Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
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.
Well I know with me it is about helping newbies. The idea is not to take away from existing teams at all(I'm not a fan of the chemistry change), but to elevate other teams that don't have anywhere near the talent on their rosters.

I mean go take a look at the "Teams looking for players" section the last 20 seasons. Even when experienced agents try to get S* builds, it's a struggle. It almost never happens for an unknown agent because, who is going to commit to a newbie with a precious S*? Many of us would be apt to help out new teams with players if we could offer them S* builds. And as Detroit points out, some positions like OL are a pain to get period.

Coaching, and player builds will still win out, but I don't see the downside of allowing agents to use the Superstar trait whenever they want. it would actually make things interesting again.

Originally posted by Bretto007
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.



I don’t think anyone is panicking about “other users being able to field similar super star rosters.”.... As we’ve already discussed, anyone can already field similar super star rosters.

It’s really strange to me that you guys are having this much of an issue with getting stars together? It’s not hard.... If the 3 or 4 guys doing most of the complaining about stars, got together and planned a roster and reset, they could theoretically field 9-12 stars.

Just work together and try to beat these pesky OGs! That’s the fun of the game. Working together and trying to find ways to beat the top teams. Limiting the versatility of roster construction isn’t going to improve the user experience at all.

I would say, even allowing users to make as many stars as they would like could be a bad idea. I can get behind the idea of 2 per tier but not sure bout more than that..

Plus, I am ready to do a 20 star low contract roster now.... So maybe I am biased.

Jk jk

Originally posted by Hzachary1

I would say, even allowing users to make as many stars as they would like could be a bad idea.
How so?

Originally posted by Bretto007
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.

All this wanting to help the "noobs" I find to be disingenuous. I question this overwhelming influx of new players you all keep going on about because I just don't see them. Where are they? As far as the "narrative", facts are facts...When I started I scoured these forums and bugged the shit out of guys like Xars, Rob, DL, and shit tons of others who quit a long time ago. I took my beatings, finished my runs all the way to Vet so I could learn and do better with each Reset. Maybe you've not asked for my help, but there are many who have, and I've ran 2nd teams several times just to bring new blood in (allowing them a place to learn), as well as play with the rest of friends... Then there's the point that if we get added as a coach to any of other teams we get complaints that we are on every team and colluding or some shit.

I'm all for helping new players stay, but helping new players shouldn't mean taking away from your older guys who have been here supporting this game for years. If you want to truly help new players, then there should be better guides on how everything works to building players correctly to tactics to playbooks. That being said, CD has stated in the past they don't want to explain how everything works because you got guys like Xars who would figure everything out in a few weeks and then be board with the game in a season or 2, they want you to play and figure it all out instead.

And no one is panicking about a nerf, FFS. The last time we had a Great Reset to get a full human league, I went in it against teams with as many stars as my team and did just fine... If I were panicking I could've easily avoided being in that league to get my fair share of cpu division opponents instead. Besides, S* players aren't everything...I recall the first time I won Vet I had a perfect 30-0 record but once playoffs came you had the wild card team and beat me, ruining my perfect season, lol.

By far the best suggestion regarding S*'s has been DL's. Adjust the cost and everyone benefits, even new guys.


Originally posted by TyDavis315
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.

Ty, if you, Bret, and Shady form a team together you will have 9 stars, one shy of my 10 on KYM and Lex teams. Instead of implying or accusing anyone of working the system, how about just pooling y 'all's resources first. I surmise most people have ego's and want to run their own teams instead of working with others.

Originally posted by TyDavis315
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.

How do you know this to be true? Are you on any of our teams to see what's going on? Do you have privy to my PM's to see if I'm discussing builds/templates? I don't complain how new guys suck and don't get where this is coming from. Padding stats? Jeeze, how many top players in the HoF do I have? I like you Ty, but you're talking out of your ass here.

Stars are important, but they are not the end-all be-all, it takes tactics and strategies as well or your 9 star team wouldn't be solidly beat out by the 10 star teams. Also the "woe is me" comment just goes to show you the "its not fair to the new guys" argument is disingenuous as I suspected. And being obnoxious for having lots of stars is just your opinion, as is thinking its not justifiable to have 9 or more when it only takes 3 people to get that amount. They want you to work with other people to build teams, otherwise they'd use the model where we buy a team and just make the entire roster ourselves instead of needing other player agents.

Again, the best suggestion so far has been adjusting the cost of S* players. That benefits everyone.

If we're being real, how many "superstars" do the TB Bucs and KC Chiefs have irl? About the same that a team can hold here, so I don't really see the problem.

The salary cap is already built in to the game to limit too many superstars on a team. There are too many different suggestions floating around to really comment on all at this point but a chemistry hit to superstars would effectively kill most S* off - especially at high impact positions that already possess a higher salary cap hit. If that is GLB2's goal, then that's an option.

Now, if you want to argue that there is inequity because of the cap on s* creation per user, that's an entirely different argument that may be viewed as a strong one only to players who are relatively new (or naive) to the game. Multiple account teams have been in the game since season 4-5 and nobody has cared (see: GE, b00n, steve, rob etc.). If you want to create more than 3 S*s for a team the only thing that is stopping you is money and laziness.

With that said, I never understood why there is a cap per user - as stated earlier - the salary cap is already designed to limit too many S* on a team. If not unlimited, at the very least tier 2 should be broken down into separate tiers - or better yet, allow a user to create one S* at each position.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
Ty, if you, Bret, and Shady form a team together you will have 9 stars, one shy of my 10 on KYM and Lex teams.

Or better yet, he could just create a few accounts and do it all himself

Weird how you think it’s ego. I’ve worked with Bret, I’m currently getting familiar with shady. I like both agents, I’m not going to say “let me team up and star smash” for the simple sake of competition. If you dedicate more stars to a teams, you’re hurting the depth of the leagues. Simple as that. Multiple star teams means most agent are invested for the lo mg haul.

Literally lowering your team star depth (me included) to 8 caps would do wondering for parity. If you want to go crazy then ok 9 whatever. Be serious. Complain all you won’t but it’s a system that has benefited you greatly has it not?

Look at it this way- if old big time users came back you would dedicate time and some stars towards helping them get back into the swing of things right? Say 5 users come and that happens, do you know how much juice is not only being pumped back into the game, but how much parity there would be across the board long term? (For a set amount of seasons at least). With an active building block as low as ours currently, this should be the line of thinking.

I got my degrees in this

Originally posted by TyDavis315
Weird how you think it’s ego. I’ve worked with Bret, I’m currently getting familiar with shady. I like both agents, I’m not going to say “let me team up and star smash” for the simple sake of competition. If you dedicate more stars to a teams, you’re hurting the depth of the leagues. Simple as that. Multiple star teams means most agent are invested for the lo mg haul.

Literally lowering your team star depth (me included) to 8 caps would do wondering for parity. If you want to go crazy then ok 9 whatever. Be serious. Complain all you won’t but it’s a system that has benefited you greatly has it not?

Look at it this way- if old big time users came back you would dedicate time and some stars towards helping them get back into the swing of things right? Say 5 users come and that happens, do you know how much juice is not only being pumped back into the game, but how much parity there would be across the board long term? (For a set amount of seasons at least). With an active building block as low as ours currently, this should be the line of thinking.

I got my degrees in this

The issue with this line of thought is that we are limited by how many S* players that we can create. When you get to make them, you typically want to put them on a team that will both utilize them properly and will provide solid stats. This is probably the biggest reason why the OGs and experienced coaches have less of an issue recruiting S* players. People want to see their S* players do well on a quality team. However, if we were not limited to creating 3 S* players per account, perhaps more people would be willing to let some S* players sign with new owners still trying to figure everything out.

As I already stated and Boss reiterated, the salary cap is what limits us on squeezing S* players on to a team. Even if you lower the maximum limit or whatever, you are going to have people who simply pocket their S* player until they are able to get them on a known quality team. It is just how it is.

However, if we all were not limited on S* creation, then perhaps people would be more willing to commit S* power to others.

Originally posted by TyDavis315
Weird how you think it’s ego. I’ve worked with Bret, I’m currently getting familiar with shady. I like both agents, I’m not going to say “let me team up and star smash” for the simple sake of competition. If you dedicate more stars to a teams, you’re hurting the depth of the leagues. Simple as that. Multiple star teams means most agent are invested for the lo mg haul.

Literally lowering your team star depth (me included) to 8 caps would do wondering for parity. If you want to go crazy then ok 9 whatever. Be serious. Complain all you won’t but it’s a system that has benefited you greatly has it not?

So you're saying just because you don't want to play the game as intended to be competitive, you'd rather everyone play to your preferred style.

As far as the system in this game, I worked hard to get my team to where it is, nothing was given to me.

Originally posted by TyDavis315
Look at it this way- if old big time users came back you would dedicate time and some stars towards helping them get back into the swing of things right? Say 5 users come and that happens, do you know how much juice is not only being pumped back into the game, but how much parity there would be across the board long term? (For a set amount of seasons at least). With an active building block as low as ours currently, this should be the line of thinking.

I got my degrees in this

If 5 "big time" users came back (like from the Bronx Bombers for example), they'd bring back 5 sets of S* players to build their own teams back with. If they asked for help, I'd help anyone, but I doubt they'd need my resources all that much considering guys like that were real go-getters and partially where I saw how to build my teams.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
The issue with this line of thought is that we are limited by how many S* players that we can create. When you get to make them, you typically want to put them on a team that will both utilize them properly and will provide solid stats. This is probably the biggest reason why the OGs and experienced coaches have less of an issue recruiting S* players. People want to see their S* players do well on a quality team. However, if we were not limited to creating 3 S* players per account, perhaps more people would be willing to let some S* players sign with new owners still trying to figure everything out.

As I already stated and Boss reiterated, the salary cap is what limits us on squeezing S* players on to a team. Even if you lower the maximum limit or whatever, you are going to have people who simply pocket their S* player until they are able to get them on a known quality team. It is just how it is.

However, if we all were not limited on S* creation, then perhaps people would be more willing to commit S* power to others.

This. It's human nature. If I had more S*'s to throw around, I'd be more than willing to put them on other teams... hell, adjust S* cost to be cheaper, allow us to buy more S* slots and that would be np to do.

Just throwing this out as food for thought,

Rookie Tier Total Human Teams 32

Inactive Owners (6)
Zillio : Total Games : Under 50
JMADSoDope : Total Games : Under 200
VyktoryJaye: Total Games: Under 25
TJC : Total Games : 8
g3t 0wn3d n00bs: 27 games
PanoramicLice Under 250

Active under 250 Games (5/6)
Diamond D - Partnered with HZarchary1
SmashtheMat - His Coaching list looks like the GLB Dream Team of Jay529, Dredgar, and OSIRIS
Unique4 - Going it alone and resetting
Chance24 - Exception that proves the rule (great job)
nwbachskiau - partnered with pwolf1
chrisbolden - In fairness this is a lost account

Roughly a 50/50 rate - worth noting though half of the active teams with under 250 games are down in Snow League.

I'm a fan of the 3 superstar limit actually, however I do think that we should be initially granted the 3 stars though. Instead of losing by 50 and blaming it on the stars, they'll lost by 50 and then think about what separates other stars vs theirs. They're given an actually opportunity to actively see that theirs a lot of different factors to the game that starts with how you build your players.

Making the game a S* haven isn't a logical conclusion. It also kills revenue for the game, that's simple sense. How about people stop feeling the need to overload on stars and making super teams? What's literally stopping you from winning with even just 6-8 players? Do you know how vital just those 2-6 S* players could be for the market? And that's just from one team.

As much as you all want to bitch and moan about how you got it out the mud, the simple fact is that doesn't mean shit if you've spent all that time and money to eventually play the same few people- which will be the outcome if you keep up and elitist/entitled mindset. No one cares, you got it out the mud against a user base that couldn't even wipe the bum of what we started with. So your wins are empty and mean nothing, especially if you have desire to help establish a bigger user base to ass kick.

How you guys are satisfied is beyond me. You're not competing at the highest of levels nor are you promoting a mindset of competing at the highest level.

At the end of the day it's up to Bort & Corndog to figure out what they gotta do for their product. Shelf this discussion. It's a matter of real world principle, not simple game logic.

I fail to see how allowing people to build more S* players is a revenue issue... You would still need to collect S* points. Theoretically, you would just be able to continue collecting them instead of having them cap out after you have acquired enough to make one S* within a tier.

If anything, people may build more players to get more S* points...

Originally posted by TyDavis315
I'm a fan of the 3 superstar limit actually, however I do think that we should be initially granted the 3 stars though. Instead of losing by 50 and blaming it on the stars, they'll lost by 50 and then think about what separates other stars vs theirs. They're given an actually opportunity to actively see that theirs a lot of different factors to the game that starts with how you build your players.

Making the game a S* haven isn't a logical conclusion. It also kills revenue for the game, that's simple sense. How about people stop feeling the need to overload on stars and making super teams? What's literally stopping you from winning with even just 6-8 players? Do you know how vital just those 2-6 S* players could be for the market? And that's just from one team.

As much as you all want to bitch and moan about how you got it out the mud, the simple fact is that doesn't mean shit if you've spent all that time and money to eventually play the same few people- which will be the outcome if you keep up and elitist/entitled mindset. No one cares, you got it out the mud against a user base that couldn't even wipe the bum of what we started with. So your wins are empty and mean nothing, especially if you have desire to help establish a bigger user base to ass kick.

How you guys are satisfied is beyond me. You're not competing at the highest of levels nor are you promoting a mindset of competing at the highest level.

At the end of the day it's up to Bort & Corndog to figure out what they gotta do for their product. Shelf this discussion. It's a matter of real world principle, not simple game logic.

A compromise position might be to simply "Fill the box" of owners with 3 superstar enabled spots - make it a perk of team ownership.

I don't think that's terribly unbalanced and certainly would let newer owners in on the secret that the magic is in the playcalling.

Granted the blowback is more than a few people will figure out that 500 flex is a lot cheaper way to get to 3 superstar players - but then again they can't exactly be refunded 85% at seasons end either.

Honestly if its about SuperStar overload , just enforcing the roster as minimum 42 maximium of 43 ends it because I don't think you can get more than 6 on at 42 unless you go all tier 1.

The matter of superstars stars with people building them, then asking for the S* requirements to be lowered, etc.

The ideal that anyone would immediately dump money into a rarely breathing user base for star players just to beat the same 4-7 dominant guys is flawed and impractical theory. If we're talking impractical theory what's to stop an influx of multis so that people can have fun with multiple iterations of super teams? What about when the cash dries up?

See the line of thinking here? This is only satisfactory for the few here and isn't a well thought out solution tailored to future growth. What's the most important aspect of an MMO again? Do any of you feel like we're living up to what our potential could be? Especially considering we're shifting to a world that will soon spend more time focused on a screen