Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Bort
Last time I had "consensus" in a thread and went to bed, there was no longer consensus when I woke up.

You will never have consensus about anything in this game, you should know that already lol

Originally posted by ChicagoTRS
because it gives people something to do with money...
fixes eq problems...
add some realism/interest to the game...
there was some strategy involved...teams could have different goals and do things differently...
bort and company wanted to improve their game and add another dimension to the game...fair goals before this game goes out of beta...

I am with Sik...the announcement was a lot of the problem. If a summary was added that just gave the quick and dirty details people would not have been so overwhelmed...it would have went over a lot better.

whatever...I liked the original plan from the start...this new plan is absolutely the worst. It will kill the upper tiers of this game...


-What are the equipment problems we currently have?
-Really? Popcorn day increasing player morale is realistic?
-I prefer strategy to involve gameplanning. That takes up plenty of time without needing to deal with extra number crunching.
-There are plenty of things to improve other than finances.

I'm just going to defer to Bort on this - it's ultimately his game and I'll support whatever he decides. We honestly were trying to come to a middle ground - guess we're just going to have to piss some people off. Which group it is, is up to Bort lol.

Originally posted by Bort
Last time I had "consensus" in a thread and went to bed, there was no longer consensus when I woke up.

Well, Stern and friends were the primary voices of dissension in the original thread, if you discount the people who were upset that their level 22 team was going to lose it's 100m slush fund.

Originally posted by Catch22
Didn't really wing it. We talked over the concerns/complaints and tried to figure out a compromise. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we include the pre-game starting morale being impacted by salary, people are going to riot. If we do it based on effective level, people are going to riot. The only thing that seems would make every one happy is to just get rid of salaries, cash, and stadiums. That seems kind of stupid to me.


If a majority of your paying customers are drawn here by the fantasy that "We'll build awesome football players", why would the idea of getting rid of salaries, cash, and stadiums seem "kind of stupid"?

Originally posted by Bort
Last time I had "consensus" in a thread and went to bed, there was no longer consensus when I woke up.

Just don't go to sleep, and pay your forum warriors double tonight to fight this one.

Originally posted by Catch22
I'm just going to defer to Bort on this - it's ultimately his game and I'll support whatever he decides. We honestly were trying to come to a middle ground - guess we're just going to have to piss some people off. Which group it is, is up to Bort lol.

LOL True,

Question, is it possible to go with the original changes, then if they do prove to be everything you thought they were, "too complex etc"

rescind them after the season is over?

Originally posted by Catch22
Didn't really wing it. We talked over the concerns/complaints and tried to figure out a compromise. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we include the pre-game starting morale being impacted by salary, people are going to riot. If we do it based on effective level, people are going to riot. The only thing that seems would make every one happy is to just get rid of salaries, cash, and stadiums. That seems kind of stupid to me.

Not really, I think the compromise has already been made...

Go w/ Originall Plan (will look way less complicated in UI)
Make the Morale stuff a bonus to and not penalty to....Always start at 100% pre-game

And to balance the End Game Energy
With your training

Intense - No Energy refill
Hard - +1 Energy Refill
Medium - +3 Energy Refill
Light - +5 Energy Refill

Along w/ the tokesn.....or even make the energy go 1/3/5/10 so that 2 nights can get an 80 back to 100....think season 1

Originally posted by Catch22
I'm just going to defer to Bort on this - it's ultimately his game and I'll support whatever he decides. We honestly were trying to come to a middle ground - guess we're just going to have to piss some people off. Which group it is, is up to Bort lol.

FWIW I think this is the perfect middle ground:

Originally posted by ijg
tbh Catch, I'm a lot more bothered by the training requiring a PhD than the finances which are a once/season thing. That said, I think a lot of the angst is over the complexity. The salary cap is fine and the team promotions seem fine.

The drags are the deterioration and stadium maintenance which is just forcing people to do math for no reason and then the magnitude of the morale impact. So, I would suggest the following.

1) eliminate deterioration and refurbishment.
2) bump up morale impact of salary (Pro example) to 60% for bottom 25%, 75% for middle 50% (-25-75%) and 90% for top 25%. That makes it simpler to manage and less punitive.
3) Keep promotions and seasonal bonuses. Dump the permanent bonuses.

Those three things would reduce a ton of the complexity and I think still meet the goals of having a) $ mean something, b) a salary cap as an equalizer for recruiting, and c) make morale meaningful but not all consuming.

Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader


That's ok, they're still making that part up as they go along.

I love Bort and Catch, but just "winging it" isn't the best business model, particularly so when the folks involved have exclusive control of the "Post" button when it comes to "Announcements".

Didn't really wing it. We talked over the concerns/complaints and tried to figure out a compromise. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we include the pre-game starting morale being impacted by salary, people are going to riot. If we do it based on effective level, people are going to riot. The only thing that seems would make every one happy is to just get rid of salaries, cash, and stadiums. That seems kind of stupid to me.

The other thing you could do is:

still have player salaries and stadiums etc.

-remove EQ fund
-allow for team to purchase resource points. These points could be used to buy EQ like you suggested. They would be allocated to player, and returned when the player left.
-allow for a team to allocate resource points in a contract (like money, only it would be like guaranteeing EQ)
-cap how many resource points a team can have based on level etc (make it so they can afford EQ for everyone, but not multiple)

easy way to do it. Essentially it just makes the EQ be a team thing and not a player thing. When a player left the EQ would still be there (no way to sell it). And he just couldn't EQ it without enough resource points allocated to him.

If a team allowed a player to. He could "destroy" his EQ. This would completely destroy all (or just half if you wanted) resource points the EQ cost. The piece has to be EQ to destroy it. The team could then rebuy the resource points. That way a player could redo his EQ if he wanted to.

player money could be spent on fluff etc

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

If a majority of your paying customers are drawn here by the fantasy that "We'll build awesome football players", why would the idea of getting rid of salaries, cash, and stadiums seem kind of stupid?

Not sure if it's a majority or just "some" tbh.

Sounds like a call for a no-finances league and a hardcore league. No idea how the players would mesh when transferring from one type to another, but hey

Originally posted by Sarg01
Well, Stern and friends were the primary voices of dissension in the original thread, if you discount the people who were upset that their level 22 team was going to lose it's 100m slush fund.

I was just pointing out how terrible people feel at seeing their dot starting at -20% of their starting morale.

If you move the numbers around it was pretty much all good. Just in a pay to play game you need to understand not everyone owns 100 players, those people with 2-3 players are going to be really turned off to see anything less than 100%.

Ever try brushback baseball? You don't regain stamina without missing games, people just see a number on their player less than 100% and get turned off.

Originally posted by SunshineMan89
I love the idea of a salary cap, but effective level is an absolutely moronic criteria. Why would you ever give a disincentive for building well?

Just using level instead of effective level would have been a better way to force people to make choices--that way you can recruit well-built players but you'll have to choose which positions will be superstars.

Also, the "you can renegotiate but can't sign over the cap" thing is exploitable as hell--all it will lead to is long-term slowbuild teams that are mathematically impossible to compete with. You would have to slap such a harsh luxury tax on the overage that a team would literally go bankrupt to prevent this.

In general, though, if those few issues are ironed out this will work better and induce less ragequitting. But the 'effective level' criteria is a huge problem

This makes a lot of sense.

This game was fine,until all the new bells and whistles were added.Just keep it simple and people will enjoy it more.
Owning a team shouldn't be like a second job.

Originally posted by Sarg01
So it sounds like we have an opportunity to forge consensus around the original plan, but with morale bonuses instead of penalties. I know the numbers need tweaking, but it's a good chance for everyone to get what they want.

yes the 35-40 people who've posted itt a consensus makes