Warrior General Games

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.

If you would have read before i suggested this, and still think its a good idea but a nightmare to code every positions' individual OOP. leave OOP and if the league is a hit then maybe bort goes in and does some of that

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.

Actually the reason for Iron Man football was in the early days of "American" football, free substitutions were not allowed. You were limited, and thus your players had to constantly stay on the field while a few guys were allowed to be subbed in and out. Carrying a roster of 40 guys would be stupid when you can only sub in a few players throughout the game.

We can recreate this old-timey football by limiting roster sizes and requiring no other changes in the game's coding or basic structure. We are not trying to recreate the roaring '20s or the Great Depression.

But since NONE of this is the point of the original idea, thank you for sidetracking it. You don't like the idea, that's fine. Nobody would be forced to join an Iron Man league or make Iron Man players.

Interesting idea.

Also would mean there's reason for players to pump stamina past 50.

Originally posted by seorang
Interesting idea.

Also would mean there's reason for players to pump stamina past 50.


Exactly!

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

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.


For one thing, I didn't disagree with every poster here, I agreed with the only point that made any sense in this thread, which was:

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.


All anyone wants is there players to play a lot and accumulate stats. That's the only reason this suggestion makes any sense.

What you started arguing with me about was OOP and the roster size, not the actual suggestion itself.

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader


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.


For one thing, I didn't disagree with every poster here, I agreed with the only point that made any sense in this thread, which was:

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.


All anyone wants is there players to play a lot and accumulate stats. That's the only reason this suggestion makes any sense.

What you started arguing with me about was OOP and the roster size, not the actual suggestion itself.



The deathnell to this suggestion will be to clutter it up with additional coding requirements. Further, your (lame) suggestion to have unlimited rosters would effectively kill any motive for having players play both sides of the ball, which was central to the original suggestion.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
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").


I have to agree. The idea needs to be kept as simple as possible. The OOP will only add to the strategy. You may want 2 Gs to play G and DT with two DEs to play DE and OT. Who knows what interesting ways people will think of? Of course after a season or two there will be a set best practice as it is just how this game tends to go.

Originally posted by haole


Actually the reason for Iron Man football was in the early days of "American" football, free substitutions were not allowed. You were limited, and thus your players had to constantly stay on the field while a few guys were allowed to be subbed in and out. Carrying a roster of 40 guys would be stupid when you can only sub in a few players throughout the game.

We can recreate this old-timey football by limiting roster sizes and requiring no other changes in the game's coding or basic structure. We are not trying to recreate the roaring '20s or the Great Depression.

But since NONE of this is the point of the original idea, thank you for sidetracking it. You don't like the idea, that's fine. Nobody would be forced to join an Iron Man league or make Iron Man players.



I didn't side track this thread, Larry brought me their by talking about the roots of football, check the posts. All I said before Larry and yourself jumped in was:

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.

It's not my fault Larry can't get beyond the fact that an OOP in it's current state would be a negative to the ironman style of football.

I like the idea. +1

I really like this idea, though it should be fleshed out a little. For starts, 15 is still too small a roster size, because you're definitely going to need depth here. I see roster needs playing out like this.

1 QB
2 HB
1 FB
2 TE
3 WR
7 OL

5-6 DL (depends on 4-3 or 3-4
5-6 LB (again, 4-3 or 3-4)
3 CB
3 S

1 K
1 P

Obviously players will double, so your roster (for 4-3) can look like

1 QB =1 K 1 P
2 HB= 2 S
3 LB= 1 FB 2 TE
3 CB= 3 WR
6 OL= 6 DL

Then this would leave you with 4 extra spots, in my case S, 2 LB, and 1 OL.

Obviously rosters would be subject to owner's preference, but in all I'd say 19-20 man rosters should fill out nicely. You could even have QB just QB and get a KP hybrid.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

The deathnell to this suggestion will be to clutter it up with additional coding requirements. Further, your (lame) suggestion to have unlimited rosters would effectively kill any motive for having players play both sides of the ball, which was central to the original suggestion.


The the clutter is the discussion, that makes a lot of sense. Anyway, you are just as guilty as I am, considering you are arguing with me. It's a 2 way street.

Originally posted by supgreg

It's not my fault Larry can't get beyond the fact that an OOP in it's current state would be a negative to the ironman style of football.

It would simply be another part of the strategy to figure out. This idea doesn't need OOP tweaks to make it viable.

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by haole



Actually the reason for Iron Man football was in the early days of "American" football, free substitutions were not allowed. You were limited, and thus your players had to constantly stay on the field while a few guys were allowed to be subbed in and out. Carrying a roster of 40 guys would be stupid when you can only sub in a few players throughout the game.

We can recreate this old-timey football by limiting roster sizes and requiring no other changes in the game's coding or basic structure. We are not trying to recreate the roaring '20s or the Great Depression.

But since NONE of this is the point of the original idea, thank you for sidetracking it. You don't like the idea, that's fine. Nobody would be forced to join an Iron Man league or make Iron Man players.



I didn't side track this thread, Larry brought me their by talking about the roots of football, check the posts. All I said before Larry and yourself jumped in was:

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.

It's not my fault Larry can't get beyond the fact that an OOP in it's current state would be a negative to the ironman style of football.


Its not my fault that you can't pull your head out of your ass and see that asking Bort to do ANYTHING reduces the chances of it ever happening--the original suggestion WITHOUT any coding to remove the OOP penalty is the best chance of it every being implemented. The OOP penalty is fair since everyone will be laboring underneath it equally.

Originally posted by haole
Originally posted by supgreg


It's not my fault Larry can't get beyond the fact that an OOP in it's current state would be a negative to the ironman style of football.

It would simply be another part of the strategy to figure out. This idea doesn't need OOP tweaks to make it viable.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree.

Here is a thought about OOP and keeping it simple and still keep the Iron Man league competitive for many seasons. If we required one player at each position. That would force teams to have an equal start but strategy and building will be key to winning. The OOP can be left alone and GMs will just have to be creative on where they play each player.

Edit: Oops I did not thing that through. Maybe at least one DT and one DE or something like that.