Warrior General Games

So it doesn't get lost in a ladder thread:

Originally posted by Galithor
You know what they should've done instead of the buffs/nerfs?

Make acquiring S*'s at the same position progressively more expensive. Teams with 5 S* pass catchers or 2 S* HBs are the problem ultimately. It should be harder to convince S*'s to share the glory at a single position. That should be reflected in salary demand. Or something like that.

It'd also encourage people to build a wider variety of S*s, or if they really must build a S* at the most popular position, then it'll be harder to have them all congregate on the same few teams.

Originally posted by tezed
So it doesn't get lost in a ladder thread:

Originally posted by Galithor

You know what they should've done instead of the buffs/nerfs?

Make acquiring S*'s at the same position progressively more expensive. Teams with 5 S* pass catchers or 2 S* HBs are the problem ultimately. It should be harder to convince S*'s to share the glory at a single position. That should be reflected in salary demand. Or something like that.

It'd also encourage people to build a wider variety of S*s, or if they really must build a S* at the most popular position, then it'll be harder to have them all congregate on the same few teams.


Thats a good one as well

I like it - and pretty realistic (as gal said).

Having multiple superstars at the same position should have negative moral on the players/team or moral of one drops further when the other player moral improves..... something like that

Originally posted by cyberninja
Having multiple superstars at the same position should have negative moral on the players/team or moral of one drops further when the other player moral improves..... something like that

I was thinking the same thing. If you have 2 S* at the same position, each should be capped at 80 chem. If you have 3 the cap should be 60. If you reach 4+ it should drop to 50.

Or something along those lines.

Teams would gravitate to a single S* Rushing QB and S* running back and still have a dominant rushing attack. Would make having 2 S* OT/G a bit worse but that difference would be negligible

Maybe that Easy Going trait could nullify the chemistry hit? Maybe then people would actually take it.

Originally posted by Mysterio
Teams would gravitate to a single S* Rushing QB and S* running back and still have a dominant rushing attack. Would make having 2 S* OT/G a bit worse but that difference would be negligible

There's no question this type of change would hurt pass first offenses more than rush first. Minnesota is doing what they do with a single S* HB as it is.

I think a S* Rushing QB is a total waste. Far too much salary tied up in a gimmick that can be shutdown. Better off taking a S* C, G, and OT, all of which would cost about as much as the QB. You can force the defense to play the QB to open up the middle of the field and backside Offtackle stuff whether the QB is a S* or not.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
I was thinking the same thing. If you have 2 S* at the same position, each should be capped at 80 chem. If you have 3 the cap should be 60. If you reach 4+ it should drop to 50.

Or something along those lines.

I despise chemisty as a mechanic myself. Would rather there be a salary mechanic to stifle the practice of overloading S* players at a single position.

Originally posted by Galithor
I despise chemisty as a mechanic myself. Would rather there be a salary mechanic to stifle the practice of overloading S* players at a single position.

I'm good on the cap hit which makes sense even though I carry two SS DT's; I agree that chemistry is sort of the nebulous answer that doesn't exactly provide the same level of diversity that is intended.

wat about the fact that we have the option to create 4-5 s* cb's?

Originally posted by Galithor
There's no question this type of change would hurt pass first offenses more than rush first. Minnesota is doing what they do with a single S* HB as it is.

I think a S* Rushing QB is a total waste. Far too much salary tied up in a gimmick that can be shutdown. Better off taking a S* C, G, and OT, all of which would cost about as much as the QB. You can force the defense to play the QB to open up the middle of the field and backside Offtackle stuff whether the QB is a S* or not.

Going to have to disagree, a Rushing QB is useless if he cant beat the defense to the outside, or break the tackle of the initial defender, something a non-S* QB wont be able to do very well. Their rushing caps are very very bad.

I can understand the premise of this, but I think this hurts the GAME side of the equation. Especially when we get to positions like the secondary. imo, this would be a terrible change for the game side (superstar system included).

Additionally, in alpha testing, the salary/superstar system was extremely delicate from a balance perspective. I feel that we hit a good sweet spot in the balance between # of players, availability of superstars and costs of superstars/regular players. This is an extremely rough system to make small tweaks to. One change completely alters the game and strategies contained within itself.

Might be better just to multiply salaries for multiple superstars on offense or defense.

You say no more dual SS HB. I say ok, SS HB + FB. What really changed? Or 2 SS WR vs SS WR + TE, or 2 SS DE vs SS DE + DT, etc.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
Might be better just to multiply salaries for multiple superstars on offense or defense.

You say no more dual SS HB. I say ok, SS HB + FB. What really changed? Or 2 SS WR vs SS WR + TE, or 2 SS DE vs SS DE + DT, etc.

The average team does exactly what you suggest. They build a team with S* spread across multiple positions. Specialized teams, however, don't. Air Raid got significantly better when they added more S* WRs. Queen City will be a monster when their S* HBs get over early chem issues. If Air Raid only had 1 S* WR and a S* TE they'd still be very good, but not as good as they are today.