Warrior General Games

Option A) Give Easy Going a -5% Salary

Option B) New Trait called Team Player -10% Salary

not worth the trait point.

I actually think this is a good idea. It definitely IS worth the trait point if you want another player at a certain position, but don't want him to cost as much. Not worth the trait if you want to use him normally, but you'd choose a trait with reduced salary for a non-normal player.

so you really think ppl are going to give up performance just so the joe costs a little less?

nah. it would just encourage (more) superstar hoarding (than already exists).

Originally posted by Asheme
nah. it would just encourage (more) superstar hoarding (than already exists).

Not really, having a player one tier younger is way cheaper than having a same tier player with a -salary trait.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
so you really think ppl are going to give up performance just so the joe costs a little less?

Yes, I would personally pick a trait that had -salary if its skill modifiers didn't impact the player's end build too much.

Having a shitty player on your team to take up ST snaps is still better than using a quality backup's energy.

I don't see how it can hurt. Even if kids try to load up on superstars the rest of their teams will suffer in the long term big time from not having a stat related third trait on like at least 60 percent of their players. I like it...think drew brees and Tom brady

Originally posted by E-A-G-L-E-S
I don't see how it can hurt. Even if kids try to load up on superstars the rest of their teams will suffer in the long term big time from not having a stat related third trait on like at least 60 percent of their players. I like it...think drew brees and Tom brady

You're going to have to elaborate on the 'think Brady and Brees' part. I don't see how any -traits they may have ( like -mobility) may have a negative salary adjustment. They get paid.

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
You're going to have to elaborate on the 'think Brady and Brees' part. I don't see how any -traits they may have ( like -mobility) may have a negative salary adjustment. They get paid.

They both took pay cuts to free up roster room willingly

Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Not really, having a player one tier younger is way cheaper than having a same tier player with a -salary trait.

But at veteran level you aren't going to be using younger tier'd players and the only younger tiered players you are using are superstars.

Originally posted by E-A-G-L-E-S
They both took pay cuts to free up roster room willingly

Yeah, but they're skills or characteristics didn't diminish. I was wondering how they related to the -salary trait suggestion. They took pay cuts but they didn't accrue traits that decreased their skills or made their skills harder to improve.

Originally posted by E-A-G-L-E-S
think drew brees and Tom brady
why would i think about them? do they play glb2? if so, p big upgrade over kevin bacon imo.

Aren't you able to do pretty much the same by giving players low contracts?

Originally posted by cavalier
Aren't you able to do pretty much the same by giving players low contracts?

C'mon Cav, you're smarter than that. A low contract comes with a sure, quantifiable (even if not exact), chem hit to playing ability. Brees and Brady don't have to deal with that, paycut or not.