I won 6 rings in a row and 4 of them I did with only 3 stars. 2 of them after in vet i got 2 more stars... U can win without stars. U just need good builds and some ideas playbook wise. Even those mighty bulls fell to my non star team in rookie once.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > Hello fellow GLBers
ShadyMcCoy
offline
offline
Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Tired of hearing this crap.
Get gud! Improve your builds and coaching.
Boss is one of the elite owners of the game and was one when there was far more competition. His teams are always nasty.
I'm good. I'm just not going to waste money on team ownership since I can only put three stars on there myself. You're putting yourself at a constant competitive disadvantage when you do it that way. New owners should be warned before throwing away their money too.
If there was a 3 star or less league/non boosted league I'd consider that.
Tired of hearing this crap.
Get gud! Improve your builds and coaching.
Boss is one of the elite owners of the game and was one when there was far more competition. His teams are always nasty.
I'm good. I'm just not going to waste money on team ownership since I can only put three stars on there myself. You're putting yourself at a constant competitive disadvantage when you do it that way. New owners should be warned before throwing away their money too.
If there was a 3 star or less league/non boosted league I'd consider that.
Detroit Leos
offline
offline
Originally posted by ShadyMcCoy
I'm good. I'm just not going to waste money on team ownership since I can only put three stars on there myself. You're putting yourself at a constant competitive disadvantage when you do it that way. New owners should be warned before throwing away their money too.
If there was a 3 star or less league/non boosted league I'd consider that.
Just saying. It is not the S* power that makes or breaks a team. Beneficial sure as you can do different things with S* players, but far more weight in other things.
Get a couple of people to go in with you on a team if you want and believe that the S* differential is all that is holding you back. It is better to be on teams with different folks anyway.
If you don't wish to be an owner, join up on some other team.
I'm good. I'm just not going to waste money on team ownership since I can only put three stars on there myself. You're putting yourself at a constant competitive disadvantage when you do it that way. New owners should be warned before throwing away their money too.
If there was a 3 star or less league/non boosted league I'd consider that.
Just saying. It is not the S* power that makes or breaks a team. Beneficial sure as you can do different things with S* players, but far more weight in other things.
Get a couple of people to go in with you on a team if you want and believe that the S* differential is all that is holding you back. It is better to be on teams with different folks anyway.
If you don't wish to be an owner, join up on some other team.
Edited by Detroit Leos on Jan 27, 2021 16:39:15
Originally posted by ShadyMcCoy
I'm good. I'm just not going to waste money on team ownership since I can only put three stars on there myself. You're putting yourself at a constant competitive disadvantage when you do it that way. New owners should be warned before throwing away their money too.
If there was a 3 star or less league/non boosted league I'd consider that.
Ever considered that maybe you're confusing the cause and effect? Maybe the best owners get more superstars and more superstars isn't what makes the best owners?
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/roster/3226
Your coached team with 9 superstars is 20-8.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/763720
Here's the team with 9 stars getting manhandled by a team with 4. Even repeat game later in the season you still struggle to beat them.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/764788
Here's the team again getting manhandled by a team with fewer stars. How is this possible if the only determining factor is number of stars?
Like, I know it's probably comforting in some sense to blame the one thing you don't have as the entire reason that you're losing. But like, it's simply not true that more stars always equals better teams. You having 11 stars instead of 9 isn't going to make the Bulls not beat you by 60. Or maybe they'd only beat you by 50.
I get it, competitive games are stressful when you lose, but blaming things outside of your control for your lack of success is a sure way to avoid winning in the future.
I'm good. I'm just not going to waste money on team ownership since I can only put three stars on there myself. You're putting yourself at a constant competitive disadvantage when you do it that way. New owners should be warned before throwing away their money too.
If there was a 3 star or less league/non boosted league I'd consider that.
Ever considered that maybe you're confusing the cause and effect? Maybe the best owners get more superstars and more superstars isn't what makes the best owners?
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/roster/3226
Your coached team with 9 superstars is 20-8.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/763720
Here's the team with 9 stars getting manhandled by a team with 4. Even repeat game later in the season you still struggle to beat them.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/764788
Here's the team again getting manhandled by a team with fewer stars. How is this possible if the only determining factor is number of stars?
Like, I know it's probably comforting in some sense to blame the one thing you don't have as the entire reason that you're losing. But like, it's simply not true that more stars always equals better teams. You having 11 stars instead of 9 isn't going to make the Bulls not beat you by 60. Or maybe they'd only beat you by 50.
I get it, competitive games are stressful when you lose, but blaming things outside of your control for your lack of success is a sure way to avoid winning in the future.
vipermaw82
offline
offline
Originally posted by ShadyMcCoy
sure it can happen - fluky- . if your three star team was so good it would be ranked higher than 7 in the tier. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/rankings?tier=Veteran
Check out the star power on the top 5 teams. That tells you everything you need to know.
good luck beating the Bulls https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/roster/161
reality is you need double digit stars to be consistently competitive at the top.
I mean... check the scores of the games, bulls had to come back to beat us last time (may smoke us next time) I'm going with we are ranked 7 because we don't contribute a ton most of the season. Point is it can be done, not sure how it was fluky though as when you take time for the GP anything in this game can happen.
sure it can happen - fluky- . if your three star team was so good it would be ranked higher than 7 in the tier. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/rankings?tier=Veteran
Check out the star power on the top 5 teams. That tells you everything you need to know.
good luck beating the Bulls https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/roster/161
reality is you need double digit stars to be consistently competitive at the top.
I mean... check the scores of the games, bulls had to come back to beat us last time (may smoke us next time) I'm going with we are ranked 7 because we don't contribute a ton most of the season. Point is it can be done, not sure how it was fluky though as when you take time for the GP anything in this game can happen.
I will give you credit though Shady, it is hard to be the number one team without the number one roster and superstars absolutely make your roster better. If your whole experience is based around "if I'm not number one then it's not worth it", you are likely going to have a bad time in a competitive multiplayer game.
Like, most chess players aren't the best in the world. They just play the game and improve where they can. They don't go in a crusade that queens shouldn't be able to move diagonal after losing to a Scholar's Mate.
Like, most chess players aren't the best in the world. They just play the game and improve where they can. They don't go in a crusade that queens shouldn't be able to move diagonal after losing to a Scholar's Mate.
Edited by Corndog on Jan 27, 2021 17:17:30
ShadyMcCoy
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Ever considered that maybe you're confusing the cause and effect? Maybe the best owners get more superstars and more superstars isn't what makes the best owners?
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/roster/3226
Your coached team with 9 superstars is 20-8.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/763720
Here's the team with 9 stars getting manhandled by a team with 4. Even repeat game later in the season you still struggle to beat them.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/764788
Here's the team again getting manhandled by a team with fewer stars. How is this possible if the only determining factor is number of stars?
Like, I know it's probably comforting in some sense to blame the one thing you don't have as the entire reason that you're losing. But like, it's simply not true that more stars always equals better teams. You having 11 stars instead of 9 isn't going to make the Bulls not beat you by 60. Or maybe they'd only beat you by 50.
I get it, competitive games are stressful when you lose, but blaming things outside of your control for your lack of success is a sure way to avoid winning in the future.
It's not my team but it's all turnover players. Meaning players that just joined this season. They suffered through chemistry penalties all season. They weren't built together with a system in mind. Most of them have low conditioning, ect.
Ever considered that maybe you're confusing the cause and effect? Maybe the best owners get more superstars and more superstars isn't what makes the best owners?
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/roster/3226
Your coached team with 9 superstars is 20-8.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/763720
Here's the team with 9 stars getting manhandled by a team with 4. Even repeat game later in the season you still struggle to beat them.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/764788
Here's the team again getting manhandled by a team with fewer stars. How is this possible if the only determining factor is number of stars?
Like, I know it's probably comforting in some sense to blame the one thing you don't have as the entire reason that you're losing. But like, it's simply not true that more stars always equals better teams. You having 11 stars instead of 9 isn't going to make the Bulls not beat you by 60. Or maybe they'd only beat you by 50.
I get it, competitive games are stressful when you lose, but blaming things outside of your control for your lack of success is a sure way to avoid winning in the future.
It's not my team but it's all turnover players. Meaning players that just joined this season. They suffered through chemistry penalties all season. They weren't built together with a system in mind. Most of them have low conditioning, ect.
ShadyMcCoy
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
I will give you credit though Shady, it is hard to be the number one team without the number one roster and superstars absolutely make your roster better. If your whole experience is based around "if I'm not number one then it's not worth it", you are likely going to have a bad time in a competitive multiplayer game.
Like, most chess players aren't the best in the world. They just play the game and improve where they can. They don't go in a crusade that queens shouldn't be able to move diagonal after losing to a Scholar's Mate.
If you have less stars on your roster, especially by a 3:1 ratio you are at a supreme disadvantage. Not sure how that can be argued. Personally, I don't enjoy paying for a game that I don't feel I have a consistent level playing field to win the game.
I've seen lots of team owners who came and left who felt the same.
There is a majority of users on here who would vote to allow increased star creation by users but you won't entertain that for some reason.
But hey it's your game. If you think it's working to the best of its ability to grow and bring enjoyment to the most amount of people, then God bless you.
On with the status quo. LONG LIVE THE STAR LORDS
I will give you credit though Shady, it is hard to be the number one team without the number one roster and superstars absolutely make your roster better. If your whole experience is based around "if I'm not number one then it's not worth it", you are likely going to have a bad time in a competitive multiplayer game.
Like, most chess players aren't the best in the world. They just play the game and improve where they can. They don't go in a crusade that queens shouldn't be able to move diagonal after losing to a Scholar's Mate.
If you have less stars on your roster, especially by a 3:1 ratio you are at a supreme disadvantage. Not sure how that can be argued. Personally, I don't enjoy paying for a game that I don't feel I have a consistent level playing field to win the game.
I've seen lots of team owners who came and left who felt the same.
There is a majority of users on here who would vote to allow increased star creation by users but you won't entertain that for some reason.
But hey it's your game. If you think it's working to the best of its ability to grow and bring enjoyment to the most amount of people, then God bless you.
On with the status quo. LONG LIVE THE STAR LORDS
The Righteous One
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Maybe the best owners get more superstars and more superstars isn't what makes the best owners?
Well then prove it. IF they are the best greatest of all time GLB owner who doesn't need stars then prove it.
If you look at the bigger picture- how does this type of system help the game? You're basically choosing to protect the small rich class of teams that are super star hoarders. That's your chosen people on here. Everyone else be left to the wolves...put please purchase flex and watch your team get slaughtered in silence. Thank you for being our customer.
How about letting everyone make as many stars as they want so we can have increased teams and fair games?
Maybe the best owners get more superstars and more superstars isn't what makes the best owners?
Well then prove it. IF they are the best greatest of all time GLB owner who doesn't need stars then prove it.
If you look at the bigger picture- how does this type of system help the game? You're basically choosing to protect the small rich class of teams that are super star hoarders. That's your chosen people on here. Everyone else be left to the wolves...put please purchase flex and watch your team get slaughtered in silence. Thank you for being our customer.
How about letting everyone make as many stars as they want so we can have increased teams and fair games?
Originally posted by ShadyMcCoy
If you have less stars on your roster, especially by a 3:1 ratio you are at a supreme disadvantage. Not sure how that can be argued. Personally, I don't enjoy paying for a game that I don't feel I have a consistent level playing field to win the game.
What part is not a consistent and level playing field? Every team has the same salary cap. Every team can sign the same number of players. Every user can create the same number of superstars. No plays are locked to certain teams. No benefits are randomly bestowed to teams. Every team has the exact same opportunities.
Losing at a game doesn't mean the game is inherently unfair. I lose all the time in Overwatch, that doesn't mean the game is unfair, that just means I'm uninterested in putting in 12 hour training days to become the best professional Overwatch player. I just play the game at my entirely average rank and enjoy myself.
I strongly disagree with that the "give every team 12 superstars!" suggestion is going to suddenly fix all the woes in the game and usher in a golden age of parity. If every suggestion to minimize the disparity between top teams and bottom teams is a good suggestion, we may as well just turn the game into a coin flip. Ultimate parity! Fair and consistent playing field!
Like, even with the goal of increasing parity, a convoluted system of flooding the game with superstars so that every team has dozens is just, not a good suggestion. I'd rather just simplify it and remove superstars from the game rather than making them ubiquitous.
If you have less stars on your roster, especially by a 3:1 ratio you are at a supreme disadvantage. Not sure how that can be argued. Personally, I don't enjoy paying for a game that I don't feel I have a consistent level playing field to win the game.
What part is not a consistent and level playing field? Every team has the same salary cap. Every team can sign the same number of players. Every user can create the same number of superstars. No plays are locked to certain teams. No benefits are randomly bestowed to teams. Every team has the exact same opportunities.
Losing at a game doesn't mean the game is inherently unfair. I lose all the time in Overwatch, that doesn't mean the game is unfair, that just means I'm uninterested in putting in 12 hour training days to become the best professional Overwatch player. I just play the game at my entirely average rank and enjoy myself.
I strongly disagree with that the "give every team 12 superstars!" suggestion is going to suddenly fix all the woes in the game and usher in a golden age of parity. If every suggestion to minimize the disparity between top teams and bottom teams is a good suggestion, we may as well just turn the game into a coin flip. Ultimate parity! Fair and consistent playing field!
Like, even with the goal of increasing parity, a convoluted system of flooding the game with superstars so that every team has dozens is just, not a good suggestion. I'd rather just simplify it and remove superstars from the game rather than making them ubiquitous.
rch3
offline
offline
Remember you cant win with only 3 stars vs a stacked star team..... oh wait https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/768526
Also welcome back DJ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y31DbJFbgXg
Also welcome back DJ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y31DbJFbgXg
Edited by rch3 on Jan 28, 2021 01:14:51
Originally posted by rch3
Remember you cant win with only 3 stars vs a stacked star team..... oh wait https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/768526
Oof, brutal upset.
Remember you cant win with only 3 stars vs a stacked star team..... oh wait https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/768526
Oof, brutal upset.
Detroit Leos
offline
offline
Originally posted by ShadyMcCoy
It's not my team but it's all turnover players. Meaning players that just joined this season. They suffered through chemistry penalties all season. They weren't built together with a system in mind. Most of them have low conditioning, ect.
Here... Not a S* problem but a random and non-cohesively built team is your issue. Why do more agents go inactive on lesser known agent teams? Because like S* players, people who plan to make the run through vet also want to sign with a team where they are confident that the owner will not go inactive.
It's not my team but it's all turnover players. Meaning players that just joined this season. They suffered through chemistry penalties all season. They weren't built together with a system in mind. Most of them have low conditioning, ect.
Here... Not a S* problem but a random and non-cohesively built team is your issue. Why do more agents go inactive on lesser known agent teams? Because like S* players, people who plan to make the run through vet also want to sign with a team where they are confident that the owner will not go inactive.
Myrik_Justiciar
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Oof, brutal upset.
No shit, I died a little on the inside.
Oof, brutal upset.
No shit, I died a little on the inside.
ShadyMcCoy
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
What part is not a consistent and level playing field? Every team has the same salary cap. Every team can sign the same number of players. Every user can create the same number of superstars. No plays are locked to certain teams. No benefits are randomly bestowed to teams. Every team has the exact same opportunities.
Losing at a game doesn't mean the game is inherently unfair. I lose all the time in Overwatch, that doesn't mean the game is unfair, that just means I'm uninterested in putting in 12 hour training days to become the best professional Overwatch player. I just play the game at my entirely average rank and enjoy myself.
I strongly disagree with that the "give every team 12 superstars!" suggestion is going to suddenly fix all the woes in the game and usher in a golden age of parity. If every suggestion to minimize the disparity between top teams and bottom teams is a good suggestion, we may as well just turn the game into a coin flip. Ultimate parity! Fair and consistent playing field!
Like, even with the goal of increasing parity, a convoluted system of flooding the game with superstars so that every team has dozens is just, not a good suggestion. I'd rather just simplify it and remove superstars from the game rather than making them ubiquitous.
Brother- it's not possible for everyone to put 12 stars on a team. So how is that fair? If everyone that is a current user purchased a team right now- they wouldn't all be able to put the same number of stars on the teams. So some teams enter into the game disadvantaged. This game benefits the people that got here first- not just from an experience standpoint- but from a structural standpoint.
You are quick to deflect that this is not the reason the game is shrinking...sure it's not the only reason but it is one of the reasons.
I'm in favor of letting people create the same number of star players for their teams. Whether that is 0 or 12.
What part is not a consistent and level playing field? Every team has the same salary cap. Every team can sign the same number of players. Every user can create the same number of superstars. No plays are locked to certain teams. No benefits are randomly bestowed to teams. Every team has the exact same opportunities.
Losing at a game doesn't mean the game is inherently unfair. I lose all the time in Overwatch, that doesn't mean the game is unfair, that just means I'm uninterested in putting in 12 hour training days to become the best professional Overwatch player. I just play the game at my entirely average rank and enjoy myself.
I strongly disagree with that the "give every team 12 superstars!" suggestion is going to suddenly fix all the woes in the game and usher in a golden age of parity. If every suggestion to minimize the disparity between top teams and bottom teams is a good suggestion, we may as well just turn the game into a coin flip. Ultimate parity! Fair and consistent playing field!
Like, even with the goal of increasing parity, a convoluted system of flooding the game with superstars so that every team has dozens is just, not a good suggestion. I'd rather just simplify it and remove superstars from the game rather than making them ubiquitous.
Brother- it's not possible for everyone to put 12 stars on a team. So how is that fair? If everyone that is a current user purchased a team right now- they wouldn't all be able to put the same number of stars on the teams. So some teams enter into the game disadvantaged. This game benefits the people that got here first- not just from an experience standpoint- but from a structural standpoint.
You are quick to deflect that this is not the reason the game is shrinking...sure it's not the only reason but it is one of the reasons.
I'm in favor of letting people create the same number of star players for their teams. Whether that is 0 or 12.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
