Originally posted by bhall43
Wait what? Don't tie playing time to chemistry. That's just idiotic.
Lol, how is it idiotic?
Wait what? Don't tie playing time to chemistry. That's just idiotic.
Lol, how is it idiotic?
Forum > Suggestions > Ideas
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Lol, how is it idiotic?
Because then you are just manipulating how many snaps people are getting in order to gain larger amounts of chemistry. On the opposite hand I could be stuck on a team who barely plays my guy so I get chemistry shafted.
Chemistry is already one of the most ludicrous parts of this game as it is. Don't make it even more tedious and problematic.
Lol, how is it idiotic?
Because then you are just manipulating how many snaps people are getting in order to gain larger amounts of chemistry. On the opposite hand I could be stuck on a team who barely plays my guy so I get chemistry shafted.
Chemistry is already one of the most ludicrous parts of this game as it is. Don't make it even more tedious and problematic.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Because then you are just manipulating how many snaps people are getting in order to gain larger amounts of chemistry. On the opposite hand I could be stuck on a team who barely plays my guy so I get chemistry shafted.
Chemistry is already one of the most ludicrous parts of this game as it is. Don't make it even more tedious and problematic.
Because then you are just manipulating how many snaps people are getting in order to gain larger amounts of chemistry. On the opposite hand I could be stuck on a team who barely plays my guy so I get chemistry shafted.
Chemistry is already one of the most ludicrous parts of this game as it is. Don't make it even more tedious and problematic.
Galactic Empire
offline
offline
If you want to limit S*s on a team, then raise their salary. That is about the only way. Or limit the number of S*s but then you would have to scale it depending on tier level of the S*s.
Xars
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Hmm. Seems like it could be interesting to have Chemistry and Health be two opposing forces when managing players on a team.
Something like, playing less than 66% of plays a game lowers your chemistry gains (up to a penalty below 33%), while player health is the opposite, anything anything more than 33% of plays a game diminishes your health gains, and more than 66% results in a penalty.
Might kind of give an incentive to have a deeper roster with more team management during the season?
Thank you for replying.
Please do it more.
Hmm. Seems like it could be interesting to have Chemistry and Health be two opposing forces when managing players on a team.
Something like, playing less than 66% of plays a game lowers your chemistry gains (up to a penalty below 33%), while player health is the opposite, anything anything more than 33% of plays a game diminishes your health gains, and more than 66% results in a penalty.
Might kind of give an incentive to have a deeper roster with more team management during the season?
Thank you for replying.
Please do it more.
Myrik_Justiciar
offline
offline
I think with the roster salary change that is taking effect next season its going to limit teams to what... 9 or 10 S*players max? Is that acceptable? Or are you all wanting much less per team and if so what is the magic number you're trying to hint at here?
Personally I think the 9 or 10 is fairly reasonable and I'm ok with that.
If you're talking about using depth, then conditioning needs diminishing returns past 50 to force guys to need a rest or make it not worth taking to 100. As it stands there is no need to run 2 HB's on a team even with non-stars, for example. In the NFL or college how many teams use feature backs vs those that rotate guys or use specialty backs? And do we care at this point? I'm pretty sure we had this discussion awhile back when LLUA was crushing it running all over everyone. I know I was for this, but the discussion dropped and I just adapted and moved on. I accepted my S*players will rarely come out of the game (or at all in my HB's case), while my non-S*players will eventually sub...at least that's how I run my team.
Personally I think the 9 or 10 is fairly reasonable and I'm ok with that.
If you're talking about using depth, then conditioning needs diminishing returns past 50 to force guys to need a rest or make it not worth taking to 100. As it stands there is no need to run 2 HB's on a team even with non-stars, for example. In the NFL or college how many teams use feature backs vs those that rotate guys or use specialty backs? And do we care at this point? I'm pretty sure we had this discussion awhile back when LLUA was crushing it running all over everyone. I know I was for this, but the discussion dropped and I just adapted and moved on. I accepted my S*players will rarely come out of the game (or at all in my HB's case), while my non-S*players will eventually sub...at least that's how I run my team.
JokersChaos
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Hmm. Seems like it could be interesting to have Chemistry and Health be two opposing forces when managing players on a team.
Something like, playing less than 66% of plays a game lowers your chemistry gains (up to a penalty below 33%), while player health is the opposite, anything anything more than 33% of plays a game diminishes your health gains, and more than 66% results in a penalty.
Might kind of give an incentive to have a deeper roster with more team management during the season?
I'm not so sure it should be a set percent all around. Example, a DE that plays on approx 54% of plays is a good amount. They are specialists a lot of the time. You start doing limits to hurt players chem and it could really throw off the importance some specialists in certain positions, which is a big key even in real world.
Hmm. Seems like it could be interesting to have Chemistry and Health be two opposing forces when managing players on a team.
Something like, playing less than 66% of plays a game lowers your chemistry gains (up to a penalty below 33%), while player health is the opposite, anything anything more than 33% of plays a game diminishes your health gains, and more than 66% results in a penalty.
Might kind of give an incentive to have a deeper roster with more team management during the season?
I'm not so sure it should be a set percent all around. Example, a DE that plays on approx 54% of plays is a good amount. They are specialists a lot of the time. You start doing limits to hurt players chem and it could really throw off the importance some specialists in certain positions, which is a big key even in real world.
Originally posted by bhall43
Because then you are just manipulating how many snaps people are getting in order to gain larger amounts of chemistry. On the opposite hand I could be stuck on a team who barely plays my guy so I get chemistry shafted.
Chemistry is already one of the most ludicrous parts of this game as it is. Don't make it even more tedious and problematic.
Every game being played in a vacuum is a large part of the reason most people are bored. Set your tactics, set your roster, then go AFK till playoffs.
Heaven forbid something carry over between games and make managing a team meaningful outside of spamming the best plays with perfect players. Ludicrous.
Because then you are just manipulating how many snaps people are getting in order to gain larger amounts of chemistry. On the opposite hand I could be stuck on a team who barely plays my guy so I get chemistry shafted.
Chemistry is already one of the most ludicrous parts of this game as it is. Don't make it even more tedious and problematic.
Every game being played in a vacuum is a large part of the reason most people are bored. Set your tactics, set your roster, then go AFK till playoffs.
Heaven forbid something carry over between games and make managing a team meaningful outside of spamming the best plays with perfect players. Ludicrous.
o The Boss x
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Every game being played in a vacuum is a large part of the reason most people are bored. Set your tactics, set your roster, then go AFK till playoffs.
GLB2 isn't to that point yet. It doesn't work until vet and no vet teams can do it successfully besides all pass or maybe all run.
I'm surprised you don't think the sim is volatile enough - I do enjoy the increased interaction though.
Every game being played in a vacuum is a large part of the reason most people are bored. Set your tactics, set your roster, then go AFK till playoffs.
GLB2 isn't to that point yet. It doesn't work until vet and no vet teams can do it successfully besides all pass or maybe all run.
I'm surprised you don't think the sim is volatile enough - I do enjoy the increased interaction though.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Every game being played in a vacuum is a large part of the reason most people are bored. Set your tactics, set your roster, then go AFK till playoffs.
Heaven forbid something carry over between games and make managing a team meaningful outside of spamming the best plays with perfect players. Ludicrous.
I guess I'm just not sure how tying chemistry to playing time makes people less "bored"?
It wouldn't be an exciting addition nor would it change much to the overall game for the average Joe. It is ludicrous however that of all the possible changes that could make the game exciting, you are interested in making the worst part of the game for more frustrating.
People spam plays because they are the best. Which is why I continue to champion for more plays both offensively and defensively. More choices helps. Every time you guys have entered several plays to the mix a couple of plays stick and end up being very helpful as well as game changing. Those are good changes.
Id love some new SA's as well. Changing the way people build and game plan is fun and engaging. Keeps the game fresh.
Every game being played in a vacuum is a large part of the reason most people are bored. Set your tactics, set your roster, then go AFK till playoffs.
Heaven forbid something carry over between games and make managing a team meaningful outside of spamming the best plays with perfect players. Ludicrous.
I guess I'm just not sure how tying chemistry to playing time makes people less "bored"?
It wouldn't be an exciting addition nor would it change much to the overall game for the average Joe. It is ludicrous however that of all the possible changes that could make the game exciting, you are interested in making the worst part of the game for more frustrating.
People spam plays because they are the best. Which is why I continue to champion for more plays both offensively and defensively. More choices helps. Every time you guys have entered several plays to the mix a couple of plays stick and end up being very helpful as well as game changing. Those are good changes.
Id love some new SA's as well. Changing the way people build and game plan is fun and engaging. Keeps the game fresh.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by o The Boss x
GLB2 isn't to that point yet. It doesn't work until vet and no vet teams can do it successfully besides all pass or maybe all run.
I'm surprised you don't think the sim is volatile enough - I do enjoy the increased interaction though.
I agree. It's certainly not just set your tactics and go afk yet. Even rob puts sim time into assassins from game to game and that's easily the most potent offense in the game currently.
I have an all run and I can certainly say there's no way I could set and forget my way towards a #1 ladder trophy at this point of time in any tier.
GLB2 isn't to that point yet. It doesn't work until vet and no vet teams can do it successfully besides all pass or maybe all run.
I'm surprised you don't think the sim is volatile enough - I do enjoy the increased interaction though.
I agree. It's certainly not just set your tactics and go afk yet. Even rob puts sim time into assassins from game to game and that's easily the most potent offense in the game currently.
I have an all run and I can certainly say there's no way I could set and forget my way towards a #1 ladder trophy at this point of time in any tier.
Originally posted by bhall43
People spam plays because they are the best. Which is why I continue to champion for more plays both offensively and defensively.
You do champion it quite a bit. Not sure why you think people wouldn't spam the best plays if there were more of them. Four hundred isn't enough, what do you think will be the breakpoint? What magic number in your head is when people will stop spamming the plays that work the best?
People spam plays because they are the best. Which is why I continue to champion for more plays both offensively and defensively.
You do champion it quite a bit. Not sure why you think people wouldn't spam the best plays if there were more of them. Four hundred isn't enough, what do you think will be the breakpoint? What magic number in your head is when people will stop spamming the plays that work the best?
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
You do champion it quite a bit. Not sure why you think people wouldn't spam the best plays if there were more of them. Four hundred isn't enough, what do you think will be the breakpoint? What magic number in your head is when people will stop spamming the plays that work the best?
Several seasons ago xars dominated the passing game using 5-6 3wr plays over and over. You couldn't replicate that success with those same plays over and over now. Why? You introduced defenses to combat those plays themselves. Then all pass wasn't really that great until you introduced new 4 wr formation and plays. Now assassins have found new life and are dominating with a lot of help from that. The next step? More defenses. Then more offenses.
The best plays is a lazy way of talking about gameplanning. It is the mix of plays that works. You can't currently spam one play over and over and dominate against guys who know what they are doing.
You do champion it quite a bit. Not sure why you think people wouldn't spam the best plays if there were more of them. Four hundred isn't enough, what do you think will be the breakpoint? What magic number in your head is when people will stop spamming the plays that work the best?
Several seasons ago xars dominated the passing game using 5-6 3wr plays over and over. You couldn't replicate that success with those same plays over and over now. Why? You introduced defenses to combat those plays themselves. Then all pass wasn't really that great until you introduced new 4 wr formation and plays. Now assassins have found new life and are dominating with a lot of help from that. The next step? More defenses. Then more offenses.
The best plays is a lazy way of talking about gameplanning. It is the mix of plays that works. You can't currently spam one play over and over and dominate against guys who know what they are doing.
_OSIRIS_
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
People spam plays because they are the best. Which is why I continue to champion for more plays both offensively and defensively. More choices helps. Every time you guys have entered several plays to the mix a couple of plays stick and end up being very helpful as well as game changing. Those are good changes.
Id love some new SA's as well. Changing the way people build and game plan is fun and engaging. Keeps the game fresh.
I totally agree. The few plays that stick really change the game and expose some of the plays that were previously spammed. The new plays that don't stick are fun to experiment with and make for a very active preseason and engaging season. I would love to see 15-20 new plays every season on both sides of the ball.
People spam plays because they are the best. Which is why I continue to champion for more plays both offensively and defensively. More choices helps. Every time you guys have entered several plays to the mix a couple of plays stick and end up being very helpful as well as game changing. Those are good changes.
Id love some new SA's as well. Changing the way people build and game plan is fun and engaging. Keeps the game fresh.
I totally agree. The few plays that stick really change the game and expose some of the plays that were previously spammed. The new plays that don't stick are fun to experiment with and make for a very active preseason and engaging season. I would love to see 15-20 new plays every season on both sides of the ball.
Edited by _OSIRIS_ on Aug 12, 2017 19:21:22
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I totally agree. The few plays that stick really change the game and expose some of the plays that were previously spammed. The new plays that don't stick are fun to experiment with and make for a very active preseason and engaging season. I would love to see 15-20 new plays every season on both sides of the ball.
Right. Those are the changes that make the season engaging. Changes that change your thinking of builds or tactics that the previous seasons you had locked up because the game stayed stagnant enough.
Corndog I don't know why making new plays annoys you? That's the kinda change that keeps us gameplanners around for another several seasons. I guess I'm not a coder at all so I'm sure the work that goes into making these plays is pretty time consuming. But it has to be somewhat fun to screw around with different plays.
Fwiw I think what would be cool is if you took stobies tool and looked through the best plays offensively and spent the off-season coming up with counter defensive plays specifically for each play individually.
I totally agree. The few plays that stick really change the game and expose some of the plays that were previously spammed. The new plays that don't stick are fun to experiment with and make for a very active preseason and engaging season. I would love to see 15-20 new plays every season on both sides of the ball.
Right. Those are the changes that make the season engaging. Changes that change your thinking of builds or tactics that the previous seasons you had locked up because the game stayed stagnant enough.
Corndog I don't know why making new plays annoys you? That's the kinda change that keeps us gameplanners around for another several seasons. I guess I'm not a coder at all so I'm sure the work that goes into making these plays is pretty time consuming. But it has to be somewhat fun to screw around with different plays.
Fwiw I think what would be cool is if you took stobies tool and looked through the best plays offensively and spent the off-season coming up with counter defensive plays specifically for each play individually.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
