Warrior General Games

Originally posted by whotookmybowtie


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



That's 15 ... viola, you've made your ironman team

supgreg, I haven't even been arguing with you about OOP and roster size - my comments in this thread are about the Original Post.

TBH though, the mere thought of Ironman and unlimited rosters means it's not Ironman - and goes completely against what the OP is talking about.

My whole take on the matter is ANY suggestion that can take the game further away from the convoluted tactics, childish rotting of players (which Ironman would help do), and promote a more even playing field so the players can actually compete is a good thing.

The state of the game now is a joke - and part of the reason for that is all of the things that people have asked for to be added as "features" which eventually turn into exploits and further divide the gulf between the casual player and the hardcore gamer.

Originally posted by haole
Originally posted by whotookmybowtie

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



That's 15 ... viola, you've made your ironman team

I know, that would be the base, but for depth purposes I think giving teams an extra 4-5 guys is necessary.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
[
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.

Asking Bort to implement an Iroman league means he has to do nothing?

Creating new leagues with new roster limits, mean Bort does nothing?

How do you create new league with different rules and have no coding?

And I need to pull my head out of my ass?

Originally posted by AngryDragon
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.

I think this would be a smart way to build a team, but I don't think it would need to be enforced. The best teams would evolve from the best rosters of players and the best utilization of those 15 spots.

Originally posted by greengoose
supgreg, I haven't even been arguing with you about OOP and roster size - my comments in this thread are about the Original Post.

TBH though, the mere thought of Ironman and unlimited rosters means it's not Ironman - and goes completely against what the OP is talking about.

My whole take on the matter is ANY suggestion that can take the game further away from the convoluted tactics, childish rotting of players (which Ironman would help do), and promote a more even playing field so the players can actually compete is a good thing.

The state of the game now is a joke - and part of the reason for that is all of the things that people have asked for to be added as "features" which eventually turn into exploits and further divide the gulf between the casual player and the hardcore gamer.

No, I know you weren't. When I re-posted your suggestion, I was saying you were the only one that made any sense. I completely agree with your comment about getting players on the field more, that's what we all want, that's why most of us pay a shit load of money.

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

[
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.

Asking Bort to implement an Iroman league means he has to do nothing?

Creating new leagues with new roster limits, mean Bort does nothing?

How do you create new league with different rules and have no coding?

And I need to pull my head out of my ass?

New league + +new strategies + new players = more money. Having to do nothing but limit roster size to accomplish this? Priceless.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Originally posted by greengoose


TBH though, the mere thought of Ironman and unlimited rosters means it's not Ironman - and goes completely against what the OP is talking about.





I can read, I don't need you quoting someone else just because they agree with you.

Originally posted by haole
Originally posted by supgreg

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader


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.

Asking Bort to implement an Iroman league means he has to do nothing?

Creating new leagues with new roster limits, mean Bort does nothing?

How do you create new league with different rules and have no coding?

And I need to pull my head out of my ass?

New league + +new strategies + new players = more money. Having to do nothing but limit roster size to accomplish this? Priceless.

That's not what I said is it?



Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

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

How does this statement make any sense in a suggestion forum directed toward Bort?

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

[
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.

Asking Bort to implement an Iroman league means he has to do nothing?

Creating new leagues with new roster limits, mean Bort does nothing?

How do you create new league with different rules and have no coding?

And I need to pull my head out of my ass?


In a word, "Yes". You've ably demonstrated that you don't understand what "Ironman Football" was envisioned to be with your lame "no roster limit" "idea" (it shames *real* ideas to even call it that, but I digress). Further, you've requested additional coding (no OOP penalty) that will make the idea significantly more difficult for Bort to agree to do. Every other poster in this thread is ready to jump on board with ALL of the current rules in place, save ONE small change ("Limit Roster Size to 15").

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

Originally posted by greengoose



TBH though, the mere thought of Ironman and unlimited rosters means it's not Ironman - and goes completely against what the OP is talking about.





I can read, I don't need you quoting someone else just because they agree with you.


Its wonderful that you can read, but the real question is:

Can you comprehend what you've read?

TBH this is one of the few suggestions I've seen that I could get behind - most of the rest seem to be whinefests on how the game doesn't hold their hand, brush their teeth and send them off to school with a sack lunch and a pat on the head.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

In a word, "Yes". You've ably demonstrated that you don't understand what "Ironman Football" was envisioned to be with your lame "no roster limit" "idea" (it shames *real* ideas to even call it that, but I digress). Further, you've requested additional coding (no OOP penalty) that will make the idea significantly more difficult for Bort to agree to do. Every other poster in this thread is ready to jump on board with ALL of the current rules in place, save ONE small change ("Limit Roster Size to 15").



Stop protecting Bort, you make him sound like a child. Bort will do what he wants to do with any suggestion. Simply agreeing with or disagreeing with suggestions within a suggestion is all that is needed. If, and that is a big IF, Bort reads the title of this thread, and likes the idea of the OP, then he will decide from there what he would want. Trying to get me to change my mind on OOP is a waste of your time, because the way I see it, Bort might like it and he might not think it's that hard to do. He may hate every aspect of it. Because eventually, 15 man iron man teams will be all everyone wants to play so their guys can get a shit load of playing time for their money.

The point is, all of it, good and bad, popular and unpopular sections of any suggestion are all up to Bort's discretion. Hard is irrelevant.

Let's please not turn this into a flame war.

The idea as discussed is simple:

Create an Iron Man football league by limiting the roster sizes to 15. No other changes to the game's coding are needed.

There has been some discussion that OOP (out of position) penalties should be waived or changed for this league, but a strong argument has been made that the existing OOPs could simply be considered a part of the Iron Man league's strategy.

Some benefits of adding this league would include more player creation (money for GLB), more unique builds resulting from players going both ways (more in line with Bort's original vision of the game), and a different experience and different strategies for current GLB agents, owners and GMs. Smaller roster sizes also would help to create a better sense of community and help with coordination/communication for the entire team. And, a big plus, the player you make and pay for would be on the field a LOT, meaning you get more bang for your buck and don't end up riding the pine.

Did I miss anything?