Warrior General Games

Originally posted by BoDiddley

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.

I agree you are trying to help that said your solution will have the opposite effect you intend. I've been to the forums you are mentioning, I carefully assessed current state of play before deciding to come back. I'm not treating it like it's season 15 or 5 - I'm aware of the issues and I really do hear what you are saying - but you are not the only person whose tried that solution on a problem simply increasing supply won't improve the situation - I guarantee you it'll make it worse.

Making the minions slightly less inferior isn't a solution. There is only 1 football in motion. I dare say, when someone creates a WR they are thinking about posting a 1,000 yard season - or - creating a DE they are thinking perhaps 10 sacks in league play - along with , of course , not getting blown out. Those are all about user-experience. The higher the per player user experience is valued - the more players will play the game and the more players will be created. I'm willing to bet you still remember fondly your first GLB1 100 yard game or 3 TD game. Will everyone get there? Of course not but the chance is greatly lessened by having to compete against superior players. Simply changing the ratio to 30/70 will devalue them more even if you make them slightly less inferior goods. That'll create even more blowouts - not less - simply because people will create fewer and fewer normal players.

Some very smart and well intentioned people have tried what you are proposing in one form or another in various industries - from city planners with some ill conceived housing developments to the guys at blackberry and even the AFL if you want to make it more football. Dumping additional supply of a superior good into a market on a dwindling demand curve destroys value of all classes of products. A brand new BMW runs about 50K give or take a Volkswagen Jetta about 30-35K. BMW certainly has the superior brand value. Imagine what would happen if BMW flooded the market by dipping their price point to 35. Two things would happen, people would value the Jetta less, its an inferior good either they dip the price down to 25 or they go out of business. Many people would also value the BMW less , it costs them less, while some would pocket the money for vacation/house etc.. many would simply look at what other high end models are now available in the 50K price range.

In a nut shell you increase the supply of the superior good people most want - you'll end up devaluing both. You restrict the supply both will have more value - they cannot move in opposite directions without an accompanying price shift on one or the other. Cap SS players and I'd be willing to bet even the "newbies" will have an easier time attracting them for competitive balance. Add in some play calling parity and the idea of a shrinking user-base may not be something you are discussing as the "current" situation.

I believe whether more S* players are available or if we place a max of 7-8 S* guys (not really on board with going down to 3) are two different means to accomplishing the same thing. However, there are simply not enough 10+ S* rostered teams for the trimming of S* allotment there to allow for a S* player trickle to the next tier of owners/coaches.

I am not sure that regular player values are diminished with even a stacked roster. I suppose it likely depends on where you allocate S* resources on a roster though.

The only player that I had to create for BSB on this run was a single WR. He has two S* receivers on the roster. His numbers are doing alright. I have a S* DT and two non-S* DTs on the roster. The S* is obviously doing better HOF wise, but the normal DTs are sharing snaps fairly evenly and putting up decent stats for DTs.

The one area where I went one too heavy on depth was LB. I created the roster with 5 of them (2 S*s). In my defense, I am running a hybrid defense that utilizes both man and zone plays and wanted to ensure that I had depth there over CB. Probably should have flipped that.

Even with all of the S* power emphasis that I placed on defense, running a hybrid defense requires differing skills and our guys may not hit the ideal skill caps in all areas.

Lessening S* power limits the variety of things you can attempt as a team concept IMO. Sure, you can build full on meta players with S*s. However, the real excitement of them for me is building in secondary or tertiary functions. To do this, it often requires S* players and being able to fill enough throughout positional groups as many builds simply require certain skill caps to be hit to be effective.

Limiting S* numbers on rosters really limits the experimentation that I can do with my teams, and I am not a fan of that at all. However, I am probably one of the few that always tries to add different twists on to builds to still push what you can do roster wise.

Edit: If S* player numbers do get lessened though, soph+ teams have to be grandfathered in and allowed to play through their run with what they have. As has already been mentioned, people simply cannot find replacement players these days. Not to mention, my teams are built to accomplish specific functional roles and if I did find a replacement, they would not match up with what we are doing.

Originally posted by william78
I agree you are trying to help that said your solution will have the opposite effect you intend. I've been to the forums you are mentioning, I carefully assessed current state of play before deciding to come back. I'm not treating it like it's season 15 or 5 - I'm aware of the issues and I really do hear what you are saying - but you are not the only person whose tried that solution on a problem simply increasing supply won't improve the situation - I guarantee you it'll make it worse.

Making the minions slightly less inferior isn't a solution. There is only 1 football in motion. I dare say, when someone creates a WR they are thinking about posting a 1,000 yard season - or - creating a DE they are thinking perhaps 10 sacks in league play - along with , of course , not getting blown out. Those are all about user-experience. The higher the per player user experience is valued - the more players will play the game and the more players will be created. I'm willing to bet you still remember fondly your first GLB1 100 yard game or 3 TD game. Will everyone get there? Of course not but the chance is greatly lessened by having to compete against superior players. Simply changing the ratio to 30/70 will devalue them more even if you make them slightly less inferior goods. That'll create even more blowouts - not less - simply because people will create fewer and fewer normal players.

Some very smart and well intentioned people have tried what you are proposing in one form or another in various industries - from city planners with some ill conceived housing developments to the guys at blackberry and even the AFL if you want to make it more football. Dumping additional supply of a superior good into a market on a dwindling demand curve destroys value of all classes of products. A brand new BMW runs about 50K give or take a Volkswagen Jetta about 30-35K. BMW certainly has the superior brand value. Imagine what would happen if BMW flooded the market by dipping their price point to 35. Two things would happen, people would value the Jetta less, its an inferior good either they dip the price down to 25 or they go out of business. Many people would also value the BMW less , it costs them less, while some would pocket the money for vacation/house etc.. many would simply look at what other high end models are now available in the 50K price range.

In a nut shell you increase the supply of the superior good people most want - you'll end up devaluing both. You restrict the supply both will have more value - they cannot move in opposite directions without an accompanying price shift on one or the other. Cap SS players and I'd be willing to bet even the "newbies" will have an easier time attracting them for competitive balance. Add in some play calling parity and the idea of a shrinking user-base may not be something you are discussing as the "current" situation.



This isn't an industry, it's a game, lol. Some agents like to coach, others like to build, yet others like to own, and then you have those who like all of the above. You seem to think increasing the "value" of non-S* players as the end all, it's not. No one wants "play call parity", not even sure how one would implement. If anything, users want more control, tactics, etc. And again, if you want to increase the value of non-S* players, simply increase the buff to high contracts, and the effects of Stamina. That creates a cost/reward that owners have to weigh. Xars pushed that long ago and the Devs did make stamina more important than it used to be.

The point with newbies isn't to coddle them, it's just to shorten the grind to getting S* players which can take literally half a year. And to help new teams that reset field competitive rosters that actually go all the way to Vet.

Bro people coming out of the woodwork for this one lol.

I may be wrong here, but I believe Bo suggested users to be able to create more S*. The effect intended being that there is more opportunity to compete on a level playing field (being that there are less obstacles for competitive entry).

Will, I hate to break it to you but this issue isn't economical.

Originally posted by william78
Dumping additional supply of a superior good into a market on a dwindling demand curve destroys value of all classes of products.

Just to entertain the economic argument, I'll provide a counterpoint. So with your thought process there are two products, and the superior product is a superstar. I would argue that this method of thinking is flawed in that the ultimate product is the team. In order to field a team you need non-superstar players. However, you don't need superstars. That is how the cap space works - you can't field a team of only superstars.

By increasing the amount of superstars available to build I would argue that it would actually force more people to create non-superstars to fill the teams their superstars are going to be housed.

Originally posted by william78
That'll create even more blowouts - not less - simply because people will create fewer and fewer normal players.

I think you're missing the fact that YOUR team gets better too by having superstar builds, not just the opposition. Also, FWIW, I don't understand the stats argument either. If less S* can be on a team, then there will be more players on a team (more than 36), which would inherently mean less stats to go around for all.

This will hopefully be the last 0.02 I throw in on this topic. GLB2 is a great game and I've enjoyed it. I know if I could create more S* than 1 per tier I would have had more than one team at a time. Every season I tinker with different roster formulations but end up having to wait 8 months to create. I think even most of our vet runs have ended early because of my itch to create something new. I'm probably not alone in that. That being said, I don't see a feasible change to the game that puts a larger cap on superstars than the salary cap has already (especially after the salary by tier was removed). The old saying still remains (with applicable alteration), maybe I should coin it in my signature at this point: Fix ur builds (rosters) to the sim (game), not the game to your builds.

Originally posted by o The Boss x
I think you're missing the fact that YOUR team gets better too by having superstar builds, not just the opposition. Also, FWIW, I don't understand the stats argument either. If less S* can be on a team, then there will be more players on a team (more than 36), which would inherently mean less stats to go around for all.

This will hopefully be the last 0.02 I throw in on this topic. GLB2 is a great game and I've enjoyed it. I know if I could create more S* than 1 per tier I would have had more than one team at a time. Every season I tinker with different roster formulations but end up having to wait 8 months to create. I think even most of our vet runs have ended early because of my itch to create something new. I'm probably not alone in that. That being said, I don't see a feasible change to the game that puts a larger cap on superstars than the salary cap has already (especially after the salary by tier was removed). The old saying still remains (with applicable alteration), maybe I should coin it in my signature at this point: Fix ur builds (rosters) to the sim (game), not the game to your builds.

Pretty much what I was saying earlier. People get excited to build their S* players and there is a cost associated with it as you have to still build plenty of non-S* slots. The easiest S* point to gain required 10 seasons cumulative to get the point. If you can create more S* players when a S* is already made, why not crank out some more non-S* guys for a team that you never would have supported before? Get that S* point while your team is still in Jman tier? No problem, let's slap a S* player on some random rookie squad that you never would have supported and may not have had many, if any S* players before.

Also, for you guys thinking having S* players alone is going to make teams more competitive, you are wrong again. The builds, play calling, and so on ultimately determine success.

Take a look here:
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/4176

Not picking on cavette or anything with this one as I like the guy. He is still learning the ropes, although further along than some others. He has 8 S* players on his roster. I have no idea what effort he may or may not have put in this season coaching, where builds are, or anything about the team. They are 16-12. What did they do against the better teams in the tier? Got beat by 30-40 points on multiple occasions. These point differentials would be worse if he was a complete rookie coach despite having all that S* power.

Much love cavette!!! You know I am here for you hoss!

Edit: Also going to point out these guys! Same tier, one of the better teams in the tier, and 0 S* players.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/roster/4257

Originally posted by o The Boss x
Will, I hate to break it to you but this issue isn't economical.

Originally posted by william78
Dumping additional supply of a superior good into a market on a dwindling demand curve destroys value of all classes of products.


Just to entertain the economic argument, I'll provide a counterpoint. So with your thought process there are two products, and the superior product is a superstar. I would argue that this method of thinking is flawed in that the ultimate product is the team. In order to field a team you need non-superstar players. However, you don't need superstars. That is how the cap space works - you can't field a team of only superstars.

By increasing the amount of superstars available to build I would argue that it would actually force more people to create non-superstars to fill the teams their superstars are going to be housed.

That's if you look at it from a team owner perspective rather than an individual agent who may not own a team perspective.

It's not a resource issue for me , I can happily field as many players as I want including I'll roll out as many SuperStar players via network I want.

That said - value while its an economic term applies to everything you do one way or another - whether you think it does or not.

Every action you take has some sort of value associated with it, do you spend the next 15 minutes:
1) Reading forum posts
2) Watching a game replay
3) Washing dishes so your wife doesn't say anything when she gets home

...any option you pick has a value and an associated cost with it. If the replay is you versus your arch rival in a big game option 2 would be more likely to be picked than others. It's of more value to you.

Video Game, Industry, House Work - Anything you do has value. More of it makes you value you what you already have less.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos


Limiting S* numbers on rosters really limits the experimentation that I can do with my teams, and I am not a fan of that at all. However, I am probably one of the few that always tries to add different twists on to builds to still push what you can do roster wise.

Edit: If S* player numbers do get lessened though, soph+ teams have to be grandfathered in and allowed to play through their run with what they have. As has already been mentioned, people simply cannot find replacement players these days. Not to mention, my teams are built to accomplish specific functional roles and if I did find a replacement, they would not match up with what we are doing.

RE #1- That's why I suggested a Superstar misuse penalty instead of an outright cap. As far as one of the few, was always one of my favorites as well- like trying to build an offense that was great going to the weak side - or a defense that generated pass rush down the A gap.

Agree totally on the Edit- Hard cap or any new system - I think it should be phased in perhaps a rookie experiment followed by rookie implementation then allow it to "flow up" through the tiers that way.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Take a look here:
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/4176

Not picking on cavette or anything with this one as I like the guy. He is still learning the ropes, although further along than some others. He has 8 S* players on his roster. I have no idea what effort he may or may not have put in this season coaching, where builds are, or anything about the team. They are 16-12. What did they do against the better teams in the tier? Got beat by 30-40 points on multiple occasions. These point differentials would be worse if he was a complete rookie coach despite having all that S* power.

Much love cavette!!! You know I am here for you hoss!

Edit: Also going to point out these guys! Same tier, one of the better teams in the tier, and 0 S* players.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/roster/4257

Yeah, a lot of what's going on here extrapolating the difference between two otherwise equally comparable teams all to the whole game. It happens in almost every discussion about balance in the game. Right now it's number of superstars on a team, next season it will be that a certain play is slightly better than another and now THAT is the sole reason that new players close up shop. The fact is, giving new users more things to screw up isn't going to drastically increase parity. Having a poorly built superstar isn't going to be drastically different than a poorly built normal player. It shifts the bar up but people getting stomped at the bottom will still be getting stomped at the bottom.

The cries for parity always ring hollow to me when they're coming from the top players. They want the illusion of parity but realistically want to be competing for the top ladder rank every season. If competitive games are a goal, put on self imposed limitations. Try hard with no superstars on your team. Avoid using the "best" plays. Force yourself to use a full playbook. If you want to have more competition and the average user can't get on your level, put yourself on their level. The reality is that the average user, by definition, isn't going to be winning titles and topping the ladder.

Like, if actual parity and "close games" is a real concern, I can throw in rubberbanding mechanics where teams in the lead play worse and teams that are losing play better.

Originally posted by Corndog
Like, if actual parity and "close games" is a real concern, I can throw in rubberbanding mechanics where teams in the lead play worse and teams that are losing play better.

for the love of all things holy, please do NOT do that. I completely agree with our post before this one. There is so much complaining but as soon as you do one thing there is more.

If my post offered you a different perspective then it has served its purpose, Will. I cannot follow your argument or perspective because it just states conclusions with no reasoning. An example of reasoning would be to APPLY what you just said to the issue at hand. I still have no idea why your player-agent perspective likes the cap on superstars.

Also, I understand what you're trying to say but I think you may be confusing value with opportunity cost. We can both agree that there's no such thing as a free lunch, though.

Originally posted by william78
It's not a resource issue for me , I can happily field as many players as I want including I'll roll out as many SuperStar players via network I want.

Except, as it stands right now, superstar creation actually is a limited resource. You (and those agents you purport to network with) can only create three superstars on your (or their) account(s).

Originally posted by Corndog
The cries for parity always ring hollow to me when they're coming from the top players.

In this case, the lower tier players complained about S* teams and want less S* per team. As a result, the top players have come to offer (since the original argument is b.s. and they know if they let it go without a response it may get implemented), as a solution, everyone should be able to build more superstars, to promote parity.

What was suggested was a fundamental change to the game, chemistry is already whack, so yeah, people are going to pipe up because they've seen what happens in the past if they don't.

To me the game has been pretty balanced for a while. The changes here and there spice it up, not completely rework it.

Originally posted by o The Boss x
If my post offered you a different perspective then it has served its purpose, Will. I cannot follow your argument or perspective because it just states conclusions with no reasoning. An example of reasoning would be to APPLY what you just said to the issue at hand. I still have no idea why your player-agent perspective likes the cap on superstars.

Also, I understand what you're trying to say but I think you may be confusing value with opportunity cost. We can both agree that there's no such thing as a free lunch, though.



Not really - I don't think I'm following the out of hand dismissal anymore than you are following the point I'm conveying.

It's not that limited - what I'm suggesting is the ratio has been off for a substantial length of time at least in terms of team composition.

1 in 10 is exceptional - Top 30% is actually just "above average".

Originally posted by Corndog
Like, if actual parity and "close games" is a real concern, I can throw in rubberbanding mechanics where teams in the lead play worse and teams that are losing play better.

I think I could actually get behind this. How it would be implemented would be important though as the implications in ladder/playoff games with the big dogs could be catastrophic if they were not carefully planned.

Perhaps a greater gravitational pull on morale when low is needed. Or maybe morale should bottom out at 20-25 instead of 0. I believe that morale has a huge impact in these games and with how successful plays are.

However, at the same time, this could also make people believe that their PBs/builds are better than they are. But if they stick around long enough, they could potentially improve them over time anyway.

I personally would like more randomness in games. A greater boost to play calling diversity. Increasing the minimum number of plays and lowering priority of plays from a 1-5 scale to a 1-3 scale.

More randomness is needed. Once the opponent has been crippled by morale, there is no recovering. At half time, the team leading gets a morale boost, while the losing team seems to pick up 20 or so points. Maybe morale should fully reset at half time.

Originally posted by Corndog
Like, if actual parity and "close games" is a real concern, I can throw in rubberbanding mechanics where teams in the lead play worse and teams that are losing play better.

It's about competitive rosters and viability going from Rookie to Vet, not having every team be the same. Rubberbanding is a gimmick and would ruin the game.

Hey, if people are fine with how the tiers look, so be it. People are offerings ideas in a suggestion topic, nothing more.

Originally posted by o The Boss x
In this case, the lower tier players complained about S* teams and want less S* per team. As a result, the top players have come to offer (since the original argument is b.s. and they know if they let it go without a response it may get implemented), as a solution, everyone should be able to build more superstars, to promote parity.

What was suggested was a fundamental change to the game, chemistry is already whack, so yeah, people are going to pipe up because they've seen what happens in the past if they don't.
Exactly this. Some of us just wanted to help out some of the teams that struggle to compete, but if that's not desired then cool. Didn't know a discussion about S* players would bring out so many negative jabs.