Warrior General Games

Honest question: what aspect of the game have you enjoyed the most?




For me: I think those few times when I had multiple good teams in my league -- and was trying to fight up the ladder was the most fun. It was only in those periods where every game really mattered. It was only in those times where I really had any interest in how the other league or ladder games went -- because wins and losses there affected my teams standing in the league/ladder.

At those (few) times - I think the key was PARITY. Parity is the key to competition - and competition is the key to game interest.

For me: how do you re-ignite interest in the game? encourage parity -- make every game matter -- find a way to remove CPU/gutted teams -- find a way to help bad teams improve.



What aspect of the game have you most enjoyed?

I like coming up with niche roster design concepts. Some of them work out. Some of them don't.

Got a few ideas laying around I still want to try that I can't say that I've seen anyone do yet.

Originally posted by Galithor
I like coming up with niche roster design concepts. Some of them work out. Some of them don't.

Got a few ideas laying around I still want to try that I can't say that I've seen anyone do yet.

Yup. I had fun building HAHA, but it could wind up being a disaster.

When FSM eventually resets, I was thinking I'd do something funky as well. Possibly even go Zone.

Originally posted by TxSteve
For me: I think those few times when I had multiple good teams in my league -- and was trying to fight up the ladder was the most fun. It was only in those periods where every game really mattered. It was only in those times where I really had any interest in how the other league or ladder games went -- because wins and losses there affected my teams standing in the league/ladder.

At those (few) times - I think the key was PARITY. Parity is the key to competition - and competition is the key to game interest.

For me: how do you re-ignite interest in the game? encourage parity -- make every game matter -- find a way to remove CPU/gutted teams -- find a way to help bad teams improve.

I was all about a partial ELO reset every off-season, with teams scaled down towards the mean. But with how fun Rookie always is, a full ELO reset would be cool.

I'd like to try a niche roster design (I have an idea I think would be cool) - but I've got issues in that I'd feel bad asking players to spend to build a team when I'm not confident how well it will do....and I don't have the flex anymore to make my own team.

sounds very fun to try that.

Originally posted by TxSteve
I'd like to try a niche roster design (I have an idea I think would be cool) - but I've got issues in that I'd feel bad asking players to spend to build a team when I'm not confident how well it will do....and I don't have the flex anymore to make my own team.

sounds very fun to try that.




There's always a non-boosting team concept, and then if it looks like the team can do some serious damage, boost later on?

Originally posted by TxSteve
Honest question: what aspect of the game have you enjoyed the most?




For me: I think those few times when I had multiple good teams in my league -- and was trying to fight up the ladder was the most fun. It was only in those periods where every game really mattered. It was only in those times where I really had any interest in how the other league or ladder games went -- because wins and losses there affected my teams standing in the league/ladder.

At those (few) times - I think the key was PARITY. Parity is the key to competition - and competition is the key to game interest.

For me: how do you re-ignite interest in the game? encourage parity -- make every game matter -- find a way to remove CPU/gutted teams -- find a way to help bad teams improve.



What aspect of the game have you most enjoyed?

Same for me, this I need to win 15 games in a row to move a few spots isn't very fun. Take my team for example, losing to a lower tier team in Ground Assault didn't really hurt me at all. A loss like that should have pushed me down the rankings significantly, but it meant nothing. This offseason that game will be long gone and there is an excellent chance I'll start next season as a top 5 team without earning it. The only reason I'll be there is because teams that have played more games than me will have reset, I'll spend 1-2 seasons in the top 5 because it's my turn to be there and I'll reset moving up some other team in the top 5 because it's their turn to be there.

As far as parity goes, I'm still against the entire SS aspect all together. I just don't like it, changes have to be made based on the performance of SS players which effects regular players a lot more. In my perfect scenario the following changes would be made and improve GLB2 in my eyes.

-Flatten the tiers each off-season
-Get rid of SSs
-Discourage 1 dimensional teams, whether by giving the defense a bonus or putting a penalty on the offense

Originally posted by Absolut Zero
There's always a non-boosting team concept, and then if it looks like the team can do some serious damage, boost later on?

That's true.

If there is ever a case where someone wants to organize / build -- and have me coordinate and consult for an off the wall project...let me know

Originally posted by Parab00n

-Flatten the tiers each off-season
-Get rid of SSs
-Discourage 1 dimensional teams, whether by giving the defense a bonus or putting a penalty on the offense

I think the S* players are starting to branch out more. We saw a 3 S* LB team shut down Minnesota this season. Defensive S*'s in particular are getting more popular than they were.

I once proposed a suggestion of having S* salaries dynamically adjust based on how popular that position was for S* players. The goal being to have less popular S* positions gain more value from lower salaries relative to the other more popular positions.

Then I realized that fell under my "way too complicated, Corndog will never have time to put something like that together" rule.

Originally posted by Parab00n

1. Flatten the tiers each off-season
2. Get rid of SSs
3. Discourage 1 dimensional teams, whether by giving the defense a bonus or putting a penalty on the offense

Don't really want to get too off topic here but:

1. yes, yes, yes, yes. Just writing that rookie thread yesterday and seeing the difference in the ladder (which is also affected by league games) - this would be WONDERFUL at every tier. So fun if losing the 23rd game of the season can lose or gain you 2 spots in the ladder.

2. I'd probably prefer having some kind of limit on teams - say 3 per team ONLY no matter the salary hit - just like agents have - just because it is fun to have a star player out there -- but choosing between how it is now...and abolishing superstars - I'd vote for abolish

3. This will just seem flaky since I'm building for balance next season - but this is a tough one for me. How do you do it? Many of the ideas I've read don't make sense. I would also pitch than any idea implemented to encourage (or require) 1 dimensional teams only go into effect for new rookie teams (meaning no one who built 1 dimensional would be affected or punished).
- Stobie recently added the 60R / 100P rating to his scouter (and it only took him a few minutes). Any team who has a number higher than say 85 (85% pass or 85% run - but it could be 80) gets an across the board penalty to every player that reduces every single skill by 10%. Would extremes still be viable? Maybe. Would people try to game the system (running team passes when leading big) probably but so what. (%'s might need tweaking)
- Defenses playing against a team who's stobie rating is 85R - 100R: Every defensive player gets +10% to speed / break block / hold ground / and all tackling skills (impacts special teams as well).
- Defenses playing against a team who's stobie rating is 85P - 100P: Every defensive player gets +10% to deflect / cov tech / vertical / pass rush tech / speed).

Teams would try to flirt with the number I expect (fight to be right at 84%) but that's ok. It would be fun. These would be season totals though - so teams would jimmy with game plans against crap teams so that they can go 100% with no penalty in the playoffs - but that is ok - at least it would be something. Maybe the %'s and skill choices I made need tweaking.

Originally posted by Galithor

I once proposed a suggestion of having S* salaries dynamically adjust based on how popular that position was for S* players. The goal being to have less popular S* positions gain more value from lower salaries relative to the other more popular positions.



I agree - I thought that was too complicated...

but I loved whoever had the idea that a 2nd superstar at a position caused an X% salary increase for both of those superstars. So - 1 SS HB = 100% current salary. 2 SS HB = 120% salary for each. 3 SS HB = 140% salary for each.

I don't know that we need to do anything about balance vs pure offenses.

I know if/when I get involved in assembling another team, it's going to be a balanced offense concept.

On SS's I could get behind no more than 1 SS per position or something like that.

As far as the 1 dimensional solution, I think you would have to regulate it with the number of pass or run plays called in a row. Doing it by Season totals would really skew things possibly. If you did some kind of stacking bonus to the defense starting when the opposing team ran or passed it 5 times in a row then that could work I believe. Something like this:

6th straight rushing play - 1% bonus to all defenders on all Mental Based stats (Awareness, Technique, Toughness, Heart, etc)
7th straight rushing play - 2% bonus
8th straight rushing play - 3% bonus
etc
Team passes the ball - Bonus resets and doesn't reappear until 5 straight types of plays are ran.

Doing it this way would allow teams to still be run or pass focused, but force them to add about 15% of rushing or passing.

Originally posted by Parab00n
On SS's I could get behind no more than 1 SS per position or something like that.

As far as the 1 dimensional solution, I think you would have to regulate it with the number of pass or run plays called in a row. Doing it by Season totals would really skew things possibly. If you did some kind of stacking bonus to the defense starting when the opposing team ran or passed it 5 times in a row then that could work I believe. Something like this:

6th straight rushing play - 1% bonus to all defenders on all Mental Based stats (Awareness, Technique, Toughness, Heart, etc)
7th straight rushing play - 2% bonus
8th straight rushing play - 3% bonus
etc
Team passes the ball - Bonus resets and doesn't reappear until 5 straight types of plays are ran.

Doing it this way would allow teams to still be run or pass focused, but force them to add about 15% of rushing or passing.

I'd have a bunch of reservations with a "play streak" type nerf. There's too many legitimate circumstances in which it can be triggered, even for a really balanced team.

Originally posted by Parab00n
As far as the 1 dimensional solution, I think you would have to regulate it with the number of pass or run plays called in a row. Doing it by Season totals would really skew things possibly. If you did some kind of stacking bonus to the defense starting when the opposing team ran or passed it 5 times in a row then that could work I believe.

If Corndog was ever thinking of implementing something like this, I'd love it if he'd say it so new teams can change their plans. Otherwise a whole lot of teams would reset as soon as this was implemented.