Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
I do not believe that they would make a change like this to limit roster manipulation only to make another loophole that allows us to manipulate rosters...

Well then I am totally against this change.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
I do not believe that they would make a change like this to limit roster manipulation only to make another loophole that allows us to manipulate rosters...

This isnt about limiting roster manipulation, it is about playing several players and limiting PT for S*s, which could happen if they give us more control over subs.

I am literally saying I will sub out my S* HB for a FB.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
This isnt about limiting roster manipulation, it is about playing several players and limiting PT for S*s, which could happen if they give us more control over subs.

I am literally saying I will sub out my S* HB for a FB.

And by pumping conditioning to 100 for S* players, rosters are manipulated since they do not require depth behind them. The salary saved from not needing depth in one spot can be spent on adding another S* elsewhere or adding depth to a different position. There are reasons why various positions cannot be plugged in a depth chart elsewhere. FBs are much cheaper than HBs, why would anybody create a team with any HBs on the roster if they could plug FBs there?

What about QBs? You gonna roll with 2? You can kiss 4+ S*s on a team good bye.

I am not saying that it would not have its problems. Already mentioned my concerns with substitution frequencies. WRs would likely present another problem if a team runs 3WR formations too much. FBs can get shafted if single back formations are used. Is having 3 Gs enough to have them all keep from going over whatever play % threshold within a game? DEs, DTs, LBs and just about every position could have potential issues. If a change like this is made, I think that it can be good for the game but many things have to be given consideration if they are going to get it right. It could add another cool dimension to planning out rosters or it could be crushing depending on how it is done, if it is done...

It's crazy to me that glb2 was created in part for the reason that a smaller roster would allow for more stats and less need for ultimate depth and then that happens and people are worried that more depth needs to be needed.

Originally posted by bhall43
It's crazy to me that glb2 was created in part for the reason that a smaller roster would allow for more stats and less need for ultimate depth and then that happens and people are worried that more depth needs to be needed.



And then Bort/Cdog wrote code so that 100 Conditioning players regen Energy faster then they lose it.

The real problem is ultra-high Energy regen after each play for high Conditioning players.

I guess I'll have to make a suggestion that deals directly with that.

Originally posted by Xars
And then Bort/Cdog wrote code so that 100 Conditioning players regen Energy faster then they lose it.

The real problem is ultra-high Energy regen after each play for high Conditioning players.

I guess I'll have to make a suggestion that deals directly with that.



But, I don't see this as a problem. You plug those points into conditioning instead of other things. That's a choice, teams with more depth can sacrifice conditioning for more skill allowing them to specialize.

Originally posted by bhall43
It's crazy to me that glb2 was created in part for the reason that a smaller roster would allow for more stats and less need for ultimate depth and then that happens and people are worried that more depth needs to be needed.



agree.

being a backup isn't FUN.

playing 10-20 snaps a game isn't FUN

spending money on that player who plays 10-20 snaps a game definitely isn't fun

why move toward a game with more roles that aren't very fun?

I'm just curious how much fun it will be when there is only one team per tier made up of 38 S*.

Originally posted by Xars
I'm just curious how much fun it will be when there is only one team per tier made up of 38 S*.



Just cap the # of S* on a team and be done with it. All this other stuff might really screw up the game.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
Just cap the # of S* on a team and be done with it. All this other stuff might really screw up the game.

All S*s are different, so have a some S*s equal more.

Something like total number of S* points cannot exceed 20

Ex:
HB(3) + WR(2) + DT(1) + DT(1) + LB(3) + LB(3) + CB(2) + FS(2) = 17

I'm just wondering if S*s, roster depth, and more chemistry stuff is a big thing that users have been asking for every season. If those things stayed the same would it be a big deal? Sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
All S*s are different, so have a some S*s equal more.

Something like total number of S* points cannot exceed 20

Ex:
HB(3) + WR(2) + DT(1) + DT(1) + LB(3) + LB(3) + CB(2) + FS(2) = 17

actually not a bad suggestion for a s* cap, +1 for GE

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I'm just wondering if S*s, roster depth, and more chemistry stuff is a big thing that users have been asking for every season. If those things stayed the same would it be a big deal? Sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone.

I tend to agree with this. Adding/Fixing more SAs, plays, game tactics(like late 4th), seem to be more in demand. Just adding Trip 4WR a few seasons back was huge, and well received. The ability to change the target receiver in passing plays was also another nice move.