Warrior General Games

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
That's why you follow the opposite model...

- You purchase a team to run
- You build a bunch of players
- You come up detailed build plans
- You update those build plans every 1/2 season or so
- You do all the coordinating on offense and defense
- You lose lots of games

You spent lots of flex. Other people don't spend their flex...but they told you how to build - what to spend on - they were basically telling you how to spend your money to be be successful.



Classic.

Another classic post at GE's expense.

Thank God this hasn't gotten old yet.

Originally posted by TxSteve
That's definitely true. But picture this (somewhat common) scenario:

- I find a team to run (not that hard probably since I have had a few decent successes)
- I recruit a bunch of players
- I write up detailed build plans
- I update those build plans every 1/2 season or so
- I do all the coordinating on offense and defense
- We win lots of games

I spent no flex. Other people spent their flex...but were told how to build - what to spend on - they were basically spending their own money to be my bitches.

That isn't a good long term successful game model, in my opinion.



I took criticism (I think flaming would overstate the tone of the posts) for essentially saying in another thread that those who agree to follow detailed build plans are essentially being other people's bitches/monkeys. And you don't have to be to be part of a successful team.

Some of my players are on a very good team whose owner wrote up general build plans, to whom I sent a "mail PM" saying I'd follow a lot of what he wanted but not everything and gave reasons for I was going to do differently when it was significant. He didn't indicate a problem, and the team and my players have done very well. He and I chat occasionally on here and his latest comment regarding my builds was "keep doing what you've been doing."

It's right now my perfect scenario as an agent: I'm building players on his team, taking many of the owner's suggestions but going a different route when his suggestions don't make sense to me or don't fit the type of player I was trying to build, such that I do feel like they're my players, and contributing to a winning team.

It can be done without letting someone else spend your flex.

I have other players on lesser teams, including one I'm the main person who does day-to-day stuff for including game plans, and I get to build them completely as I want...and while they aren't great teams and I'm not at this point more than a passable coach, they aren't really bad, either. And maybe I'll learn to truly be a good coach with the experience I get on the one I coach.

There's no way to stop the people who do make the agents their monkeys, spending their flex to build players exactly the way the owner or coordinator wants, except to try to spread the word that agents shouldn't be willing to do that.

Originally posted by
how did this devolve into a "buff passing" thread?

what happened to all that stuff about there being nothing for new users to do?

Originally posted by Corndog
Less than a tenth of a percent log in days later to see how their player did in a game, let alone get mad that they "didn't go for it on 4th and 8" and quit. The overwhelming majority of new users log in, make a player, realize there's nothing to do, then forget about about the game.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5244670?page=3#49200391

Originally posted by Corndog
It's easy to think that issues you have are issues that everyone has, and mask it as some kind of "save the game" campaign, but making players fall down less isn't going to change the fact that 999 out of 1000 new users leave before they see their players fall down.
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5244670?page=3#49200421

it looks like the obvious answer would be to add new content to the existing site, for users to do between games. don't worry about sim changes until people stick around to see the sim.

http://www.nflrush.com/games/?icampaign=rush_ingame_more#skiphead

these games are stupidly simple to code

Originally posted by Nyria
I took criticism (I think flaming would overstate the tone of the posts) for essentially saying in another thread that those who agree to follow detailed build plans are essentially being other people's bitches/monkeys. And you don't have to be to be part of a successful team.

Some of my players are on a very good team whose owner wrote up general build plans, to whom I sent a "mail PM" saying I'd follow a lot of what he wanted but not everything and gave reasons for I was going to do differently when it was significant. He didn't indicate a problem, and the team and my players have done very well. He and I chat occasionally on here and his latest comment regarding my builds was "keep doing what you've been doing."

It's right now my perfect scenario as an agent: I'm building players on his team, taking many of the owner's suggestions but going a different route when his suggestions don't make sense to me or don't fit the type of player I was trying to build, such that I do feel like they're my players, and contributing to a winning team.

It can be done without letting someone else spend your flex.

I have other players on lesser teams, including one I'm the main person who does day-to-day stuff for including game plans, and I get to build them completely as I want...and while they aren't great teams and I'm not at this point more than a passable coach, they aren't really bad, either. And maybe I'll learn to truly be a good coach with the experience I get on the one I coach.

There's no way to stop the people who do make the agents their monkeys, spending their flex to build players exactly the way the owner or coordinator wants, except to try to spread the word that agents shouldn't be willing to do that.

When Steve reset Tropic Thunder for Season 11, everyone was given relatively detailed build plans. It's the same as when Steve discussed QB build plans. It might not be the best for the game - but it doesn't mean that it isn't currently the most optimal way of coaching. As an owner I am going to do everything in my power to win as many games as possible (including spamming QB rollouts in early rookie), even though it is not good for the game.

Personally I don't see how people have time to go through everyone's build. I think the problem here is slightly overstated. You look at the current rookie tier - in the top 10, only Siberian (a new owner team), Cunning, and Mutley's Turtles would have this issue. The other 7 teams are pretty much teams with 1 - 2 player builders. It's no surprise - because teams that build in a coordinated fashion tend to outperform teams that do not. Honestly, with how good people have got at building players, the best way to compete nowadays is to build most of the team yourself.

#1 Rookie - mostly two player builders
#1 Soph - one player builder built half the team
#1 Seasoned - one player builder built over half the team
#1 J-Man - one player builder built more than 2/3rds of the team
#1 Pro - one player builder built almost half the team
#1 Vet - one player builder built more than half the team (I'm not going to speculate on who the other agents are )

I agree it's not great for the game that too much of the cost of the game is on player building. I don't think the flex model at this point is going to be changing though. If anything, the bigger problem right now is that the game is too heavily favoured towards one-agent teams, instead of multi-agent teams.

Originally posted by FairForever
#1 Seasoned - one player builder built over half the team

In fairness, about half of the player I built were replacements for inactives/people who left, poor builds, or fillers. Aside from the bad build decisions (pass block power offensive line and slow blitz LBs) I basically rebuilt to the previous players specs. It doesn't change the fact I built half the players on the team, though.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
In fairness, about half of the player I built were replacements for inactives/people who left, poor builds, or fillers. Aside from the bad build decisions (pass block power offensive line and slow blitz LBs) I basically rebuilt to the previous players specs. It doesn't change the fact I built half the players on the team, though.

i think this is aperfect example of it though. Many of those poor builds your replaced either 1) didnt stick to the inital caps so were always going ot be poor, or 2 didnt follow the advice but not set builds you gave them.

As Fair said, these days no one really has the time to be a build nazi and make a player spend every point, but if im starting a team i want to give players the inital build so the caps are there that i know they are eventually going to work to how i want them too, even if they go a different way to what i would have expected

Originally posted by mutleyddmc DTD
i think this is aperfect example of it though. Many of those poor builds your replaced either 1) didnt stick to the inital caps so were always going ot be poor, or 2 didnt follow the advice but not set builds you gave them.

Fair enough, thought I think most were #1. I don't recall anyone with decent caps being replaced because of current builds.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Fair enough, thought I think most were #1. I don't recall anyone with decent caps being replaced because of current builds.

The oline? Where they went power pass?

Originally posted by mutleyddmc DTD
The oline? Where they went power pass?

That was by design. Built as a power blocker. They claimed it worked for another team so I gave them a shot. It was clear by late rookie that it wasn't going to work. Since their tech caps were low the only option was to replace.

Originally posted by Xars
Classic.

Another classic post at GE's expense.

Thank God this hasn't gotten old yet.

Phase II

Originally posted by Sir William PD
4. As much as I hate to take business from someone, the stuff in GLB2Scout should be in GLB. It’s a phenomenal application and really is an advantage to anyone who uses it. You all should buy it from him and add it as a premium account option or flex purchase.


You son of a bitch! I ought to come over there and crack your damn knees.... j/k frankly I felt the same way and I did approach WG about this, but I think they felt at the 'time' I wasn't quite qualified to do it or they couldn't afford it. Either way they have been VITAL in helping me accomplish hurdles when I hit them. Sure I could be more efficient with the methods of obtaining data from GLB but they have never stonewalled me so I feel like they believe its a slight partnership.

I am in the midst of cleaning up the site to be a bit more mobile/tablet friendly as well as overhauling player builder and roster builder, but I digress... would be awesome to see a bit more of a partnership to where the site is actually linked to GLB so its not so disconnected secret unless you go to the forums.

Originally posted by FairForever

#1 Vet - one player builder built more than half the team (I'm not going to speculate on who the other agents are )


Central isn't just a bunch of multis of mine if that's what you're suggesting/wondering. There are multiple agents I know in real life..recruited them to build players and share the fun. Also multiple agents I have no real life connection to.

The monthly subscription for owning an entire team would be huge IMO, people would probably be more willing to spend $25-30 a month instead of dropping $250 at once for Flex.

Originally posted by FairForever
When Steve reset Tropic Thunder for Season 11, everyone was given relatively detailed build plans. It's the same as when Steve discussed QB build plans. It might not be the best for the game - but it doesn't mean that it isn't currently the most optimal way of coaching. As an owner I am going to do everything in my power to win as many games as possible (including spamming QB rollouts in early rookie), even though it is not good for the game.

I don't blame you for wanting to do that. I just think the agents that let you spend their flex are being suckers.

I love being part of a winning team, but if I'm not building my players it's completely hollow, because it's someone else's build. And the one really strict build guide I ever saw (and quit the team as soon as I saw that I'd be building someone else's players with my flex) had aspects that I'm sure can work; but I'm also certain, given that other top players are built very differently, that there are many other ways to build successful players.

If the team where you build exactly as told is successful, I don't see how anyone with players on it can feel the pride of its victories, because they just followed someone else's design. I have players on the very successful Portland Storm, whose owner did a build guide but was flexible about it (and my players came already with opening stats and traits, so those were 100% mine), and I feel that the players I made are truly "mine" and when the team wins, my build choices were part of it.

There isn't much that can be done, because there can't be an enforceable rule prohibiting strict build guides. The only thing I can suggest is that things like FAQ's for newbies should try to convince players they shouldn't accept strict build guides, that the newer they are the more they should accept advice, and that the agents also should be flexible when an owner/coordinator strongly suggests they need more of X or something...but that building completely to someone else's specs they'll never learn anything and have no reason to be proud of whatever their players accomplish, that they're essentially letting someone else spend their flex.

Then, owners could try to get compliant agents, but maybe they'd find it much harder. The ones who read those guides are the most likely to stick around, so those who got them would have to worry about losing players to inactivity. So it would be harder to do what might be good for the team but (as you admit) bad for the game.

I should add a disclaimer that I doubt this sort of thing is more than a very tiny part of why players may not stick around. As Corndog has noted, the vast majority never watch their player play or anything. And for those who do, there are probably things that are more bothersome to most, like how all Rookies play-- especially at first-- like Pop Warner players. But it doesn't help people have fun, and it is exploitative to the agents, and probably plays its little tiny role in attrition.

Originally posted by Parab00n
The monthly subscription for owning an entire team would be huge IMO, people would probably be more willing to spend $25-30 a month instead of dropping $250 at once for Flex.

I agree. add in 300-360$ a year....and the gym membership style of being reluctant to cancel the membership....and I think there would be many sign ups. I'm sitting on 18k flex right now - but would definitely be fielding an entire team again with a subscription option.

Selling my wife on 30$ a month is WAY easier than spending 250$ ever 6 months or whatever it is.....which is why I've had to stop buying flex and am instead finding ways to have fun that make my flex last (without me infringing on other peoples' player building)