of the ball because of limited rosters, and removing specialization that clutters up what the game has evolved into. You, on the other hand, are discussing some "saving money" game that has no appeal to anybody else in the thread because in-game money is essentially worthless. If you want a "saving money" league, why not create your own suggestion for it?


What exactly was the official roster size limit in the very beginnings of football? Seems to me, the original style of play was not because there was a rule limiting specific rosters size, but players had to play both ways because there weren't enough good players to field 40-50 man rosters.

Rosters grew as interest in the sport grew and position specialization became the norm. There were never any rules about having to have players play both ways, they did because they didn't have enough players. Don't quote me "roots of the game" nonsense when you are making up rules. You have no idea what the roster size was in 1908 at Notre Dame.

Great idea!

Originally posted by AngryDragon
The OOP seems to mostly be in place now to prevent one position from being used in all positions. For example DEs and C tend to get the best level gains. So if there were no OOP teams would load up on DEs and Cs to play most or all positions.

I agree with this, and am not arguing it for normal leagues. But an Ironman league as proposed in this thread would require players to play both ways. I suppose there could be a penalty still for C trying to play HB, but there should be 0 penalty for a CB playing WR or vice versa, in ironman style leagues.

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader


You're talking about a brand of football that is completely different that what every other poster in this thread is discussing. Everyone (except you) is talking about football at its historical roots--players playing on both sides of the ball because of limited rosters, and removing specialization that clutters up what the game has evolved into. You, on the other hand, are discussing some "saving money" game that has no appeal to anybody else in the thread because in-game money is essentially worthless. If you want a "saving money" league, why not create your own suggestion for it?


What exactly was the official roster size limit in the very beginnings of football? Seems to me, the original style of play was not because there was a rule limiting specific rosters size, but players had to play both ways because there weren't enough good players to field 40-50 man rosters.

Rosters grew as interest in the sport grew and position specialization became the norm. There were never any rules about having to have players play both ways, they did because they didn't have enough players. Don't quote me "roots of the game" nonsense when you are making up rules. You have no idea what the roster size was in 1908 at Notre Dame.



Quibble all you like, but you're standing all by yourself in thinking that any of the other posters in this thread are fired up about "saving money". The enthusiasm you're reading from poster after poster is the idea of limited numbers of players having to do it all--play offense, play defense, and play special teams.

As I said before, if you want to do something that is completely different than what every single poster in this thread has shown interest in doing, create your own suggestion in a seperate thread. Please don't clutter up and/or derail this simple and interesting idea by attempting to take it a different direction entirely.

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by AngryDragon

The OOP seems to mostly be in place now to prevent one position from being used in all positions. For example DEs and C tend to get the best level gains. So if there were no OOP teams would load up on DEs and Cs to play most or all positions.

I agree with this, and am not arguing it for normal leagues. But an Ironman league as proposed in this thread would require players to play both ways. I suppose there could be a penalty still for C trying to play HB, but there should be 0 penalty for a CB playing WR or vice versa, in ironman style leagues.


Again, you're screwing this thread up by adding coding requirements to it that aren't essential to what we're trying to do. The code ALREADY includes OOP--asking bort to take it away means 2 steps of coding rather than one ("Limit Roster Size to 15").