Warrior General Games

Originally posted by BoDiddley
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.

Hitting on what I was saying. I believe morale to be a key component in blowout games. Once a team has a 60-70 morale advantage, a blowout is coming. You see it all the time. Some team does reasonably well for the first quarter and everything snowballs. Raising the floor on the morale range and full morale resets at half time could really soften the blow and allow for more come from behind wins. Could also make for some more exciting/close games to watch.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
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.



I like all these.

Play Calling diversity would be something I would highly be in favor of.

Half time morale reset could be interesting as well - at least a chance for a Frank Reich comeback special

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Hitting on what I was saying. I believe morale to be a key component in blowout games. Once a team has a 60-70 morale advantage, a blowout is coming. You see it all the time. Some team does reasonably well for the first quarter and everything snowballs. Raising the floor on the morale range and full morale resets at half time could really soften the blow and allow for more come from behind wins. Could also make for some more exciting/close games to watch.

Eh, my rookie team was up 14-0 at the half and lost a chance at the playoffs by getting outscored 20-0 in the 2nd half. lol

I've seen plenty of comebacks, I don't see the benefit of effectively nullifying a good game plan just to keep scores close. Again, the goal is competitive rosters, not close scores every game. Even more, good luck to a weaker roster if they can get a lead on a tough squad, and then that squad gets a rubberband boost. Things won't end well for them.

As for morale, well teams need to invest in it. There are ways to temper morale loss, but it's up to agents to invest in those skills and SAs.

Originally posted by BoDiddley

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.


I'm not sure anyone took any negative jabs really.

As I said its not your motives I question or objected to just the end result. Certainly have done many things in my life that began with the best intentions that didn't work out the way I wanted to or actually made the situation worse.

I do get that you are thinking about team owners who've recently signed up trying to be more competitive - I'm thinking of the person who clicks on the facebook ad for GLB2 and how you get them to want to stay. Just because I strongly don't believe your idea will work and am confident it would inadvertently make things worse doesn't mean I don't think your heart is in the right place.

Originally posted by william78
I'm not sure anyone took any negative jabs really.

As I said its not your motives I question or objected to just the end result. Certainly have done many things in my life that began with the best intentions that didn't work out the way I wanted to or actually made the situation worse.

I do get that you are thinking about team owners who've recently signed up trying to be more competitive - I'm thinking of the person who clicks on the facebook ad for GLB2 and how you get them to want to stay. Just because I strongly don't believe your idea will work and am confident it would inadvertently make things worse doesn't mean I don't think your heart is in the right place.

Hmm, we don't have a Pro tier, and most new/reset teams can't recruit. I would say the current "end result" isn't great at the moment.

But like I said, these are just suggestions. We can keep going on as is.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Eh, my rookie team was up 14-0 at the half and lost a chance at the playoffs by getting outscored 20-0 in the 2nd half. lol

I've seen plenty of comebacks, I don't see the benefit of effectively nullifying a good game plan just to keep scores close. Again, the goal is competitive rosters, not close scores every game. Even more, good luck to a weaker roster if they can get a lead on a tough squad, and then that squad gets a rubberband boost. Things won't end well for them.

As for morale, well teams need to invest in it. There are ways to temper morale loss, but it's up to agents to invest in those skills and SAs.

I am speaking more toward games against lesser coaches and such. Morale spiral hits on both sides and it is a sack/fumble/INT and give up huge defensive yards fest once they are too deep in the hole because their PB and tactics have glaring holes. In reality, morale changes suggested would not allow them to win against a superior PB/tactic set up, but it may help them avoid having 60+ to 0 beat downs.

A quality game plan will always have more success when you are running plays that are statistically more successful against whatever they run.

Rookie ball is far easier to come back in a game as player skills are not good enough to have crazy consistency when running proper plays. However, when player builds separate AND going up against a top notch PB, things get really ugly.

Even in real games, there are times when you have a game plan that is working but you lose due to whatever reasoning. Whether the other team got a lucky turnover or whatever else which led to points. Or a freak play of some sort. The better game plan was there and the game should have been won, but sh*t happens sometimes. Majority of the time, a superior game plan is still going to win, just not by some outrageous score that makes the less experienced coach/owner think that they did nothing right.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Hmm, we don't have a Pro tier, and most new/reset teams can't recruit. I would say the current "end result" isn't great at the moment.

But like I said, these are just suggestions. We can keep going on as is.



It's there we agree. Idon't think status quo would accurately characterize any of the comments i made.

We agree on the need for new players Just not on the implementation.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
I am speaking more toward games against lesser coaches and such. Morale spiral hits on both sides and it is a sack/fumble/INT and give up huge defensive yards fest once they are too deep in the hole because their PB and tactics have glaring holes. In reality, morale changes suggested would not allow them to win against a superior PB/tactic set up, but it may help them avoid having 60+ to 0 beat downs.

A quality game plan will always have more success when you are running plays that are statistically more successful against whatever they run.

Rookie ball is far easier to come back in a game as player skills are not good enough to have crazy consistency when running proper plays. However, when player builds separate AND going up against a top notch PB, things get really ugly.

Even in real games, there are times when you have a game plan that is working but you lose due to whatever reasoning. Whether the other team got a lucky turnover or whatever else which led to points. Or a freak play of some sort. The better game plan was there and the game should have been won, but sh*t happens sometimes. Majority of the time, a superior game plan is still going to win, just not by some outrageous score that makes the less experienced coach/owner think that they did nothing right.

I feel if you change morale in this way, you penalize teams that invested in things like morale, heart, leadership, intimidation, and toughness. Along with SAs like Beat Down, Showboat, etc. I see more teams come back at the higher ranks than lower, and it's usually the superior team that fell behind but eventually got their stuff together in the 2nd half. Rubberbanding will only make things tougher on weaker teams, and gives a pass to teams that don't invest in morale.

As for blowouts, I would say we all learn more from looking at what went wrong in those games. See what went wrong and then adjust. That ability would be skewed with rubberbanding. Something like GLB Scout would be much less reliable.

Artificial things throw into a game not based on the coaches would ruin it for many. I know I would lose interest with that.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
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


This is a shit example. 95% of the team is inactive or CPU. This is actually a better example of the problems of forced networking and how players going inactive completely ruin your team. The team will never be able to find free agents to replace the inactive players and they will hence forth be punished with chemistry penalties. Another team owner bites the dust.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
I feel if you change morale in this way, you penalize teams that invested in things like morale, heart, leadership, intimidation, and toughness. Along with SAs like Beat Down, Showboat, etc. I see more teams come back at the higher ranks than lower, and it's usually the superior team that fell behind but eventually got their stuff together in the 2nd half. Rubberbanding will only make things tougher on weaker teams, and gives a pass to teams that don't invest in morale.

As for blowouts, I would say we all learn more from looking at what went wrong in those games. I know Dream Team got ran off the field by the Rebels this season 54-7. But having real data to look at, allowed me to make good adjustments and win in the 2nd meeting. That ability would be skewed with rubberbanding. Something like GLB Scout would be much less reliable.

Artificial things throw into a game not based on the coaches would ruin it for many. I know I would lose interest with that.


I am not even talking about rubber banding now. I am suggesting morale tweaks to assist with preventing those dominant games. My BSB squad effects would even be lessened with this suggestion. I built the team around draining morale/energy. Just something that I feel would be helpful with keeping games closer. BSB smoked some quality teams this season. I am sure that our game plans were not that much better than some other top teams. We simply got the morale edge on them.

I am not sure what the answer is. Just tossing out various ideas.

Originally posted by Bretto007

This is a shit example. 95% of the team is inactive or CPU. This is actually a better example of the problems of forced networking and how players going inactive completely ruin your team. The team will never be able to find free agents to replace the inactive players and they will hence forth be punished with chemistry penalties. Another team owner bites the dust.


My bad on that front. I am on mobile and did not see the inactives on Seattle. Still have a 0 S* team that is playing with the big boys.

Edit: Is this better? 8 Vet S* players and 17 current losses.
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/team/4088

Originally posted by Corndog
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.

There are 3 factors that go into a winning team.

1. Plays/Tactics
2. Builds
3. Stars

We can argue which one is the most important. I will say Stars is #1. You don't see any of the Vets on here jumping in to physically prove anyone wrong with their own squads so that is very telling.

A user can learn plays, tactics, and builds. They can't learn Stars.

Like Bo pointed out- it can take someone 12 months even get to their own 3 stars. Networking isn't really the answer because Stars are hoarded by vets and the userbase is small. Besides all it takes is networking with the wrong person and your team is ruined by inactives.

What is the harm with allowing people to create more stars? The game is already struggling to survive. Do nothing and bleed out more users. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying out a new method.

Originally posted by Bretto007
There are 3 factors that go into a winning team.

1. Plays/Tactics
2. Builds
3. Stars

We can argue which one is the most important. I will say Stars is #1. You don't see any of the Vets on here jumping in to physically prove anyone wrong with their own squads so that is very telling.

A user can learn plays, tactics, and builds. They can't learn Stars.

Like Bo pointed out- it can take someone 12 months even get to their own 3 stars. Networking isn't really the answer because Stars are hoarded by vets and the userbase is small. Besides all it takes is networking with the wrong person and your team is ruined by inactives.

What is the harm with allowing people to create more stars? The game is already struggling to survive. Do nothing and bleed out more users. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying out a new method.



Already tried to argue for allowing people to make unlimited S* players (as long as they fill their S* points). Just limit how many S* players a single agent can commit to a single team.

Not sure there was much interest in that concept though by CDog.

I do wholeheartedly disagree with your belief that S* players make the biggest difference.

1) Coaching
2) A close second is builds. Even quality coached teams with bad builds will get smoked by quality teams.
3) S* players

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
I am not even talking about rubber banding now. I am suggesting morale tweaks to assist with preventing those dominant games. My BSB squad effects would even be lessened with this suggestion. I built the team around draining morale/energy. Just something that I feel would be helpful with keeping games closer. BSB smoked some quality teams this season. I am sure that our game plans were not that much better than some other top teams. We simply got the morale edge on them.

I am not sure what the answer is. Just tossing out various ideas.

Yes, but again you built your team towards draining morale/energy, and that's a key element of any football game. You shouldn't be penalized just to have a team lose by 30 instead of 60. In critical games against equal opponents, these changes will loom large. Changing how morale works would fundamentally change the game.

Some things that could help.
-Easier access for new/resetting teams to S* talent. Doesn't have to be overkill, but right now the cupboard is bare(especially for newer owners)
-Allow agents to make player on any tier, because there are no free agents. And when someone goes inactive, that's usually not fixable.
-I'm a big fan of Osiris's PeeWee League suggestion. Could use the same system GLB1 does, and it allows newer coaches to jump right in on a season by season basis until they're comfortable making a Vet run.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Yes, but again you built your team towards draining morale/energy, and that's a key element of any football game. You shouldn't be penalized just to have a team lose by 30 instead of 60. In critical games against equal opponents, these changes will loom large. Changing how morale works would fundamentally change the game.

Some things that could help.
-Easier access for new/resetting teams to S* talent. Doesn't have to be overkill, but right now the cupboard is bare(especially for newer owners)
-Allow agents to make player on any tier, because there are no free agents. And when someone goes inactive, that's usually not fixable.
-I'm a big fan of Osiris's PeeWee League suggestion. Could use the same system GLB1 does, and it allows newer coaches to jump right in on a season by season basis until they're comfortable making a Vet run.



I don't know man. I do not need to have a +600 or greater yard differential against any agent IMO. But I do recognize that people want outrageous offense in this game.