Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Results are far more dependent on gamplanning and spamming the right plays.

I'm the OP.

Me.

The King of Spamming 5 Offensive plays.

Did you think this was new information?

Originally posted by bhall43
AA just won vet with what? 5-6 superstars total? Gameplanning and builds win games.



With Rob as DC. Who wants to argue he's not worth 2-3 wins more than anyone else?

Anyway...

My suggestion isn't just competitive based.

This is a game. It's supposed to be fun.

14 S* on one team is over board. I don't care the reason/ logic/ salary cap argument.

The perception that drives reality is to get on that team or don't bother.

The "idea" of fun needs to broaden out if you ever want to keep a decent number of people interested in this game. Stobie just mentioned that there used to be 100 Scout users and now it's 60.

14 S* teams aren't helping that.

Originally posted by bhall43
AA just won vet with what? 5-6 superstars total? Gameplanning and builds win games.



http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/471623

11 S*s vs 7 human players. A ton of S*s doesn't insure a win.

Tough for newer guys who don't have the S*s, builds, and experience to compete for real. I'm not sure if limiting S*s will provide any parity at all. It seems more about where the top teams finish in the ladder and playoffs.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Originally posted by _OSIRIS_

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/471623

11 S*s vs 7 human players. A ton of S*s doesn't insure a win.

Tough for newer guys who don't have the S*s, builds, and experience to compete for real. I'm not sure if limiting S*s will provide any parity at all. It seems more about where the top teams finish in the ladder and playoffs.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire

We are talking about S* later down the road, like Pro and Vet. It is actually easier to win with less S*s in rookie.



What I am saying is you can't win with S*s alone at any level there are many other factors. It really only effects those battling for the top spot. Take away S*s completely, do you actually think the same teams wouldn't be on top every season?

9S*s vs CPU http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/469545

BSB made sacrifices on many end builds to get to 14 S* players. I agree that it is excessive, but it was a lot of fun building the roster. Might have been able to squeeze 1-2 more under the old signing rookie for cap space loop. I think we only have 3-4 salary enhancing traits on the whole team other than S*. We will also have our depth on low contracts so it may actually hurt us. S* players probably should be spread to a degree but at the same time, people want their S* players on either their own teams or teams that they know they should perform well on. Many owners do not build their players in a way that will allow them to be competitive if they are even using the right plays in games. All I am saying is that I do not think that spreading S* power out is not going to add more teams. Flex costs for owning teams are only increasing since owners typically already have to build the entire OLine unless there are S* OLineman. Other positions may be difficult to fill as well. Take a look at the Teams Looking for Players forum. How many responses are most teams recruiting for rookie players getting? How many new owners had to fill out entire rosters just to play the game and only to find that their end builds were not going to perform well even if they figure out the right plays to spam? That is pretty disheartening news to discover after a good chunk of money was spent.

A change to S* salaries could potentially cripple BSB. We are lucky that we min/maxed traits to begin with and can afford what we currently have. Multiple teams have a decent chunk of negative salary cap right now with the last change.

The number of superstar players has never been all that key, its more about the key positions like QB/HB/WR/LB/SS when it comes to S* builds. If a team wants to have no depth and little versatility, then they can try 14 S* players, its a high risk/reward move. Plenty of teams with hardly any S* players do just fine.

Originally posted by Xars
With Rob as DC. Who wants to argue he's not worth 2-3 wins more than anyone else?

Anyway...

My suggestion isn't just competitive based.

This is a game. It's supposed to be fun.

14 S* on one team is over board. I don't care the reason/ logic/ salary cap argument.

The perception that drives reality is to get on that team or don't bother.

The "idea" of fun needs to broaden out if you ever want to keep a decent number of people interested in this game. Stobie just mentioned that there used to be 100 Scout users and now it's 60.

14 S* teams aren't helping that.



Me as dc.

But there aren't 14 superstar teams now unless you are putting together a 50 chem ensemble.

The 14 S* team you're talking about didn't even win a gif last season

I think the biggest issue is everyone's lack of needing depth on the roster. This is the real issue here. Teams can play bare bone rosters and there is no penalty to the lack of depth. If they put in some sort of progressive fatigue so that as players played more they would be worn out by the end of the season.

Originally posted by tdot
I think the biggest issue is everyone's lack of needing depth on the roster. This is the real issue here. Teams can play bare bone rosters and there is no penalty to the lack of depth. If they put in some sort of progressive fatigue so that as players played more they would be worn out by the end of the season.

We'd all quit caring about anything besides 100 conditioning and Second Wind

Originally posted by tdot
I think the biggest issue is everyone's lack of needing depth on the roster. This is the real issue here. Teams can play bare bone rosters and there is no penalty to the lack of depth. If they put in some sort of progressive fatigue so that as players played more they would be worn out by the end of the season.

Rest starters against CPU teams. Problem solved. It is a fun concept to think about though.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Rest starters against CPU teams. Problem solved. It is a fun concept to think about though.

Yep..and then the teams that play in crappy conferences who play CPU teams every other game will have a huge advantage.

That is what glb1 was like actually when it started. You could train on light, medium, or hard every day and it changed your energy and about of skill trained.