Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog
So, "sorry your player sucks, come back in 2 months and try again?"

People aren't going to come back in 2 months and try again. At least a slow trickle of points gives the illusion of being able to work on and improve your player.

Because our current system works so well for them, got it.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
Because our current system works so well for them, got it.

I mean the vets spamming known blitzes and PA passed against them takes care of it

Maybe only current Team Owners can create players at any tier? At least 100 games coached?

As long as teams start at the rookie tier this should take care of the problem of new guys jumping right for the Vet players. Even if a new guy just bought his team he would want to make a rookie player in order to have him play on it. In theory anyway. I think this idea of putting a restriction on who can and can't make the theoretical "any tier players" would be a very nice middle ground for all perspectives of this issue.

Originally posted by 4chanCitizen
Maybe only current Team Owners can create players at any tier? At least 100 games coached?

As long as teams start at the rookie tier this should take care of the problem of new guys jumping right for the Vet players. Even if a new guy just bought his team he would want to make a rookie player in order to have him play on it. In theory anyway. I think this idea of putting a restriction on who can and can't make the theoretical "any tier players" would be a very nice middle ground for all perspectives of this issue.
To me, the middle ground is player knowledge. It's the exact same thing with PuP players that are converted. That's a big tradeoff, and any agent that spend a boatload of flex to make a Vet team from scratch would have a low IQ roster. People just want the ability to fill rosters, and keep teams together. Or maybe the had a lesser roster they didn't think would make Vet, and want to keep it around. There are no free agents out there, so what is a team to do other than just reset.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

To me, the middle ground is player knowledge. It's the exact same thing with PuP players that are converted. That's a big tradeoff, and any agent that spend a boatload of flex to make a Vet team from scratch would have a low IQ roster. People just want the ability to fill rosters, and keep teams together. Or maybe the had a lesser roster they didn't think would make Vet, and want to keep it around. There are no free agents out there, so what is a team to do other than just reset.


It sounds like what Corndog is worried about is players that are new to the game won't make rookie players. Not so much Owners jumping to create Vet tier teams. A solution I think would be prevent the new players to the game from making non-rookie players by having it as a game mechanic you can eventually unlock.

So you would only be able to make Players at any tier after you've gotten a certain achievement or something.

Originally posted by 4chanCitizen
It sounds like what Corndog is worried about is players that are new to the game won't make rookie players. Not so much Owners jumping to create Vet tier teams. A solution I think would be prevent the new players to the game from making non-rookie players by having it as a game mechanic you can eventually unlock.

So you would only be able to make Players at any tier after you've gotten a certain achievement or something.

The penalty to knowledge will still make everyone start at rookie, otherwise they'll be at a big disadvantage in Vet. New agents aren't going to spend the flex to make Vet player, they'll still rather start in rookie with a low cost dot, and far less tough competition. New agents need the ability to create players too for the lower ranks.

Really, we just need more human players period, so the more the merrier. The CPU build discussions point this out. So many teams would stay around and not reset if they could make small tweeks to their roster. Others desperately need to fill roster holes. New agents who may have made a bad QB in rookie but know better by the end of the Season, could replace that bad build.

Honestly I've long been pondering a "one to many" relationship between players and teams, where multiple teams can purchase a contract for a single player with an increasing cost for each. Probably costing flex, some of which goes to the player agent and some which goes to us.

It helps shift some of the cost to the core part of the game, which is team ownership, and somewhat settling discrepancies with a shallow free agent pool and the struggle to fill teams.

Really the fatal flaw of this game is that player builders really have very little to keep them invested. Sure you can train your guy after each game but is that really that fun? If I didn’t buy a team in the first few seasons I would have been long gone and probably just forgot about the game.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
Really the fatal flaw of this game is that player builders really have very little to keep them invested. Sure you can train your guy after each game but is that really that fun? If I didn’t buy a team in the first few seasons I would have been long gone and probably just forgot about the game.

I mean, there has been a lot of discussion throughout the game about player builds. Not sure I'd call it an uninteresting part of the game.

But you are right in that it isn't an overly engaging experience. You spent some points, then wait a day or two to see a marginal improvement, then do it all over again. The payoff is long term experimentation, which usually isn't enough to immediately hook someone.

I'm not entirely sure just removing it helps that situation though. Then new users have literally no investment or reason to log back in after spending their points. Likewise, making the process faster isn't an overly viable solution either, because the pacing of games is about at it's limit both for the servers and for coordinating.

And sure, ideally, everyone would get a team to be invested in the meat of the game. But that's in no way feasible with the free agent pool, and servers couldn't really handle simming a ridiculous number of mostly CPU teams.

The format of the game is just mostly unwieldy.

If a GLB3 ever was in the works maybe it could be made team based rather than player based. I know there would be some cost issues on both ends but the fate will always be the same under the current format.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
If a GLB3 ever was in the works maybe it could be made team based rather than player based. I know there would be some cost issues on both ends but the fate will always be the same under the current format.

I like this idea... I think there's enough ground work here to make a good GLB3 on Steam. I just looked at a game called Legend Bowl and I thought a GLB3 would do way better than it with a similar concept but using this as a base.

I would like to see minimum plays move up from 5 plays to 10 per situation. Also dial the priority back from maybe 5 to 3. This could in turn prohibit the spam. As much as I love defense up those books too a bit. Theoretically this could keep newer guys more interested as it could limit some of their blowouts from the money plays.

Originally posted by vipermaw82
I would like to see minimum plays move up from 5 plays to 10 per situation. Also dial the priority back from maybe 5 to 3. This could in turn prohibit the spam. As much as I love defense up those books too a bit. Theoretically this could keep newer guys more interested as it could limit some of their blowouts from the money plays.

Do people only use 5 plays though? Not sure this would do much.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Do people only use 5 plays though? Not sure this would do much.

It is certainly an option to limit the ability to spam which is good IMO. I personally run pretty diverse PBs, but am still able to spam a bit more. Between lowering the priority range and expanding the minimum number of plays, it would make the spam plays a bit harder to run. I would also make it so repeat plays could not be used in different sections of the PB. I am all for anything that slows the ability to spam. I think spam is a major issue. The play diversity bonus put in place however many seasons ago was an attempt to handle this. Unfortunately, whatever boost players get from mixing up the plays never really seemed to be large enough.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
It is certainly an option to limit the ability to spam which is good IMO. I personally run pretty diverse PBs, but am still able to spam a bit more. Between lowering the priority range and expanding the minimum number of plays, it would make the spam plays a bit harder to run. I would also make it so repeat plays could not be used in different sections of the PB. I am all for anything that slows the ability to spam. I think spam is a major issue. The play diversity bonus put in place however many seasons ago was an attempt to handle this. Unfortunately, whatever boost players get from mixing up the plays never really seemed to be large enough.

This