Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Xars
That's true too but I'm not sure it's the implementation idea that Bort & Cdog want.

You'll just get every team having 10 S*.

Perhaps there's a different way to balance out teams with 0 S* and 10 S*.

Chemistry is also a boost. A 100 Chem team has a bigger Chem boost than an 80 Chem team. It might be the mechanic that they like better.

Also, I don't know why it would hurt new team owners. If you're a new play/owner, you're first team isn't going to have any S* (most likely). So at least your 43 regular players are getting the 100 Chem boost versus a Vet player running a team with 10 S* at 80 Chem.

It all depends on the Chem boost.




Well if agents could make as many S* players as they want, then newbies could actually have a competitive roster. Right now they have to wait a while just to get stars, and even longer to recruit others.

The morale boost from high contracts is already really good. The reason S* teams are better has more to do with build options, lower chem won't make a S* HB reach 90 power running any slower for example. Take a team like the Mountaineers at 50 chem and they still blow out nearly ever non-S* team by Vet.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Well if agents could make as many S* players as they want, then newbies could actually have a competitive roster. Right now they have to wait a while just to get stars, and even longer to recruit others.

The morale boost from high contracts is already really good. The reason S* teams are better has more to do with build options, lower chem won't make a S* HB reach 90 power running any slower for example. Take a team like the Mountaineers at 50 chem and they still blow out nearly ever non-S* team by Vet.

I might be a little off subject here but I am curious. Has anyone tried or know of a team that has tried all low contracts in ordert to squeeze as many stars as possible into a roster?

Originally posted by Hzachary1
I might be a little off subject here but I am curious. Has anyone tried or know of a team that has tried all low contracts in ordert to squeeze as many stars as possible into a roster?

Nope... have had low contracts on all backups before though. Makes little sense to go all low to squeeze one more S* player in IMO.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Well if agents could make as many S* players as they want, then newbies could actually have a competitive roster. Right now they have to wait a while just to get stars, and even longer to recruit others.

The morale boost from high contracts is already really good. The reason S* teams are better has more to do with build options, lower chem won't make a S* HB reach 90 power running any slower for example. Take a team like the Mountaineers at 50 chem and they still blow out nearly ever non-S* team by Vet.

IMHO, you don’t understand how Chemistry is coded. Cdog has said in the past that it is a boost - that it doesn’t lower and abilities even at 50 Chem. This happened if I recall when we were complaining about QB fumbles on handoffs at low Chem. Anyway, if what he says is true, then a player with a 100
Skill and 50 Chem has a lower adjusted value than a player with a 100 Skill and 100 Chem.

Low Chem players have lower Power / Speed than high Chem players with the same skill value.

At least I think this is true. (Show me the code! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 )

If so, then by lowering the Chem boost to a 10 S* team, you create a situation where the S*’s adjusted value may be lower (or at least substantially less greater) than a regular player’s adjusted skill value at 100 Chem on a zero S* team.

Originally posted by Hzachary1
I might be a little off subject here but I am curious. Has anyone tried or know of a team that has tried all low contracts in ordert to squeeze as many stars as possible into a roster?

I have seen a team that had like 13 or 14 stars before but not sure about more.

How about instead of messing with the Chemistry (that everyone hates so much) penalties for stars, just go with the suggestion of every team gets 3 S* players free and leave it at that? That way everyone get's their S*HB/TE/SS. I maybe wrong, but I don't think this is about helping "newbies" (since we barely get any that I ever see) so much as hating on teams like mine, Boss', Dredgar, Detroit, etc who networked to 8+ stars or more on their teams. Those of us who manage this have been networking for years at this point (I've been here since season 7). It just seems counterintuitive to "level the playing field for noobs" when just a few posts back CD was saying they don't want to let everyone know how the game works so we don't figure it out and get board with it. Either we just make the game easy mode or not, instead of being arbitrary with parts of it.

Or we could instead push to get Pro and J-Man folded into one tier so teams don't get auto-bumped to Vet cuz they're the only one in Pro, again. I know its a band aid fix, but it's the most logical one and gives just one extra vet season. It sure will make it easier for teams to reset for trial and error, and spend that flex when doing so. It's not like my Vet team at #2 Global didn't have to play 2 top tier J-Man teams this season anyways, so why not do this... at least when we play down tier it will be against "pro" levels.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
How about instead of messing with the Chemistry (that everyone hates so much) penalties for stars, just go with the suggestion of every team gets 3 S* players free and leave it at that? That way everyone get's their S*HB/TE/SS. I maybe wrong, but I don't think this is about helping "newbies" (since we barely get any that I ever see) so much as hating on teams like mine, Boss', Dredgar, Detroit, etc who networked to 8+ stars or more on their teams. Those of us who manage this have been networking for years at this point (I've been here since season 7). It just seems counterintuitive to "level the playing field for noobs" when just a few posts back CD was saying they don't want to let everyone know how the game works so we don't figure it out and get board with it. Either we just make the game easy mode or not, instead of being arbitrary with parts of it.

Or we could instead push to get Pro and J-Man folded into one tier so teams don't get auto-bumped to Vet cuz they're the only one in Pro, again. I know its a band aid fix, but it's the most logical one and gives just one extra vet season. It sure will make it easier for teams to reset for trial and error, and spend that flex when doing so. It's not like my Vet team at #2 Global didn't have to play 2 top tier J-Man teams this season anyways, so why not do this... at least they then when we play down tier it will be against "pro" levels.


Good for you. You've networked for years and now can get 12 starts for your team. Happy? Do you feel satisfied winning with that? Is the game fun for you crushing teams who don't come close to matching your advantage?

You essentially have a monopoly on the Star player market. You and a few other super star teams have collaborated together and now own the majority of start players in existence and on top of that they get withheld from other teams.

So in order to protect the integrity of the game they either need to increase salary cost per star player or give players ability to create two stars per tier.

Originally posted by ShadyMcCoy

Good for you. You've networked for years and now can get 12 starts for your team. Happy? Do you feel satisfied winning with that? Is the game fun for you crushing teams who don't come close to matching your advantage?

You essentially have a monopoly on the Star player market. You and a few other super star teams have collaborated together and now own the majority of start players in existence and on top of that they get withheld from other teams.

So in order to protect the integrity of the game they either need to increase salary cost per star player or give players ability to create two stars per tier.


It doesn’t take years of networking to get a bunch of stars together.....

I haven’t been around long, and the guy I originally was going to join forces with for a vet run (Bizzarro24) went inactive. I was still able to join with 3 other guys, split up the flex cost of building the players and use the stars we had available to put a team together of 9 stars. Will be 10 next season. We had to reach outside of the 4 of us to grab 1 more agent for 1 of the stars. This isn’t exactly how I planned on making a run to vet. Originally I wanted to take another season or 2 to plan out the roster and get builds dialed in. I had a handful of guys who were willing to build stars and whatever else was needed, but like I said things fell through on that plan. So I took a little time, re grouped with a couple of other newish agents, and we put together a plan to start our team this season.

We will certainly run up against some teams that have as many or more stars than us and lose some games on our way up. We will lose some games to teams that have less stars than us and teams that have as many or more. We plan to learn some things in this run, take notes and make adjustments for our next run. I’ve already got a number of things I will do differently next time and we aren’t even done with season 1. I look forward to doing it again in 6 seasons or so and hopefully what we learn will pay off on our next run.

With the way the star system is built, literally no one can have a monopoly on the stars..... You can build your 2 or 3 and find a few other guys to build 2 or 3 and have as many stars as you’d like. It just take a little bit of planning and networking (and I would say the networking is minimal). Join or buy a team, recruit heavily towards newbie agents, make yourself available to help them as much as you can, and I am sure you will find a buddy or 2.

These guys with the dominant teams aren’t just dominate because they have stars, they are dominant because they know how to play the game. They’ve went from rookie to vet time and time again. And they will openly share the knowledge with you. Reducing stars will not change anything other than the amount of stars on the team. The teams you are complaining about will still win a ton more game than most and people will find some other reason to convince themselves of, as to why it’s not fair.

If we are going to reduce stars, fine. I just feel like it’s an empty argument that a few guys have convinced themselves of, and they believe that is the big difference between the teams they are on and the dominate teams. I think if we are all being realistic, we know that changing the available star power per team isn’t going to change much of anything as far as retaining users is concerned. It feels like grasping at straws to me.

But I could be way off on this. I don’t know. I am still a newbie by a lot of standards.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
How about instead of messing with the Chemistry (that everyone hates so much) penalties for stars, just go with the suggestion of every team gets 3 S* players free and leave it at that? That way everyone get's their S*HB/TE/SS. I maybe wrong, but I don't think this is about helping "newbies" (since we barely get any that I ever see) so much as hating on teams like mine, Boss', Dredgar, Detroit, etc who networked to 8+ stars or more on their teams. Those of us who manage this have been networking for years at this point (I've been here since season 7). It just seems counterintuitive to "level the playing field for noobs" when just a few posts back CD was saying they don't want to let everyone know how the game works so we don't figure it out and get board with it. Either we just make the game easy mode or not, instead of being arbitrary with parts of it.

Oof, what a false equivalence there, champ.

I have said that we should be permitted to make more S* players for years. Teams have a salary cap limit anyway. Let people build more S* players if people want to build more regular players to acquire those S* points. Why limit the S* players per account when the salary cap already limits roster construction with them anyway?

Additionally, it is garbage that it takes 20 150 flex players when most teams only run 1 QB and 1 HB. The numbers should be flipped so that 150 flex stars take 10, 100 flex still 15, and 50 flex 20 (maybe more people would build the necessary mass portion of the roster that is the OLine, and DTs). As things are now, it is a pain in the ass to get OLine commits unless the owner themselves makes the whole OLine (which is what normally happens).

Originally posted by Corndog
Oof, what a false equivalence there, champ.

Maybe so, but I'm right about them falsely wanting to "help noobs" when in fact they think it will help them get more wins vs guys like us who have been here for years. How asinine to say we have a monopoly on stars when all it takes is literally 3 people pooling their resources to get 9 on a team. I've spent years learning this game and have shared my knowledge to anyone who wants to pick my brain, to me it sounds like they don't want to put in the time and effort that some of us have. Again, it looks arbitrary to me, especially when there are other issues that should be addressed first.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
I have said that we should be permitted to make more S* players for years. Teams have a salary cap limit anyway. Let people build more S* players if people want to build more regular players to acquire those S* points. Why limit the S* players per account when the salary cap already limits roster construction with them anyway?

Additionally, it is garbage that it takes 20 150 flex players when most teams only run 1 QB and 1 HB. The numbers should be flipped so that 150 flex stars take 10, 100 flex still 15, and 50 flex 20 (maybe more people would build the necessary mass portion of the roster that is the OLine, and DTs). As things are now, it is a pain in the ass to get OLine commits unless the owner themselves makes the whole OLine (which is what normally happens).


See, now I can agree with the cost of Star Players being out of whack and the flood of S*DT's because of it... also the OL thing is a pain in the ass too.

The chemistry hit for having an overload of stars on the roster is better than not doing anything. I wouldn't make it anything too complicated like based off position or playing time.

The line about "I haven't seen anyone new on here lately so screw them" Just because you're not seeing new people sign up doesn't mean the game shouldn't make efforts to encourage engagement and team ownership for beginning level users.

Also, we need to stop this narrative that "if they would just message me I would teach them and then they would stop getting hammer smashed by my 12 star player roster"

If you are so good at this game then you wouldn't be panicking about other users being able to field similar super star rosters.

Lol @ the networking, let's be real here. As much as I do respect that networking viewpoint and think it's absolutely important/vital to online game success, there's a difference between networking and opening another tab to log into, which I personally believe is what some are doing.

The thing about the more invested guys is that they've also had time to cultivate their multis. And the lovely thing about being online is that you can always deny the multi(s) no matter what.

However, I think people forget how easy this stuff is to spot on a computer. And as for the top guys who feel like their being oppressed (smh ) a quick glance at your teams tells us mostly all we need to know.

If I was you all I'd leave the networking argument alone before they start to double check into your networks.

New users are definitely developing, but "top guys" aren't doing nearly as much as they claim. Joining a team, letting them use your playbooks, and not even offering actual support in key position players (or get this, even stars) isn't helping: It's arrogance. Better yet, it's an excuse for you all to complain about how the new guys suck and they aren't worth the help to make you feel better about stat padding every other game. The reality is the the politics of the game is now firmly divided between the top teams and those of us who scramble to win a championship any time we can.

Stars are important as hell, I don't know why you all are acting like they aren't? Myrik you literally have a S* front seven with S* support in the back end & dredgar has a star filled man team. It's not a "woe is me, I'm the true victim here" situation against you guys and you're starting to act a bit too reminiscent of the issues in America. The problem is that you know that amount of stars is excessive. This is my first time ever having 9 supertars, and it's not even fun (I didn't plan mine, lucked into it so it may just be me). There's no depth, top teams are still going to give you a rough time (maybe just not a 50+ point blowout), and the whole aspect of team building goes out the window since the opposite teams star players are always going to be on the field anyways being a pain in the ass.

10+ stars is pretty obnoxious, that's a simple fact. If they want to be obnoxious I say let them. As long as they aren't obnoxious and assholes (although we have a few) and kick your ass in good faith then I'm all for it. However, the bullshit justification for having excessive stars has got to stop.