Max XP for Every Player Every Day
Discussion began: 2/28/10
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
► Current status:
Being discussed. Bort hasn't chimed in yet, but there has been little (no) opposition to the idea from the tester group.
► Some quotes from the discussion:
Originally posted by Tester
What would be the disadvantages of this? It has tons of advantages.
Originally posted by Deathblade
i have went over and over it in the mod forum with bort
he thinks owners will recruit a full roster and only play 11 players or something i dunno
Originally posted by Tester
Why would an owner have people on a team and not play them unless it was something to do with mentors? It would eliminate SSBing, rotting players (except for stats I guess), some farming of players to random teams to get max XP at lower levels.
I am sure there are some negatives. I just can't think of them. Most pro teams have the max number of players and the number of plays needed at that level to get max XP is very low anyway. We have roster limits so it's not like a team can sign 70 players. Maybe people would make players but not sign them to teams. I cannot really see why this is a negative. In terms of its impact on the game as a whole it seems neutral. This is pretty much how I felt as an owner: if a player wants to be on team x he will find a way to make it happen; if he doesn't, why would an owner want a player on his team against that player's will? Nothing good ever comes from that for the team.
Overall I would bet that max XP every day for everyone would mean more player creation and also people with players unable to sign to teams would maintain their interest in the game longer. Stamina might be seen as less important, but this kind of goes hand in hand with the roster limit issue. Most Pro league players play only 25-40 snaps anyway and get max XP. Stamina now is less about being able to stay on the field and more about being at maximum performance while you're in the game. I don't see how giving people max XP regardless would change this. I suppose you could have specialists who only play 5-6 plays per game, but I can't really think of a scenario where this would be useful enough for someone to do it or abuse it. Maybe a catching HB? But most people paying for players want them to play a decent amount regardless of XP for the stats.
Anyway I'm rambling, but I would be curious to hear others' thoughts.
Originally posted by Deathblade
Really don't know.
That reason made zero sense to me. Owners don't recruit a max roster to only play 11 players. Owners recruit max roster to win with energy/morale. Owners don't recruit a max roster for the sole purpose of getting people max XP, tbh, I doubt that EVER crosses an owner's mind when they are going through the part-time job of recruiting.
The exception are assholes who recruit for the sole purpose of rotting a player, but I really don't see how keeping the current system is somehow making that more difficult...it just makes their asshole moves cost other people real money.
Originally posted by Tester
I really do not see any issue with this either. If you are on a team, you should get full experience no matter how many downs you play.
Adding this to must be on a team to get training points and you have effectively killed SSB.
Additionally its a boon to players who get rotted so while they may not be getting stats at least they are getting full exp and can go elsewhere when their contract is up and not be at a huge disadvantage.
[...]It really should be a no brainer.
It would make lots of people happier and would have very few negative effects if any. I can see folks signing certain specialist roles and having them only play a few plays (Return men, etc) but this is normal and part of real football at a professional level.
Originally posted by Catch22
well if you have max XP for all players - you really don't need XP at all. You just would base level ups based on age of the player.
I think the problem Bort has with it (and I'm just guessing here) is that most RPG's give out XP based on things you do. I'm not sure the XP system however works with a football sim so I think that removing XP from the equation is probably a good idea.
Originally posted by Deathblade
The problem with that line of thinking, is that other RPGs don't make you delete your character after X amount of time, and only allow you X number of chances to gain XP (which coincidentally enough, you have zero control over whether you gain XP or not, someone who has paid less does).
Originally posted by Catch22
Agree completely.
Originally posted by Tester
Bort likes realism in his game, correct? In real football, you practice, study film, get coached on specifics, but if you're not a starter, you generally don't get 30-40 plays a game. However, you still gain a lot of experience just being in practice.
If we'd like to see starting roles actually MEAN anything, then removing the "# of Plays = XP" approach might help out, and would DEFINITELY do away with super slow building. SSB is the least of my worries, but having to constantly focus on getting guys the right number of plays, or worrying "If the DC doesn't put my LB in on enough positions and doesn't sub him in and out properly, he's going to suffer in the long run", etc.
Giving max XP every game, every day, no matter what would pretty much do away with this play # requirement, would probably lead to less rotation on every play (maybe even higher stamina numbers) and I'm sure the list of positive effects would go on and on with getting rid of the XP per play idea.
Originally posted by Tester
You could try to fix the problem of only playing 11 players by trying it to chemistry.
If you play less then 40 different players a game (minimum 15 plays each?) your chemistry takes a hit. Think about it, would you get along with 11 of your teammates who are playing both ways while you ride the bench?
Originally posted by Tester
I don't even think this is necessary. As a DC I always wanted to think more about putting my best players on the field and allowing them to win and less about how often everyone is playing. Real coaches don't think about that, although I understand we can't map everything in real life onto GLB because of injuries and talent disparities between starters and backups (in real life finding a great starting QB, much less a backup too, is quite a challenge).
Originally posted by Tester
The disadvantage is that I'd have to do less shenanigans when playing gutjobs.
Originally posted by Tester
I am on board 100%.
Downside is difficult to even detect and the upside is great for all the right reasons.
Originally posted by Tester
I like this idea, along with the max XP and training points only for everyone who is on roster. Without any penalty to widely different playing time you will have owners especially in lower leagues who will screw players over by signing them to make up the roster minimum but then essentially rotting them on the bench in favor of their own guys. This has the potential to disenchant agents with the game as a whole, and that can't be the target. I know at the highest level there are lots of agents who are ok with limited or specialised roles for their players, but at lower levels people will get unhappy if their players don't see the field much, max XP or not.
Make it staggered, no chemistry penalty for any player who gets at least 20 plays in a game, 0.25 per player getting 15-19 snaps, 0.5 per player from 10-14, 1 per player < 10. This likely won't be too game changing, especially with the usual chemistry gain at rollover, but it could make the difference in a close game, and it will prvent an owner from not getting half the players on the roster their fair share of playing time (and fun).
Originally posted by PP
Agree completely....just give everyone max XP each game and stop screwing dots because the owner screws up or is purposefully trying to hurt an agent.
An unmentioned massive plus to giving out max XP is that it'd make to lower lvls more competitive. My system will carry the minimum amount of dots we can reasonably get away with (after the change, that will be 30) at the lower lvls, just we can max XP. Give everyone max XP and we go with more reasonable/competitive rosters. If I'm "smart" enough to figure that out, a hell of a lot of others are most likely doing the same thing.
Originally posted by Tester
I strongly agree that this would be a good change for the many reasons others have mentioned. I'll also add that with certain rosters making sure every player gets 20 plays can be one of the most pain in the ass parts of coordinating and can really take the joy out of game planning.
Discussion began: 2/28/10
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
► Current status:
Being discussed. Bort hasn't chimed in yet, but there has been little (no) opposition to the idea from the tester group.
► Some quotes from the discussion:
Originally posted by Tester
What would be the disadvantages of this? It has tons of advantages.
Originally posted by Deathblade
i have went over and over it in the mod forum with bort
he thinks owners will recruit a full roster and only play 11 players or something i dunno
Originally posted by Tester
Why would an owner have people on a team and not play them unless it was something to do with mentors? It would eliminate SSBing, rotting players (except for stats I guess), some farming of players to random teams to get max XP at lower levels.
I am sure there are some negatives. I just can't think of them. Most pro teams have the max number of players and the number of plays needed at that level to get max XP is very low anyway. We have roster limits so it's not like a team can sign 70 players. Maybe people would make players but not sign them to teams. I cannot really see why this is a negative. In terms of its impact on the game as a whole it seems neutral. This is pretty much how I felt as an owner: if a player wants to be on team x he will find a way to make it happen; if he doesn't, why would an owner want a player on his team against that player's will? Nothing good ever comes from that for the team.
Overall I would bet that max XP every day for everyone would mean more player creation and also people with players unable to sign to teams would maintain their interest in the game longer. Stamina might be seen as less important, but this kind of goes hand in hand with the roster limit issue. Most Pro league players play only 25-40 snaps anyway and get max XP. Stamina now is less about being able to stay on the field and more about being at maximum performance while you're in the game. I don't see how giving people max XP regardless would change this. I suppose you could have specialists who only play 5-6 plays per game, but I can't really think of a scenario where this would be useful enough for someone to do it or abuse it. Maybe a catching HB? But most people paying for players want them to play a decent amount regardless of XP for the stats.
Anyway I'm rambling, but I would be curious to hear others' thoughts.
Originally posted by Deathblade
Really don't know.
That reason made zero sense to me. Owners don't recruit a max roster to only play 11 players. Owners recruit max roster to win with energy/morale. Owners don't recruit a max roster for the sole purpose of getting people max XP, tbh, I doubt that EVER crosses an owner's mind when they are going through the part-time job of recruiting.
The exception are assholes who recruit for the sole purpose of rotting a player, but I really don't see how keeping the current system is somehow making that more difficult...it just makes their asshole moves cost other people real money.
Originally posted by Tester
I really do not see any issue with this either. If you are on a team, you should get full experience no matter how many downs you play.
Adding this to must be on a team to get training points and you have effectively killed SSB.
Additionally its a boon to players who get rotted so while they may not be getting stats at least they are getting full exp and can go elsewhere when their contract is up and not be at a huge disadvantage.
[...]It really should be a no brainer.
It would make lots of people happier and would have very few negative effects if any. I can see folks signing certain specialist roles and having them only play a few plays (Return men, etc) but this is normal and part of real football at a professional level.
Originally posted by Catch22
well if you have max XP for all players - you really don't need XP at all. You just would base level ups based on age of the player.
I think the problem Bort has with it (and I'm just guessing here) is that most RPG's give out XP based on things you do. I'm not sure the XP system however works with a football sim so I think that removing XP from the equation is probably a good idea.
Originally posted by Deathblade
The problem with that line of thinking, is that other RPGs don't make you delete your character after X amount of time, and only allow you X number of chances to gain XP (which coincidentally enough, you have zero control over whether you gain XP or not, someone who has paid less does).
Originally posted by Catch22
Agree completely.
Originally posted by Tester
Bort likes realism in his game, correct? In real football, you practice, study film, get coached on specifics, but if you're not a starter, you generally don't get 30-40 plays a game. However, you still gain a lot of experience just being in practice.
If we'd like to see starting roles actually MEAN anything, then removing the "# of Plays = XP" approach might help out, and would DEFINITELY do away with super slow building. SSB is the least of my worries, but having to constantly focus on getting guys the right number of plays, or worrying "If the DC doesn't put my LB in on enough positions and doesn't sub him in and out properly, he's going to suffer in the long run", etc.
Giving max XP every game, every day, no matter what would pretty much do away with this play # requirement, would probably lead to less rotation on every play (maybe even higher stamina numbers) and I'm sure the list of positive effects would go on and on with getting rid of the XP per play idea.
Originally posted by Tester
You could try to fix the problem of only playing 11 players by trying it to chemistry.
If you play less then 40 different players a game (minimum 15 plays each?) your chemistry takes a hit. Think about it, would you get along with 11 of your teammates who are playing both ways while you ride the bench?
Originally posted by Tester
I don't even think this is necessary. As a DC I always wanted to think more about putting my best players on the field and allowing them to win and less about how often everyone is playing. Real coaches don't think about that, although I understand we can't map everything in real life onto GLB because of injuries and talent disparities between starters and backups (in real life finding a great starting QB, much less a backup too, is quite a challenge).
Originally posted by Tester
The disadvantage is that I'd have to do less shenanigans when playing gutjobs.
Originally posted by Tester
I am on board 100%.
Downside is difficult to even detect and the upside is great for all the right reasons.
Originally posted by Tester
I like this idea, along with the max XP and training points only for everyone who is on roster. Without any penalty to widely different playing time you will have owners especially in lower leagues who will screw players over by signing them to make up the roster minimum but then essentially rotting them on the bench in favor of their own guys. This has the potential to disenchant agents with the game as a whole, and that can't be the target. I know at the highest level there are lots of agents who are ok with limited or specialised roles for their players, but at lower levels people will get unhappy if their players don't see the field much, max XP or not.
Make it staggered, no chemistry penalty for any player who gets at least 20 plays in a game, 0.25 per player getting 15-19 snaps, 0.5 per player from 10-14, 1 per player < 10. This likely won't be too game changing, especially with the usual chemistry gain at rollover, but it could make the difference in a close game, and it will prvent an owner from not getting half the players on the roster their fair share of playing time (and fun).
Originally posted by PP
Agree completely....just give everyone max XP each game and stop screwing dots because the owner screws up or is purposefully trying to hurt an agent.
An unmentioned massive plus to giving out max XP is that it'd make to lower lvls more competitive. My system will carry the minimum amount of dots we can reasonably get away with (after the change, that will be 30) at the lower lvls, just we can max XP. Give everyone max XP and we go with more reasonable/competitive rosters. If I'm "smart" enough to figure that out, a hell of a lot of others are most likely doing the same thing.
Originally posted by Tester
I strongly agree that this would be a good change for the many reasons others have mentioned. I'll also add that with certain rosters making sure every player gets 20 plays can be one of the most pain in the ass parts of coordinating and can really take the joy out of game planning.