Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog
Other rookies that are also either poorly built superstars from new players, or vets with coherent builds that are still better than theirs because they are on a full team built with a purpose and better coaching.

I'm failing to see where the "having a blast" comes in being the best player on a 3-25 CPU team ran by mostly CPU. I don't see how that is vastly different than the current experience.

Like I'm open to the idea. It's a simple and straightforward change to make. If it will have such a drastic effect as you say, it seems like a no brainer. Convince me how it's going to transform the new user experience in such a profound way.

Newcomers League.

(1)No Superstars on Rosters.

(2)Lock the Playbooks to the GLB2 default options.

(3)Auto-Generated Offers for accounts with less than 90 days would come from that league as priority.

(4)Settings 1-3 maintained for freshman and sophomore.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Narrative:
Those are essentially "city-league" rules - everyone who shows up plays.

Give the other 1/2 to rookie owner sign-ups both during the season and in the break.

Give 1/2 of the ownership spots to experienced owners who can point the league in the proper direction (you guys can cull the lists if you want) but you need someone to say hey enjoy this now enjoy learning keep in mind it will get more difficult. Primary objective is teaching the game to new people. A caretaker role and a different kind of coaching. Allowed as 2nd team purchase and signup point.
[Honestly was planning to run a similar team with Dredgar for Season 51 - just providing the offensive lineman and using Dred's lethal D play calling - Hzachary1 basically has a similar set up here - https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/4297 - giving build advice and tell noobs to open their builds so coaches can see etc.]

No more than 10 players 1/4 of the roster from experienced users(accounts over 180 days old). That still gives them some "skin in the game" but ensures it stays a learning league. Call them experienced users / vet users/ whatever but if we had to could enforce it by gentleman's agreement anyway.

You can basically keep these teams together after Sophomore as much as possible albeit more challenging as they move up the ladder.

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



I hope Cdog can at least see who thumbs up and down votes lmao, it's laughable and obvious you're thumbing your own shit Brett

Originally posted by Corndog
But like, I've said I'm open to the idea of limiting the number of superstars on a team. Like, multiple times.

Isn't this what cap space does?

Also Tydavis you rejected my non-superstar DE and have 9 superstars on your team, you're speaking from the choir to the choir

Originally posted by Corndog
What's not being grasped is no good realistic alternative has been put forth that will increase the number of users, because there likely isn't one. The format of this game is more than a decade old, and browser games haven't been taken serious by the majority of the market for most of that time. Everyone thinks whatever their current pet peeve is what is stopping the flood of new users from coming in, as if tweaking some specific value that's only relevant for playoff teams is the one thing keep this game from billions of users.

On enough of a time horizon everyone us is going to stop breathing , turn cold and die. Still eating healthy, getting regular exercise, not smoking 4 packs a day improve the odds of living longer dramatically.

I don't think you need a flood or even billions of users, if you create a little more parity for newcomers perhaps they shall stay a little longer. Aside from the time investment on setting up a separate league within the game universe what's the worst the could happen - you get an automatic reply of "hey we tried that before and it didn't work neener-neener" best case it starts slowly re-growing your user pool keeping guys around long enough to get addicted and a few more stay longer term.

I think things have gone off on a few tangents. The idea is to allow access to stars easier for new teams. Whether they be run by newbies or experienced agents. Newer agents would benefit the most, since they struggle at getting any, and that leaves a wide talent gap on their rosters.

The journey from Rookie to Vet becomes moot if you don't have a competitive roster, and that's a big reason why teams dropoff along the way. Add in that the free agent pool is empty and we can't make player at upper tiers, and you can see the problem when agents go inactive and spots can't be filled. I get Corndog's point about not wanting nothing but super teams, but even a modest boost would do wonders to competitive balance for the game. Rookie has been really fun the past 3 seasons and really competitive, largely because star players don't have much of an advantage at that level. But over time....it's becomes a significant gap.

I haven't nor do I ever envision myself being a team owner because of the fact that I don't want to spend flex getting abused by the super star teams. It doesn't seem fun and isn't worth the money and effort. Hurl insults at me but I think I represent most of the people who have visited the website and made the same observations and conclusions.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
I think things have gone off on a few tangents. The idea is to allow access to stars easier for new teams. Whether they be run by newbies or experienced agents. Newer agents would benefit the most, since they struggle at getting any, and that leaves a wide talent gap on their rosters.

The journey from Rookie to Vet becomes moot if you don't have a competitive roster, and that's a big reason why teams dropoff along the way. Add in that the free agent pool is empty and we can't make player at upper tiers, and you can see the problem when agents go inactive and spots can't be filled. I get Corndog's point about not wanting nothing but super teams, but even a modest boost would do wonders to competitive balance for the game. Rookie has been really fun the past 3 seasons and really competitive, largely because star players don't have much of an advantage at that level. But over time....it's becomes a significant gap.

So you are interested in more parity so long as you and others in your situation benefit from the parity a little more than others?

Originally posted by BoDiddley
I think things have gone off on a few tangents. The idea is to allow access to stars easier for new teams. Whether they be run by newbies or experienced agents. Newer agents would benefit the most, since they struggle at getting any, and that leaves a wide talent gap on their rosters.

The journey from Rookie to Vet becomes moot if you don't have a competitive roster, and that's a big reason why teams dropoff along the way. Add in that the free agent pool is empty and we can't make player at upper tiers, and you can see the problem when agents go inactive and spots can't be filled. I get Corndog's point about not wanting nothing but super teams, but even a modest boost would do wonders to competitive balance for the game. Rookie has been really fun the past 3 seasons and really competitive, largely because star players don't have much of an advantage at that level. But over time....it's becomes a significant gap.

Look I don't think you are a bad guy - or that your intentions are poor, you are just 100% going in the wrong direction in terms of your proposed solution - that's not so much even an opinion as much as observation based on pretty much all of human recorded history.

Value is created by want and scarcity. Playing a game has value - I spend money Corndog and Bort et all give me relaxation etc via GLB2. Increasing the supply of Superstar players will further drive down their value which by definition also lowers the value of every inferior good in this case "normal" players who become minions -if they are not somewhat there already.

Alpha Test wise, from my understanding, most of the discussion was 3-4 Superstars per 43 man roster depending on organization. As soon as most of the best teams figured out the conditioning and roster combo's to go 10 on a 36 man roster - that meant that roughly 30% of the roster is Superstar, 70% is normal. There is no real path for a normal player to be a standout on a champion caliber roster - it devalues them. SuperStars make up roughly 50% of the starters on a champion caliber team.

People play GLB for all kinds of reasons. None the less, universally, people want their player to have value to the team. They are far more likely to create players that have a realistic chance of standing out rather than those who are simply minion support to super star laden teams. It increases the value of every player if only 8-9% are Superstars.

Originally posted by william78
- Hzachary1 basically has a similar set up here - https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/4297 - giving build advice and tell noobs to open their builds so coaches can see etc.]



Thanks for the shout out.
To be honest though, I bought that team mid season, turned on auto fill roster, made a few players, sent a couple of contracts to players on inactive teams, and made a post in the team forum that I make for all of my teams. It isn’t exactly the greatest example of what you are talking about. But I do plan to keep the team for a couple of more seasons and possibly doing something similar to what you are talking about.

Originally posted by william78
Look I don't think you are a bad guy - or that your intentions are poor, you are just 100% going in the wrong direction in terms of your proposed solution - that's not so much even an opinion as much as observation based on pretty much all of human recorded history.

Value is created by want and scarcity. Playing a game has value - I spend money Corndog and Bort et all give me relaxation etc via GLB2. Increasing the supply of Superstar players will further drive down their value which by definition also lowers the value of every inferior good in this case "normal" players who become minions -if they are not somewhat there already.

Alpha Test wise, from my understanding, most of the discussion was 3-4 Superstars per 43 man roster depending on organization. As soon as most of the best teams figured out the conditioning and roster combo's to go 10 on a 36 man roster - that meant that roughly 30% of the roster is Superstar, 70% is normal. There is no real path for a normal player to be a standout on a champion caliber roster - it devalues them. SuperStars make up roughly 50% of the starters on a champion caliber team.

People play GLB for all kinds of reasons. None the less, universally, people want their player to have value to the team. They are far more likely to create players that have a realistic chance of standing out rather than those who are simply minion support to super star laden teams. It increases the value of every player if only 8-9% are Superstars.



william78- to summarize your position - you are advocating for a solution that would decrease the number of stars on a roster. Sound right?


Originally posted by william78
- Hzachary1 basically has a similar set up here - https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/4297 - giving build advice and tell noobs to open their builds so coaches can see etc.]

No offense but that team will get curb stomped by a double digit star team

Originally posted by Bretto007
william78- to summarize your position - you are advocating for a solution that would decrease the number of stars on a roster. Sound right?



Yes.

(1a)Either by force - setting a higher hard limit than currently imposed by the salary cap.
(1b)Or by encouragement ie creating a disgruntled stars adverse effect on usage that makes owners less likely to gobble them up.

-or-

(2)Spot Newbie teams a SuperStar/heavy tactics free environment for a couple seasons and increase the number of players who may "live to see" the superstar eligibility.

I think any of the 3 would be an improvement. If it's going to be a reduction though(as in the 1st two), I think they should phase it in - give people who've already invested time to play it out on the current system.

Doesn't necessarily need to be the solution I want - but I would like to see a solution and increasing the supply is the only thing I'm sure will actually make the problem worse, it'll drive down the value of normal players so far that only well resourced and networked owners will have "normal" minions to fill out their roster. It'll be their 11 SuperStars and 25 human boosted players vs. guy B's 11 SuperStars and 25 unboosted or 11 and 25 cpu's.

I would like to see whatever solution they use, if they implement one , to still allow some team design creativity - since some styles require different types of superstars than others.

Originally posted by william78
So you are interested in more parity so long as you and others in your situation benefit from the parity a little more than others?
Huh? To be clear, I actually run teams with zero stars players, and offer players to teams when they don't need S*(cause again..I only have 3).

I've been playing since GLB1, and seen people come and go. My hope is for the game to be strong, because otherwise what's the point of playing, yes? It's not about parity, it's about how tough it is for many to get stars on their teams right now. I could easily just keep quiet and blow teams out, but would rather see more competition. But if that's not desirable, so be it.

Originally posted by william78
Look I don't think you are a bad guy - or that your intentions are poor, you are just 100% going in the wrong direction in terms of your proposed solution - that's not so much even an opinion as much as observation based on pretty much all of human recorded history.

Value is created by want and scarcity. Playing a game has value - I spend money Corndog and Bort et all give me relaxation etc via GLB2. Increasing the supply of Superstar players will further drive down their value which by definition also lowers the value of every inferior good in this case "normal" players who become minions -if they are not somewhat there already.

Alpha Test wise, from my understanding, most of the discussion was 3-4 Superstars per 43 man roster depending on organization. As soon as most of the best teams figured out the conditioning and roster combo's to go 10 on a 36 man roster - that meant that roughly 30% of the roster is Superstar, 70% is normal. There is no real path for a normal player to be a standout on a champion caliber roster - it devalues them. SuperStars make up roughly 50% of the starters on a champion caliber team.

People play GLB for all kinds of reasons. None the less, universally, people want their player to have value to the team. They are far more likely to create players that have a realistic chance of standing out rather than those who are simply minion support to super star laden teams. It increases the value of every player if only 8-9% are Superstars.


You're talking like this is S15 as opposed to how things are in S50. Go to the Team looking for players section....there are no stars for new teams. Not by networking anyway, and certainly not for new, unknown owners. So they go the non-S* route, and by mid-Journeyman getting blowout weekly. And when an agent goes inactive, good luck filling that roster spot.

If you want to make it hard to have lots of S* players, go for it. I'm just trying to help bring some life back in the game, we didn't even have a Pro tier this season. I will point out that agents aren't more likely to create players if they can't compete. Teams aren't likely to make it to Vet if they lose all the time by 20+. If you're worried about the value of normal players, then buff high contracts.

Originally posted by themanbeast123
Isn't this what cap space does?

Also Tydavis you rejected my non-superstar DE and have 9 superstars on your team, you're speaking from the choir to the choir

You’ve never offered for the current Deadman? Also I started Deadman with 3 stars. I watched CPU leagues & league games to find the rest of those. And I have already said I don’t really enjoy an over abundance of stars, I should’ve kept some depth.

As far as the Deadman reset, I actually have a guy building most of the positions. I’ve literally only recruited stars (which in the post I even said I don’t really want too much), whatever he doesn’t build I’ll either build or open up to everyone else.

I think if a new player is on a team with a vet owner or vet GM that isn’t already spread thin with other teams but instead a vet with his sole attention or atleast majority of attention on that new players team, then that new player can have a good experience from rookie to vet.

What the new player or (even better) new players on the team need to have is a clear understanding of what to expect on the way up and they need to be told from the beginning. They are going to lose games and probably a lot of games by a lot of points from end of Jman and beyond, they aren’t going to have the star power needed, there builds are going to be atleast a little off if they don’t take the advice of the vet from creation to final sp spent, if they are coaching at all they are going to struggle and need to be able to ask the vet questions and take the advice given, and players on the roster are probably going to go inactive at some point and you will need to do what you can to replace them.

By the time you get to Vet for a season or 2 you are bound to have a few agents that stuck around for all the right reasons. Those agents may have took to coaching 1 side of the ball or another, they may have built enough players to start to provide stars, or they may be a guy who likes to do write ups in the team and league forum. Every time this is done successfully we gain a new member of the community who can contribute in 1 form or another.

This method isn’t fail proof and sometimes the team might not make it to vet with any of the original members. That has to be understood by the vet going into it. It is an act of faith with an understanding that it will benefit everyone when it does work out.

Originally posted by TyDavis315
You’ve never offered for the current Deadman? Also I started Deadman with 3 stars. I watched CPU leagues & league games to find the rest of those. And I have already said I don’t really enjoy an over abundance of stars, I should’ve kept some depth.

As far as the Deadman reset, I actually have a guy building most of the positions. I’ve literally only recruited stars (which in the post I even said I don’t really want too much), whatever he doesn’t build I’ll either build or open up to everyone else.

So because 9 superstars didn't work for you, it shouldn't work for anyone? I very rarely see S* QB and RB... I think because it costs so much but not sure. I offerd you a DE last season and you said you only wanted superstars

Your arugments just seem so hypocritical when I go to your team page and it's stacked with superstars and has CPUs and guys on low contracts to be able to afford them.

You're no Migos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_xWDAbnBSU&ab_channel=MigosVEVO