Warrior General Games

Originally posted by TyDavis315
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

If you think that any team even with equal S* footing is going to compete with the big dogs, you are sadly mistaken. There is the importance of playcalling and the SP/SA distributions on players that play a heavy role. By decreasing the amount of S* power a team can have, you limit the ability to actually experiment with integrating other build concepts in to player builds. I for one, never build full on meta player builds. Instead, I put twists in to builds and try different things. It is much easier to accomplish with S* players because I know that I can get SP investment and SA investment to a certain level while still adding secondary or tertiary roles to the builds and trying things that others may not have found success with yet.

New owners are going to get smoked regardless of S* power. You are falsely assuming that S* power is the big difference here. While it is certainly helpful, the longer a new owner keeps their team as they move up in tiers, the further behind their builds become and even with quality playcalling, the build disadvantage of not hitting certain levels on various SP skills is extremely detrimental.

Edit: Additionally, dumping money in to the game to beat 4-7 people is not why people will invest. You either enjoy the game or you don't. You either choose to invest your time and money in to the game and enjoy the style, or you do not. While I understand that it is not fun losing games, there is little reason to lower S* caps on teams when others could simply have some more. S* players are fun to build and are something that people get excited about watching. I think people would choose to invest more to watch more S* players while also having the advantage of evening the S* field with more people committing S* players to lesser experienced users and not just powerhouse agents. It literally accomplishes the same thing, but provides more excitement for everybody IMO as people would be able to build more S* players and experiment with more things.

I previously said earlier that it really doesn't bother me, I just find it obnoxious. I'm very against multiple stars. I was a guy that was very vocal about it, but at this point I just don't see how it benefits anyone besides the dominant players.

Also I never said anything about stars leveling the playing field. That's all you. I said the market would expand by shelving those extra stars. If you guys can't compete with 8 or less just say that, however don't misconstrue my words.

Adding elements in a p2p that encourage more spending is considered marketing suicide, that's marketing 101. You're essentially going for trying to make as much as you can in however much time the game has left. It's what you see a lot of games do when they announce it on it's final leg with no plans of continuation. Is that the case with this game? Is there something I missed?

Originally posted by TyDavis315
I previously said earlier that it really doesn't bother me, I just find it obnoxious. I'm very against multiple stars. I was a guy that was very vocal about it, but at this point I just don't see how it benefits anyone besides the dominant players.

Also I never said anything about stars leveling the playing field. That's all you. I said the market would expand by shelving those extra stars. If you guys can't compete with 8 or less just say that, however don't misconstrue my words.

The reason why people sign star power with us is because we have proven that we can beat teams on even S* playing fields and in a time when the tiers were far more competitive than they are today. People want to play for winners and already keep S* points on a shelf to wait for the right spot due to S* building being limited.

Your thought process is backwards on this. If people can build more S* players, they will inevitably build some and allocate them to places that they previously had not done so, thus helping level the playing field as you want, just not the way that YOU want it.

Originally posted by TyDavis315
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
People are far more likely to dump money for star players, as opposed to non-S* player and then waiting months of playing to build up enough points for a S*. If we were allowed to make more than 3 stars, many of us would make them for teams in need. That actually means more revenue, not less. Some agents spend more on flex than others. Makes little sense that I can't help out a owner in need of a couple S* players because I already used them.

I mean we didn't even have a Pro tier this season. Lots of nice owners in Rookie, but many won't make the jump to Soph due to the longterm prospects of their roster to Vet. I know I'm resetting Fast & Furious for example. The "Teams looking for players section" is a ghosttown where new and experienced owners struggle to get S* players. The gap between teams is coaching & builds #1, but also talent depth at #2. So why not allow agents to use the superstar trait when building like the others.

If the Devs want to tweek the salary cap, that's fine with me, though it seems like it's in a sweet spot. 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 superstars, it's all arbitrary, since we have a set salary cap. Could always increasing how fast stamina drops, that would certainly have an impact.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

How so?


My concern with building as many stars as you would like would depend on the implementation of the idea.

If it is implemented as just another trait that you could pick whenever you’d like I think that could (and the key word here is could, I am not saying it would) limit the user interaction experience. I can imagine a scenario where a lot of people will just be building all the stars they need for there teams with no need to reach out to others for help with star power. Of course you will have the guys (like yourself) that would be willing to buy flex and help out new players from time to time. But the pool of users that would be willing to do that is limited as well. I could see this leading to less networking being done than is already inherently needed as the game stands right now to be able to reach the upper star limits. I also think this could have a boredom factor to it. I can see myself for example, building a bunch of Star players, experimenting with the builds, trying all of the things I want to try, and then what? I’ve got nothing else to do build wise. It would just become about, joining the best team I could, building the build that we find that works best, and riding that out as long as possible. Currently, I like that I have to wait between Star players. It gives me time to tweak build ideas and dial in exactly what I want to do when I build the next 1. It’s not just throwing everything at the wall at once and seeing what sticks.

If the idea is implemented as Leos suggested and you still have to accumulate star points to build the stars, I think that idea is better. Although, I would have a couple possible suggestions. 1 would be that you can’t have more than 1 Star per position at a time. If you want to build a QB, HB, and LB fine. Just not 3 QBs. This is to limit the “throw it all at the wall and see what sticks” approach I talked about earlier.

The other suggestion I would have is more of an addition to, or separate idea all together...Give new players 1 free star in each tier when they start. Or atleast 1 free star player of the tier of there choosing. Either way would help new players get off the ground a little quicker. I concur with most of the people saying the noobs are at a disadvantage, as they should be I would add. Helping them out with the option of a star player or 2 or 3 would be a step in the right direction but not so much so that the disadvantage would be nullified.

New players definitely need more help than they currently have to help keep them around. It just isn’t clear what is the best way to do that and how much help is needed. I would rather see small tweaks from time to time to the current system more so than any big changes that would decrease cap or star power or make stars all to easy to acquire.

Originally posted by Makaveli81
Has any consideration been put into increasing the salary cost of star players? Right now there is a super team problem in the game. There is about one team in every tier that is basically unbeatable. At least it's been that way for awhile.

Wow- 6 pages later... From the amount of conversation here it's clear lots of other people have noticed the same problem...and predictably the people who selfishly benefit from it are in opposition.

It's the ole- I suffered through it now make others suffer through it mentality. https://imgur.com/BiyN0fx

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
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...

This is an even better idea than your last.

Users A, B, C, D should all band together and create their own super star armageddon team - This networking argument is backward thinking.

Really the goal of the game should be to maximize the numbers of team ownership. More teams = better game experience and investment.

If you can get 2-4 teams out of 4 users instead of 1 that is a win and should be the goal.

Originally posted by Makaveli81
Wow- 6 pages later... From the amount of conversation here it's clear lots of other people have noticed the same problem...and predictably the people who selfishly benefit from it are in opposition.

It's the ole- I suffered through it now make others suffer through it mentality. https://imgur.com/BiyN0fx



Suffered through what? It’s a game... if it was suffering they wouldn’t stick around. It is fun, learning, experimenting, meeting people. Limiting stars only hurts all of those areas of the game and that is the reason for the opposition. Not this suffering you speak of.

If this had anything to do with wanting new users to have to take the same path that the old heads had to take as some sort of right of passage or whatever then you wouldn’t be getting the old heads saying, “let’s make it easier to get stars”. If you read through the last several pages of this thread, even badly, you’d see the likes of myrik, Leos, and bodiddley suggesting making it easier to get more stars for everyone. These guys want competition. They just don’t want to sacrifice the diversity of the game to do it.

Look, I keep waiting for a good reason to limit the star power per team but all I am hearing in regards to this argument is posts like the 1 quoted that seem to try to take a jab at the old heads. Saying they selfishly benefit from it is ridiculous and you either don’t understand how the star system currently works (which I doubt) or you’ve convinced yourself that you can’t manage to make a few buddies on here and work together to put a team of 8-12 stars together. I am telling you, it’s not that hard.... If you can get even just 1 real life friend to play the game with you, the process becomes even that much easier.

But, taking jabs at people who openly share information about builds, gameplans, roster construction, etc. and arguing for limiting roster diversity, isn’t going to make it any easier to find people to work with.

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.

FLAWLESS VICTORY- FINISH HIM

Originally posted by Bretto007

Users A, B, C, D should all band together and create their own super star armageddon team - This networking argument is backward thinking.

Really the goal of the game should be to maximize the numbers of team ownership. More teams = better game experience and investment.

If you can get 2-4 teams out of 4 users instead of 1 that is a win and should be the goal.

Studies have shown, and as has been the case here, the long term players of an MMO are generally users with social investments. Friends, guilds, teams are typically what make people stay around. Most of the well known solo team heroes have moved on at this point, and the people left are the people that network and work together. If the impetus to recruit other players' superstars into your team is diminished by limiting the number of stars, then those players are less likely to network and less likely to become those long term players with social investment.

What is interesting, to me, is the strategic implications and overall "feel" of superstars on a team. A whole team of stars, for example, would basically remove the strategic option of where you place your stars, and would just "feel" silly that every player on your team is a superstar. I do feel like a third of your team being superstars is teetering on the edge of being too much, both from a strategic and feel perspective.

But regardless, pointing to number of superstars on a team being the reason new users get crushed is just the old hat argument of attaching "helps new users" to whatever your current pet peeve is. We could remove superstars from the game completely and new users would still get crushed by 100 points a game.

Originally posted by Bretto007

Users A, B, C, D should all band together and create their own super star armageddon team - This networking argument is backward thinking.

Really the goal of the game should be to maximize the numbers of team ownership. More teams = better game experience and investment.

If you can get 2-4 teams out of 4 users instead of 1 that is a win and should be the goal.



Unless user A B C and D are new users. We see it every season, newbie buys team, keeps it for a season or 2 and then goes inactive after losing ALOT of games early.

The goal of the game should be to create an easy entry point for new users and provide the tools for them to learn and develop so that they can create a mildly competitive team quickly. The balance of how competitive and how quickly are the real issues.

We don’t want a new user to be able to buy a team on day 1 and beat the mountaineers right away. We would get very bored very quickly with that. But we also don’t want a new user to buy a team day 1 and lose the first 60 games they play which is basically what we have now (granted a little exaggerated). The sweetspot is small between not doing enough for new users and doing to much for them. But, we should try to get to that sweetspot. And honestly I think we are closer to it than most people think.

What I would advocate is that experienced user A B C D each find 2 or 3 new users and band together with them to create 4 superstar Armageddon teams and at the same time help the new users learn the game.

Originally posted by Corndog
Studies have shown, and as has been the case here, the long term players of an MMO are generally users with social investments. Friends, guilds, teams are typically what make people stay around. Most of the well known solo team heroes have moved on at this point, and the people left are the people that network and work together. If the impetus to recruit other players' superstars into your team is diminished by limiting the number of stars, then those players are less likely to network and less likely to become those long term players with social investment.

This is helpful. So the admin concern of increasing agent S* creation capabilities would then lie with there being more solo teams. Perhaps allow infinite S* player creation (as long as enough S* points are available, and let them roll over), but make it so any single agent can only sign a max of 3 S* players to a team which would force networking more.

I am certainly not saying that all players on a team should be S* players. Keep the cap and system that currently exists in place. With people able to make more S* players and forcing other S* players to play for other teams, it would drive more networking and perhaps more team forum conversation by those coaching the teams when they have questions.

Originally posted by Hzachary1
Unless user A B C and D are new users. We see it every season, newbie buys team, keeps it for a season or 2 and then goes inactive after losing ALOT of games early.

The goal of the game should be to create an easy entry point for new users and provide the tools for them to learn and develop so that they can create a mildly competitive team quickly. The balance of how competitive and how quickly are the real issues.

We don’t want a new user to be able to buy a team on day 1 and beat the mountaineers right away. We would get very bored very quickly with that. But we also don’t want a new user to buy a team day 1 and lose the first 60 games they play which is basically what we have now (granted a little exaggerated). The sweetspot is small between not doing enough for new users and doing to much for them. But, we should try to get to that sweetspot. And honestly I think we are closer to it than most people think.

What I would advocate is that experienced user A B C D each find 2 or 3 new users and band together with them to create 4 superstar Armageddon teams and at the same time help the new users learn the game.

What would probably be a good thing is a mentor system where older users can help newer users. I'm not sure how much actual interest there would be in that, though, and it would be a pretty significant leap of faith that it would work out.