Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
It's the risk you take when signing agents to your team. If we are going to negate all risk, then why in the hell use various agents to build said team and instead just allow us to to make single player teams, just saying.

You're like, arguing against your own point.

You could already make one user teams with no risk of the team blowing up because of an inactive. People have been doing that for years. If that is the thing you have a problem with, why are you also mad about toning down and/or removing risk for multiuser teams?

Like, you're pearl clutching about one user teams being easier (they always were?), but are also ranting about a change that makes multiple user teams have less inherent risk in comparison. I don't know what kind of response you're looking for.

I am just now chiming into this, and I get both sides.

Xars is not wrong, it gives a major advantage to single-owner teams because they usually can afford to replace a star player lost. Myrik is explaining exactly why it can be a bigger impact on owners that have money to afford to pay for this.

I agree that maybe the play knowledge shouldn't come with the dot. You still lost a player, you now get to replace the exact build (replacing the exact build is the most important factor, anyone that doesn't think it is really doesn't understand this game.) without chemistry loss. No chemistry loss part I really do like, it fixes the problem teams have had with replacing dots. We all know chemistry is extremely important.

Now let's just be honest, everyone and I mean everyone has been begging for a solution for this and now we have it.


Corndog, I think maybe making it where the owner of the team can select to send an "invite" to an agent that wants to be on the team and pay the flex to do it would be an awesome option and fix the real concerns left.

Would this fix the issue for everyone? allowing single owners to use it as always and allowing for owners that dont have the money/flex to be able to get another agent to help them.

Originally posted by dredgar
I am just now chiming into this, and I get both sides.

Xars is not wrong, it gives a major advantage to single-owner teams because they usually can afford to replace a star player lost.

Except that literally makes no sense. How is a single agent team replacing his own inactive players on his own team? And how does that give a major advantage?

Originally posted by dredgar
I am just now chiming into this, and I get both sides.

Xars is not wrong, it gives a major advantage to single-owner teams because they usually can afford to replace a star player lost. Myrik is explaining exactly why it can be a bigger impact on owners that have money to afford to pay for this.

I agree that maybe the play knowledge shouldn't come with the dot. You still lost a player, you now get to replace the exact build (replacing the exact build is the most important factor, anyone that doesn't think it is really doesn't understand this game.) without chemistry loss. No chemistry loss part I really do like, it fixes the problem teams have had with replacing dots. We all know chemistry is extremely important.

Now let's just be honest, everyone and I mean everyone has been begging for a solution for this and now we have it.


Corndog, I think maybe making it where the owner of the team can select to send an "invite" to an agent that wants to be on the team and pay the flex to do it would be an awesome option and fix the real concerns left.

Would this fix the issue for everyone? allowing single owners to use it as always and allowing for owners that dont have the money/flex to be able to get another agent to help them.

I really like the play knowledge coming with the player. Things like Scholar are completely turned off if you don't take the full build. While I don't really like that the owner is the only one that can copy the inactive player, it's still a decent solution.

I mean, if the dude goes inactive mid-season and the owner cannot duplicate the player for a significant portion of the season, isn't the fact that the inactive is not spending enough XP still penalty enough.

You guys opposing this make no sense at all to me. If you want to discuss the ways that the new mechanic can be exploited, that would be a different argument. However, doing so would come at a hefty cost to the team owner which is penalty enough IMO.

However, for those of us not looking to do so and viewing this as a protective barrier from inactives, this is a Godsend.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
I mean, if the dude goes inactive mid-season and the owner cannot duplicate the player for a significant portion of the season, isn't the fact that the inactive is not spending enough XP still penalty enough.

You guys opposing this make no sense at all to me. If you want to discuss the ways that the new mechanic can be exploited, that would be a different argument. However, doing so would come at a hefty cost to the team owner which is penalty enough IMO.

Agreed. Quite frankly its still ho-hum to me and not really easy to exploit. I'd prefer to see upgrades in other areas - but not every season update will be a me friendly one.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
I mean, if the dude goes inactive mid-season and the owner cannot duplicate the player for a significant portion of the season, isn't the fact that the inactive is not spending enough XP still penalty enough.


However, for those of us not looking to do so and viewing this as a protective barrier from inactives, this is a Godsend.

My Mixology team got blown up right from the start with a S*LB going inactive and then blown up again by another loss of a LB. This option would of saved my team from being reset like I did. I would be willing to drop a quick $5 to fix this issue, so appreciate the addition to the game.

Also appreciate the devs trying something to fix some of the issues. Is it perfect? no, but it can still be useful for some teams. In the end, can't make everyone happy.

Hey how about allowing us to re-sign CPUs

Originally posted by Corndog
You're like, arguing against your own point.

You could already make one user teams with no risk of the team blowing up because of an inactive. People have been doing that for years. If that is the thing you have a problem with, why are you also mad about toning down and/or removing risk for multiuser teams?

Like, you're pearl clutching about one user teams being easier (they always were?), but are also ranting about a change that makes multiple user teams have less inherent risk in comparison. I don't know what kind of response you're looking for.

You're misunderstanding me. I think you all made a great solution, just went a tad too far with it as that there should be some risk is all. Hell, I was defending you guys for the first part of this.

Originally posted by dredgar
Myrik is explaining exactly why it can be a bigger impact on owners that have money to afford to pay for this.

I agree that maybe the play knowledge shouldn't come with the dot. You still lost a player, you now get to replace the exact build (replacing the exact build is the most important factor, anyone that doesn't think it is really doesn't understand this game.) without chemistry loss. No chemistry loss part I really do like, it fixes the problem teams have had with replacing dots. We all know chemistry is extremely important.

Now let's just be honest, everyone and I mean everyone has been begging for a solution for this and now we have it.





And this was the rest of what I was getting at.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I meant as everyone just buys a team and you get players included instead of signing agents to be on our teams like we currently do, you're misunderstanding me.

Uh...wut?

Originally posted by Corndog
Uh...wut?

lol

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I think you all made a great solution, just went a tad too far with it as that there should be some risk is all.

I guess my main question is why do you think there should be more risk to running teams with multiple agents as opposed to single agent teams? Why should the game disincentivize playing with other people?

Originally posted by Corndog
Uh...wut?

*sigh*

I was referencing an old debate idea on here where everyone gets a team full of players instead of just rolling a single dot for free, then you don't have to worry about signing agents for them to go inactive vs the current format we've had for years.

Originally posted by Corndog
I guess my main question is why do you think there should be more risk to running teams with multiple agents as opposed to single agent teams? Why should the game disincentivize playing with other people?

I like your solution, I just think that there should be some risk still involved is all... but if you're gonna do this you might as well not go half assed, just clone his stats and name too while your at it. The owner is paying for the dot isn't he?

Originally posted by bmg_3
Isn't that already an option? Buy a team and fill it entirely with your own players? Or am I missing the point?



This wasn't what I was talking about.

There was an idea floated on here a long time ago about just making this a game about being an owner where everyone would start with a team you'd pay a flat rate for it and all its players as a solution the agent going inactive issue we've had for years and years.

I guess I should've been more clear.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I like your solution, I just think that there should be some risk still involved is all...

I mean, that doesn't really answer the question, though. Why do you think there "should be some risk involved" for multiple agent teams compared to single agent teams? Like, I'm fundamentally not understanding that point. Why should it be riskier to run multiple agent teams if it doesn't have to be? Why should a multiplayer game have a deterrent from playing with other people?