Warrior General Games

I typically get close to S* level performance out of primo positions. BSBs last run had a balanced attack with a regular HB that was typically right up near the top of HOF rankings while developing without having S* OLineman. I have made and have had regular DEs on my team which are usually near the top of DE rankings. SS and LB are probably the most valuable S* positions if you can get them in all reality. Regular TEs perform fine. BSBs first run in the passing META had a regular QB who was killing it when everybody thought S* QBs were a MUST. The bottom line is that you can get near S* level performance out of regular players if you build them and position them right. Just because you do not have a S* player somewhere does NOT mean that they are next to worthless.

I understand what you are trying to get at, but I just do not agree with it. If you want a cap of 7-9 S* players imposed on a team, that is one thing, but placing a mandatory roster size of 43 on teams only increases the cost of team ownership due to the owner likely needing to create more players just to avoid having CPU players on a roster.

Allowing agents to build more S* players does not diminish the importance of regular players IMO. It just allows more teams to have more S* players and owners not having to fill those slots with their own players. The cost of team ownership is FAR greater than 500 flex renewal rates for anybody that wants to be competitive.

I do like the idea of giving OLine their own S* tier as maybe it would help with owners filling out an OLine. But then again, if only OLineman are in the tier, would it only be owners making OLineman and creating S* OLineman? Would that be enough incentive for agents to attempt to collect S* points there?

FBs really need to drop down to the 50 flex tier as well.

Put it to you this way to illustrate the point: You are arguing against a basic economic principle here.

You propose to increase the supply of 1 good thinking it won't lower the demand point. People have tried this over and over again to offset economic shortage with disastrous results because they fail to take into account the producer side of the equation. Even the US has tried this recently in May 2008 releasing strategic oil reserves in conjunction with OPEC ramping up production into the market to fight off oil speculation. At best its a short term fix with a bounce back problem. Oil prices cratered from $140 a barrel at the absolute peek of the market to $50 a barrel by November. They then quickly rebounded to $126 a few months later. Produces who found it profitable (for the game substitute enjoyable) to make oil at $100 a barrel got out of the market when the price plummeted. The only thing that brought prices down long term was a gradual ebbing of demand as fuel standards continued to expand and equally important less expensive production methods from shale drilling which induced supply that was profitable above price points 60-65.

Your proposal is an order of magnitude worse because while oil doesn't have an effective substitute for automobiles (well at least the switching costs are exorbitant). Here you have 1 superior good of limited supply with 1 inferior substitute good at unlimited supply. You propose to make the superior good essentially unlimited. Just for a quick example Funko Toys, makes Pop Vinyl. For many of their runs they produce the Chase Version (limited to 1:6) along with 5 common ones in a box. Most of the serious collectors want to purchase the chase version and thus their enjoyment of it is higher and so is the price they will pay. Take just 1 of their products the Stephen King It Pop for the movie from last year. The Chase Version was retailing online at $120-$150 because demand was high. The non-chase version was selling for a still respectable $20. People who couldn't afford the $120-$150 bought the $20 and there was still good demand. Most of their products sell in stores at $10 but this was a hit. What if they did a 2nd run though of just Chase Pops for it? It would crater the price of the Chase version down in half. It would also create a lower price point for the common one because while not many people who would have the money to spend $125-$150 on a toy, if that price point dropped to $60 or $50 some of them would ignore the substitute good. As a result the price (enjoyment) of the substitute good would also drop and it would be down to $10 in no time.

Originally posted by william78
Couldn't disagree more. You are skipping the 2nd order effect.

If the teams are fixed at 43 there is simply no way to get 10-12 superstars on the roster because of cap space.

You are missing the point. We barely have enough players now....you would be making most teams add 5 - 7 more players per team.

i dont think the viable solution is to dwindle superstars to pretty much 3-4 a team in order to supply 43 guys. that will really hamper outside the box superstar use all together.

i already feel as tho we went the wrong direction in regards to superstar limiting.

Think of it this way:

I may spend $100 a month (or season on GLB2). What's to stop me from spending $120? Nothing really its an incidental change in costs. So if I enjoy the game and don't mind spending money it why don't I spend the other 20 create new players for those "needy" teams?

Simply put its the law of diminishing returns. Creating those extra players wouldn't bring me much value to put them onto a team where their impact is marginal.

Its not just a question of absolute resources but also relative resources. Let's say you have someone who keeps may 7-8 players for $100 a year, why don't they spend $105 a year and add an extra player for those needy teams? The value just isn't there.

If you dump in more superstars they become the only players really worth having and the only reason I'm going to create normal players is for teams I either own or manage strictly to smooth the cap structure. Otherwise creating them becomes even less valuable to me than it is now.

On the other hand if needy teams were actually going to heavily use my players I might be interested in going to $120 IF I thought they would have an impact, but the only players I would be really interested in creating if Superstar players were unlimited would be the superstars.

You are acting like teams will be able to line up full S* rosters. The demand is there to increase the S* load as teams cannot even fill friggin rosters man... I am not saying unlimited. Agents are still required to garner enough S* points to create them. And if a 9 S* limit is imposed that is fine. It sounds large but when you are talking about over a year for any player to go from rookie to legend, it is not crazy. Currently, there are 3 S* slots and each S* player created locks up that tier for over a year. There are 4 tiers underneath Vet and if career boosted, a player can remain at vet for another 5 seasons! That is a total of 9 different seasons, thus tiers created during the life of one S* player. 8 of which is not the tier that the S* player is in.

Placing a higher demand on roster sizes only cripples the sim further and would expand the current issue that owners are experiencing when trying to fill out a roster now. Adding more S* power to the game will allow them to add a few more S* players to their roster. This does not diminish the value of regular players. As I said, when built correctly, they can still be quite effective. However, a team with no S* players (especially for new agents who do not know how to build effective players) is simply not going to be able to compete for a top ladder position. The market is there to allow this to work and possibly help the sim. I really do not understand your stance. If S* players were truly unlimited, then sure, why create anything else. You still have to collect S* points to make them and probably build some regular joes for the teams that you put your S* players on as I would imagine that you want to give that team the best chance to succeed.

Paying more money to fill a larger roster minimum is not the answer. People are failing to fill rosters right now because of people NOT wanting to pay more.

Rosters still have a salary cap and only so many S* players can fit on any roster. I know that I have mixed up what positions that I have used S* power on with BSBs runs. Owners and agents still like to build and create variety and therefor, what positions are S* players will change.

Also, as Bhall pointed out, having the ability to create more S* players allows for more build experimentation and not having to build every S* player to a perfect META standard.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos


I do like the idea of giving OLine their own S* tier as maybe it would help with owners filling out an OLine. But then again, if only OLineman are in the tier, would it only be owners making OLineman and creating S* OLineman? Would that be enough incentive for agents to attempt to collect S* points there?

FBs really need to drop down to the 50 flex tier as well.


Agree 100% with this

The more S*'s there are, the less special they are, and they no longer have as great of play value. And if every team has lots of S*'s, then non-S* players have very little play value.

If I had an unlimited number of S* players, I'd only make S*'s. Why would I make anything else?

And it should be harder for teams to have lots of S*'s, though a simple way is to increase their salary significantly even above where it is now. That would spread S*'s around more.

Originally posted by Nyria
The more S*'s there are, the less special they are, and they no longer have as great of play value. And if every team has lots of S*'s, then non-S* players have very little play value.

If I had an unlimited number of S* players, I'd only make S*'s. Why would I make anything else?

And it should be harder for teams to have lots of S*'s, though a simple way is to increase their salary significantly even above where it is now. That would spread S*'s around more.

I knew there was a reason I liked you. The 2nd line is on the nose.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
You are missing the point. We barely have enough players now....you would be making most teams add 5 - 7 more players per team.

No I see it. I'm suggesting that people would be more interested in building normal dots if they got more use out of those normal dots in terms of game impact. Then you would have a higher supply of players.

As a new team owner you get slaughtered by the teams carrying 8-12 Super Stars on roster. It's not fun when you know you have no shot at winning. The solution is to either make Super Stars more accessible (so a new user can have the ability to create their own 8-12 Super Star team) or to increase the salary cost of Super Stars so teams can only carry 4-6, essentially creating a more level playing field against the new start up teams.

I'd personally vote for the ability for everyone to be able to purchase as many Super Stars as they want.

Originally posted by Bretto007

I'd personally vote for the ability for everyone to be able to purchase as many Super Stars as they want.


Why create a non-S* then? I know the answer, which is that teams wouldn't be able to afford an all-S* roster, except that if there were tons of S*'s then making a non-S* is making a scrub. Does anyone have interest in doing that? I sure wouldn't. I asked for a player to be released (which was granted) so I could retire him and get my flex back when the team acquired a S* at the position and I knew my guy would hardly see the field. You can have a player much, much more cheaply if you don't boost him, and the percentage of points from boosting is (I think) less than the bonus S*'s get. But just about everyone boosts, so as not to make a scrub. No one wants that disadvantage.

I'm saving my S*'s, which I have the ability from my first time around to create, for a future team I'll either own or GM. All my players would be S*'s if I had an unlimited number, even if I had to pay more for them (I pay to boost, a much higher percentage extra expense for a smaller bonus in ability).

We need more people creating ordinary players, to fill teams. But no one would want to make an ordinary player if there were lots of S*'s, for the same reason nearly everyone boosts.

To get more people creating ordinary players, then maybe there's a case for letting people earn, by creating enough ordinary players and their leveling up, a second S* at each tier...but the second one would be gained at half the rate as the first, so then you have to make a lot of ordinary players. You could argue for not making them be gained at half the rate only so as not to encourage multiple accounts to gain a second one at a normal rate; but if so then S*'s should be earned slightly more slowly across the board.

Then increase S* salaries significantly, so no team can afford so many.

Part of me says people don't get it that S*'s become the norm if people can make as many as they want, everyone else being a scrub; but what I think is more accurate is that people, as expressed in another thread, want players who do everything well (not realizing that they then face competition without weaknesses, also), and universal S*'s would be a way to come closer to that-- where in reality some weaknesses, like with low Balance, are too weak but in general what makes the game so interesting is that everyone is bad at something, especially non-S*'s, and you have to make a choice about what you won't be good at.

S*'s should be rare standouts, not all the starters on a team.

truthfully they should just make it one large tier of vets. at beginning it might not yield better overall flex purchases but i think over time they would benefit from everyone being on the same level and producing a sim that is the same for everyone involved. Also recruiting would be a lot easier as you could create the player immediately for your needs.

You also then wouldnt need unlimited superstars so the saturation of them wouldnt be a problem.

The downside for cdog/bort here is that they would probably be challenged with creating new metas every couple seasons in order to keep guys from working every angle to perfect the system. But as long as there are changes its worth it.

Originally posted by Nyria

S*'s should be rare standouts, not all the starters on a team.

They cant be anyway due to the salary cap restraints. I mean you could go ahead and only make superstars but its pretty likely you would find it hard to find homes for them or just be watching them run random plays on a cpu team.

Ideally, I'd only like to see 4-6 S*s max per roster. 9-12 is too big of an advantage. An easy fix would be increasing their salary cost, OR increasing the bonus for high contracts. A 43 man roster with all high contracts should be competitive.