Warrior General Games

I strongly support max XP for everyone for one very simple reason - no one should be able to screw over a player that I'm spending my money to make.

I'm actually amazed that something like this was EVER in the game, let alone for this long.

As far as I'm concerned this trumps any other consideration related to playing time, but if it were up to me I'd also make stamina more important and lower the max roster size to the 45-46 range... the same active roster size NFL teams take into games.

But that isn't as important as far as I'm concerned. No one should be able to screw up my player's progression but me.

What is wrong with trying it out? I like the idea and have been calling for it for a very long time. Most of the whine from agents is about E-Cash and XP. This will make one of those annoyances go away.

It sure took a lot of suggestions to get this suggestion to this stage. People have been suggesting this for ages now. It was such an easy fix for so many things that are wrong with this game.

Max xp per game is an absolute must.

I realize this game's intent was to be an RPG, and therefore xp should be a part of the progression of each player, but this game does not allow the player to control the amount of involvement his player has in the game. You can't just mindlessly go hack monsters for hours at a time and level at your own pace. Our players are at the hands of the owners/coordinators.

Players should not get rewarded for NOT playing in games due to SSB, and players should not get penalized for NOT playing in games due to owner/backup/substitution issues. There are many instances that one of my players did not get max xp due to AI settings. Like:

Playing vs. a passing team and coordinator keeping us in Quarter or Dime all game. Kills the LBers.

Playing vs. a rushing team and being in 4-4 too often. Kills the Strong Safety.

Passing so much out of SB, killing the FB, or Running so much the WRs are behind.

Having other players on your depth chart with 70 stamina taking all the plays.

Special teams scoring every Kickoff/Punt.

I mean there are so many variables that can limit your plays, and as a player, you simply have no control. At the same time, your team's coordinators shouldn't be hindered by upset players to limit their ability to win the game. I mean, I you play a team that passes out of 5wr all game, you shouldn't have to line up in a 4-3 defense half the time to make sure all your players get max xp.

It is time that the powers that be, see that the original vision of the game needs to be altered somewhat.

I'm wondering as well if MaxXP shouldn't be implemented, but the rate of accumulation increased but the cap (Level 72) retained.. Thus we'll get a longer period of time where your player is at Max Level.

This might require changes to the league structures though as players would gain more XP/Faster so the tiers would look different.

But if you could reach max level by your 8th season, that would give you two additional seasons of playing at your maximum potential before retirement.

And so doing would also change the building strategy a bit as players would have to round out attributes sooner as they wouldn;t be able to use overnight training for several seasons to bring up some attributes they were planning on just using overnight training to 'build'.

Hmmm... this idea would benefit me, so obviously I'm for it, but maybe you should look at some of the consequenses of this idea, whose ramifications would alter the game:

Until you lower the roster totals (also something I am against, as higher rosters favour me, but I do see the need for the game) I am going to continue to start 4 HBs. Each HB is built differently... I have a HB with Strength, Carrying, and Speed; a HB with Strength, Speed, and Agility; a HB with Speed, Strength, and Agility (in a different order of capping); and I have a HB with Speed, Agility, and Vision.

In the current sim I am taking a major hit at EXP over other teams running a single or double HB system. Under the proposed model, I can use my players and get them 8-10 plays each and still have them level up at the same rate as other teams who are wielding fewer weapons.

I mean, I'm happy I don't have to try and get them plays on field goals, returns, etc., but is it really something GLB wants?

I believe most of the folks who are for this are aware that this is a possibility. With team rosters limited to 55, then there is no worry that a team could sign say 100 players and they all get maxXP.

In your system sure you get 4 HB;s with max XP... You can already obtain this. They just don't play on the same team for the first few seasons, but once you have everyone at level 29, they all need 20 plays which is very easily accomplished.

So, system doesn't change, teams can still run 4 HB's getting max XP...at least it doesn;t change in that aspect.

Instead though, those 4 HB's play on the same team, which has a roster of 55 human players instead of 25-30 human players with 10-15 CPU players who fill out the roster to the minimum team size (and thus, coincidentally get a cash boost because they pay the cpu players peanuts).

The lower leveld teams are thus made up of 55 players who can be competitive against other teams of 55 players who can be comeptitive = better games/sims and more fun/competition.

MaxXP also means that a new player who signs on with a team can't get jerked around and rotted and a player he is paying money for get denied enough plays to level so that after just a single season his better option is to retire the player as they will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage and will never be able to make level 72/max level.

It also means if you play a scrub team, your player wont get screwed if the offense happens to only get 24 snaps. etc.

Bort's response on this and why it is very unlikely to ever happen:

Originally posted by Bort
Main negative in my eyes:

No incentive to play backups. You can play your starters a lot, while backups must be content with a few plays, with the justification being that you get full XP anyway. Everyone wants their guy to play. Giving owners an incentive to give more players playing time is a good thing for everyone's enjoyment. Nobody wants their QB to be a back up, only seeing duty on hand offs and blow outs. XP is great, but stats are fun too.

You're all thinking from the eyes of an owner who has a few loyal people on his team, or even a team of mostly your own players, with rose colored glasses of what's best for the team. Not all teams are like that. Some are mishmashes of various recruits, and they all want play time.

Originally posted by Catch22
Bort's response on this and why it is very likely to ever happen:

Originally posted by Bort



You're all thinking from the eyes of an owner who has a few loyal people on his team, or even a team of mostly your own players, with rose colored glasses of what's best for the team. Not all teams are like that. Some are mishmashes of various recruits, and they all want play time.


Good call by bort. You mean why it is likely to never happen catch?

yea, meant unlikely to never happen

Bort did mention a potential compromise (50% of max XP). Not sure if he'll follow through on that though.

That is really a shame, because the same argument can be used to demonstrate how a player who IS being made to play backup, will be handicapped for their entire career, will never make the level cap, and all from things they have very little control over.

It is more player UNFRIENDLY to limit their experience if they don;t make a certain number of plays in a game when they have no control over this.

Originally posted by Enkidu98
That is really a shame, because the same argument can be used to demonstrate how a player who IS being made to play backup, will be handicapped for their entire career, will never make the level cap, and all from things they have very little control over.

It is more player UNFRIENDLY to limit their experience if they don;t make a certain number of plays in a game when they have no control over this.

Disagree, if you don't get people max exp, nobody resigns with you, and you quickly can't field a team, bc nobody wants to play on a team who won't get them max experience.

Originally posted by David Stern
Disagree, if you don't get people max exp, nobody resigns with you, and you quickly can't field a team, bc nobody wants to play on a team who won't get them max experience.


But that doesn't help the player who will never ever make that experience up again. I had a WR that lost a half season of exp by being on a Bort endorsed rot team. That was a very pleasant experience.

Adding in the dumbest experience scale in RPG history to the mix and it makes it worse.

Originally posted by David Stern
Disagree, if you don't get people max exp, nobody resigns with you, and you quickly can't field a team, bc nobody wants to play on a team who won't get them max experience.

So, how do you get a competitive team with a full roster max plays per game under level 29?

I can easily get max plays by running a roster of 25/30 players but they are not very competitive with another team of 40-55 of players who are also building correctly and motivated to win.

Making it possible to have full rosters from the first game of a season with brand new level 1 players would be a benefit. After hitting level 29 ensuring full exp is easy.

Over the first few seasons, this can amount to several levels worth of EXP, ensuring the players who were in systems designed to game the sim and work as an organised structure have a significant advantage over everyone else. And the advantage is gained by creating a lower level of league tiers that are less competitive and less fun and so do not help maintain the _new_ players that are important for the long term longevity of the enterprise.

So is this idea finally going to come to fruition?

Originally posted by Catch22
we're also going to be increasing the effects of morale and stamina next season

Increasing the effect of stamina is incentive enough to play your backups. That was Borts only thing holding him back on this issue. Now that is being taken care of we should expect to see this idea finally implemented, right?