Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
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

If star players are the least important why does your team Blood, Sweat & Beers need 11 stars? That twice the amount of any other team in your league. It's no wonder you are undefeated and embarrassing the other teams in that league.

If you think its coaching and builds then show us. Do a no star team.

Originally posted by Bretto007
If star players are the least important why does your team Blood, Sweat & Beers need 11 stars? That twice the amount of any other team in your league. It's no wonder you are undefeated and embarrassing the other teams in that league.

If you think its coaching and builds then show us. Do a no star team.



I have Assisted Living in the same tier that has 8 losses. Has some non-boosters and many builds that are not ideal. Only 3 stars and they are lacking some fundamental build stuff as well.

They won a rookie ship with mostly CPUs and picked up a bunch of random players the past offseason.

Would have no issues rocking a non-S* team though to be honest. I am sure it would be just fine.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
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.

I don't disagree with you there. I would argue that roster talent is one the biggest reason for this. When teams from different tiers play, we see this all the time. Not that coaching isn't important or even arguably #1, but talent is critical

Messing with morale will only enable teams to invest less in those skills, penalize those who did, and weaker teams would be the ones giving up leads.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
I don't disagree with you there. I would argue that roster talent is one the biggest reason for this. When teams form different tiers play, we see this all the time.

Messing with morale will only enable teams to invest less in those skills, penalize those who did, and weaker teams would be the ones giving up leads.

Those teams would still have an advantage in the net morale battle that occurs throughout a game, the difference just would not be as great. The team with the morale advantage still has that advantage overall, it would theoretically just limit the ability of a total steamrolling against teams.

Originally posted by Bretto007
If star players are the least important why does your team Blood, Sweat & Beers need 11 stars? That twice the amount of any other team in your league. It's no wonder you are undefeated and embarrassing the other teams in that league.

If you think its coaching and builds then show us. Do a no star team.



Why wouldn’t he get 11 stars if he can? Leos isn’t saying that they don’t matter at all, he is saying in his opinion they don’t matter as much a builds and coaching. The idea is to win and we all know competition gets tougher the higher you go. Just because he has more stars than the teams in his league now doesn’t mean he will by the time he gets to Vet.... Come on man..... The whole “trying to call out teams with a lot of stars to show it by creating a team with no stars“ thing is already getting annoying. Why would anyone feel the need to show anything to you? But let’s just say someone did want to “show it”, you lay out no framework for what someone would have to accomplish to “show it” to you. Would a team have to go undefeated like BSB? Would they have to beat all other non star teams in their league? Would they have to beat a non star team you are associated with? Or perhaps a team of yours with 3 stars? 12 stars?

I just don’t understand what you want them to do? They are saying stars aren’t the most important thing. You are basically insisting it is and asking them to build a team the way you want them to.... if you think stars are so important then go build a team with a few buddies and a bunch of stars. Or don’t. It’s up to you.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Those teams would still have an advantage in the net morale battle that occurs throughout a game, the difference just would not be as great. The team with the morale advantage still has that advantage overall, it would theoretically just limit the ability of a total steamrolling against teams.

I'm not sure why you feel morale is the overall reason for blowouts. It already takes an investment to even make it drain builds work as is, and it would be really weak if you nerfed it more.

Let me give you an example. This was a Vet game from last week. Two good coaches and squads. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/760260
^
Team Beta was up 27-7 on Kentucky in the 1st half. Kentucky's morale was very low as a result. Did Kentucky fold? No, being the superior team they proceeded to score 31 unanswered points. Props to Myrik, this was a great game and just a hardnosed battle between two quality squads.

Now lets say we messed with morale. Even if Team Beta had prevented the score right before the half, they would have been hardpressed to stop a Kentucky comeback if they got a morale boost. I just think it really messes with the fundamentals of the game, and bad squads won't capitalize on moral changes anyway.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
I'm not sure why you feel morale is the overall reason for blowouts. It already takes an investment to even make it drain builds work as is, and it would be really weak if you nerfed it more.

Let me give you an example. This was a Vet game from last week. Two good coaches and squads. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/760260
^
Team Beta was up 27-7 on Kentucky in the 1st half. Kentucky's morale was very low as a result. Did Kentucky fold? No, being the superior team they proceeded to score 31 unanswered points. Props to Myrik, this was a great game and just a hardnosed battle between two quality squads.

Now lets say we messed with morale. Even if Team Beta had prevented the score right before the half, they would have been hardpressed to stop a Kentucky comeback if they got a morale boost. I just think it really messes with the fundamentals of the game, and bad squads won't capitalize on moral changes anyway.

I am not sure that is a great example. Looking at the last TD before BETA got a TD and before KYM had the 92 yard return for a TD, the BETA offense did NOT have any real morale advantage over KYMs defense. Then looking at the play just before a KYM FG, the morale of KYM offense and BETA defense is about the same.

That game likely plays out pretty much the same if the morale floor is raised from 0 to 20-25. The possible variable would simply be the complete morale reset at half time which is certainly the part that I can understand arguing against.

Originally posted by Hzachary1
Why wouldn’t he get 11 stars if he can? Leos isn’t saying that they don’t matter at all, he is saying in his opinion they don’t matter as much a builds and coaching. The idea is to win and we all know competition gets tougher the higher you go. Just because he has more stars than the teams in his league now doesn’t mean he will by the time he gets to Vet.... Come on man..... The whole “trying to call out teams with a lot of stars to show it by creating a team with no stars“ thing is already getting annoying. Why would anyone feel the need to show anything to you? But let’s just say someone did want to “show it”, you lay out no framework for what someone would have to accomplish to “show it” to you. Would a team have to go undefeated like BSB? Would they have to beat all other non star teams in their league? Would they have to beat a non star team you are associated with? Or perhaps a team of yours with 3 stars? 12 stars?

I just don’t understand what you want them to do? They are saying stars aren’t the most important thing. You are basically insisting it is and asking them to build a team the way you want them to.... if you think stars are so important then go build a team with a few buddies and a bunch of stars. Or don’t. It’s up to you.

Sure. Win some Championships/Ladders and that would be evidence. Right now it is just opinion. I'm going off what I see and it's the double digit star squads pounding on everyone else. There really is no point to creating and being a team owner right now unless you can put a double digit star squad together. People without the stars are just cannon fodder sending their squad off to the slaughter.

Originally posted by Bretto007
Sure. Win some Championships/Ladders and that would be evidence. Right now it is just opinion. I'm going off what I see and it's the double digit star squads pounding on everyone else. There really is no point to creating and being a team owner right now unless you can put a double digit star squad together. People without the stars are just cannon fodder sending their squad off to the slaughter.



Like I said earlier, I liked your idea of an unboosted league. I don’t know how many people are interested, but if we could gather up 8-12 teams, plan on a season to do it, and get CD to put us all in the same rookie league that could be interesting if everyone could commit to making the full run.

Originally posted by Bretto007
Sure. Win some Championships/Ladders and that would be evidence. Right now it is just opinion. I'm going off what I see and it's the double digit star squads pounding on everyone else. There really is no point to creating and being a team owner right now unless you can put a double digit star squad together. People without the stars are just cannon fodder sending their squad off to the slaughter.



I've said it before already. People are more willing to commit S* players to quality coaches that know how to build great teams... I assure you that it has far less to do with the S* players than it does quality builds and coaching. S* players allow you to do other things with builds or just push quality build caps further. I personally tend to experiment a bit. BSB is running a full hybrid defense with both zone and man plays. Most would agree that ideal builds for them differ. We are also running more plays than any other team that I am aware of. However, the PBs and tactics are finely tuned. Player builds are mostly in compliance with where I would like them to be with a few things that are not perfectly ideal.

If I had a roster of planned normal builds, plenty of depth, and high contracts spread around, then I am sure the team would find its fair amount of success.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos

Would have no issues rocking a non-S* team though to be honest. I am sure it would be just fine.

If you do this I'll make you a dot or 2. Just hit me up

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
I've said it before already. People are more willing to commit S* players to quality coaches that know how to build great teams... I assure you that it has far less to do with the S* players than it does quality builds and coaching. S* players allow you to do other things with builds or just push quality build caps further. I personally tend to experiment a bit. BSB is running a full hybrid defense with both zone and man plays. Most would agree that ideal builds for them differ. We are also running more plays than any other team that I am aware of. However, the PBs and tactics are finely tuned. Player builds are mostly in compliance with where I would like them to be with a few things that are not perfectly ideal.

If I had a roster of planned normal builds, plenty of depth, and high contracts spread around, then I am sure the team would find its fair amount of success.

Could that roster beat your current roster of 11 star players?

Originally posted by drake262
If you do this I'll make you a dot or 2. Just hit me up

I could theoretically reset Assisted Living at any time.

Doubtful that it will be this offseason if I do it though.

Originally posted by Bretto007
Could that roster beat your current roster of 11 star players?

Probably not, but if things fell right at this stage, it would not be impossible. AL played one game against BSB relatively close and got smoked in the other this season and the AL roster is far from being quality.

Hell, AL has wins against teams with more and better S* players (those builds aren't the best either).

As a thought experiment I would be interested in seeing someone put together a realistic example of the perceived timeline to championship success for a new user. Including all the pit falls that can potentially make the user quit the game.

Something along these lines-

Season 1. Spend $10. Receive 1200 flex points. Create 1 player at each tier. Players signed to CPU teams. Players receive low playing time and are put out of position. Attempt to contact help. No response. Attempt to read forums for build advice but no search function exists. Quit at end of season because of frustration.

ect ect