Warrior General Games

I don't think there should be much if any penalty for off-season moves. Problem could arise where players are constantly cut and upgraded. Middle of the road builders may have trouble finding and staying on teams.

Mid season moves should maybe get 100% penalty for a game or two then be full.

Originally posted by Xars
Why the fuck do they penalize the paying customers


Because that's how video games work? Players also don't play as effective with low energy or morale.

Originally posted by Corndog
Because that's how video games work? Players also don't play as effective with low energy or morale.

Which is why it makes it not fun/fair to sign a FA or be a FA signing to a team. Such a stupid part of the game to penalize free agency.

Originally posted by Corndog
Because that's how video games work? Players also don't play as effective with low energy or morale.

… It doesn't have to be the way this game works. You choose to make it how this game works, despite the entire customer base basically begging you to fix it. There is absolutely no point to chemistry in a game with 50 active users trying to patch together teams and keep together teams using a massively depleted free agency market, or your super mystery cpu players that you wont show the builds on. And every season more and more users quit because of these kinds of decisions.

New user discovers game makes player/players and joins random team that lasts maybe 1 or 2 seasons, then his choices are...
1. Quit
2. Join another team as a FA and suck for a season
3. Retire and restart the cycle

Originally posted by Jagat0r
New user discovers game makes player/players and joins random team that lasts maybe 1 or 2 seasons, then his choices are...
1. Quit
2. Join another team as a FA and suck for a season
3. Retire and restart the cycle


Yes, the 5% reduction of a few skills is definitely why a new user's player sucks.

Originally posted by Corndog
Yes, the 5% reduction of a few skills is definitely why a new user's player sucks.

Yes, sarcasm will distract the rubes from the fact they uncovered the truth.

Originally posted by Corndog
Yes, the 5% reduction of a few skills is definitely why a new user's player sucks.

So are you saying a player at 0 chem is only taking a 5% reduction in skills?

Originally posted by rackhound
So are you saying a player at 0 chem is only taking a 5% reduction in skills?

haha right, I doubt that

I just want to toss out an idea to listen to the responses.

For several seasons it has become more and more obvious that some folks GM and Head Coach for several teams in the same league, and sometimes even in the same division. Sometimes it seems that when one of those teams is doing really well and the other needs a win, it just happens that way. Maybe it's a coincident, but it really smells of something else. The phrase conflict of interest comes to mind.

Am I the only one thinking this?

Originally posted by Jimmeroo
I just want to toss out an idea to listen to the responses.

For several seasons it has become more and more obvious that some folks GM and Head Coach for several teams in the same league, and sometimes even in the same division. Sometimes it seems that when one of those teams is doing really well and the other needs a win, it just happens that way. Maybe it's a coincident, but it really smells of something else. The phrase conflict of interest comes to mind.

Am I the only one thinking this?

I am guilty of that. There is certainly nothing weird going on. If newer guys ask for my help I help. They generally don't put much effort into things and just use my playbooks.

It is actually a huge problem for my team. These teams use my tactics all season then when it is time for my team to play them. I either have to play against my own tactics which sucks. Or they have a random GM step in for the game and I have absolutely nothing to scout because they had been using my tactics all season. Either way it is not in my best interest.

I lost to a team late last season that used my tactics against me. I dropped that team.

I personally don't really pay attention to any teams I GM nor do I care. I often forget I am even on the staff until someone PMs me about playing time or depth charts.

I think you are seeing something that just isn't there. I am available for head coach if it will make you feel better.

Originally posted by Jimmeroo
I just want to toss out an idea to listen to the responses.

For several seasons it has become more and more obvious that some folks GM and Head Coach for several teams in the same league, and sometimes even in the same division. Sometimes it seems that when one of those teams is doing really well and the other needs a win, it just happens that way. Maybe it's a coincident, but it really smells of something else. The phrase conflict of interest comes to mind.

Am I the only one thinking this?

Poignant point you have there.

Imagine if, instead of that and after we got rid of chemistry, people could just decide that Team B has a better defense than Team A, and vice versa with offense, then just merge their teams halfway through the season to finish out with a super team.

Like, I know damn sure that's something GE would do. Likely most of the others complaining about chemistry, especially after other people started doing it.

Originally posted by Corndog
Poignant point you have there.

Imagine if, instead of that and after we got rid of chemistry, people could just decide that Team B has a better defense than Team A, and vice versa with offense, then just merge their teams halfway through the season to finish out with a super team.

Like, I know damn sure that's something GE would do. Likely most of the others complaining about chemistry, especially after other people started doing it.

I am more worried about a team going from a heavy pass team to a heavy run team with blocking WRs and all from one game to the next and back at will. The would essentially give teams unlimited roster spots. That is why I suggested at the very least keep mid season signees at 0% chem for 2-3 games. If teams want to merge in the off-season then I say let them.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I am more worried about a team going from a heavy pass team to a heavy run team with blocking WRs and all from one game to the next and back at will. The would essentially give teams unlimited roster spots. That is why I suggested at the very least keep mid season signees at 0% chem for 2-3 games. If teams want to merge in the off-season then I say let them.

at some point in the season just lock the rosters. I don't know, after 20 games the roster is locked for playoffs/ladder runs

Originally posted by HayRow
at some point in the season just lock the rosters. I don't know, after 20 games the roster is locked for playoffs/ladder runs

So, about half the time whenever new users join, we just tell them "sorry, you can't play, come back in a month!"?

Originally posted by Corndog
So, about half the time whenever new users join, we just tell them "sorry, you can't play, come back in a month!"?

okay, you actually don't care about new users, but since you want to roll down that path.

make the roster lock for soph and above.

for rookie you can either keep your crappy chem system or let rookie be a free for all on the roster additions so it doesn't penalize anyone, PRIMARILY new users since you care about them.