Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog
I mean, that doesn't really answer the question, though. Why do you think there "should be some risk involved" for multiple agent teams compared to single agent teams? Like, I'm fundamentally not understanding that point. Why should it be riskier to run multiple agent teams if it doesn't have to be? Why should a multiplayer game have a deterrent from playing with other people?

I guess the more pressing question would be why does GLB2 deter people from playing with other people? why is it designed that way?

Originally posted by ThePh33P
I guess the more pressing question would be why does GLB2 deter people from playing with other people? why is it designed that way?

I don't know.

That's why we took this step to somewhat ameliorate that issue.

This is a great update. Could have used it about 20 seasons ago

I've been a part of too many teams hit hard by chemistry and knowledge penalties during my time on this game. This change will spare future teams from having to get tanked by inactive players.

Originally posted by Corndog
I don't know.

That's why we took this step to somewhat ameliorate that issue.

Yes and I think it will be successful in that. It's a great addition to the game and hopefully help new and veteran owners alike keep their teams going when they wouldn't have otherwise.

I will say that it is a slightly anti-consumer system having some players be paid for twice effectively. BUT... I think it's a necessary evil in this case for the health of the game and to prevent any abuse.

Like it's weird this feature should never be used if it can be avoided.

To the question of why is playing with other agents worse than playing solo could be a any number of reasons and a lot of them are player preference.

Control,Cost,Scheduling,Consistent Upgrades, Game planning, Introvert gamers.

It's possible the owner position has too much control and that's leading to power gaming being so prevalent.

I don't think there is a way to solve that problem without totally redefining mechanics at the owner agent to player agent level. Even less of a way to do it without ostracizing current whales and limiting potential income.

:/ It's a tough one lol

TLDR: This update will improve the health of the game and is GREAT! addition.

The only reason I don’t like it is because it hurts the Rabid Lizards. We thrive off of agents that have no home because their team reset. I fear this will lead to less resets and less free agents for us. That’s my selfish outlook

Originally posted by Corndog
I mean, that doesn't really answer the question, though. Why do you think there "should be some risk involved" for multiple agent teams compared to single agent teams? Like, I'm fundamentally not understanding that point. Why should it be riskier to run multiple agent teams if it doesn't have to be? Why should a multiplayer game have a deterrent from playing with other people?


Originally posted by Corndog
I don't know.

That's why we took this step to somewhat ameliorate that issue.


I've been here since season 7 and y'all just now made a change. If you truly believed about not having a deterrent for multi-agent teams then this should've been a solution years ago because the system has favored single user teams since the start.

As far as what I meant by risk... let's put it this way... a single user team paid for his players, so sure, he doesn't have to worry about inactives... But the multi-user team owner isn't paying out the same amount of cash for his team's players and is only liable financially if he has to clone an inactive. It doesn't sound fair to the single user team owner to me in that regard since he spent way more money. So maybe that's why I felt like they needed to come in at 50% chem like when you sign rookies, as well as when you all make a point that this is a new player so his stats do not transfer.

That being said, for you and the rest, I'm gonna reintegrate here: I think this is a good idea, but I also think it's silly that you "clone" a player and get everything but his name and stats. If they are paying for it, you might as well give the rest too.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
As far as what I meant by risk... let's put it this way... a single user team paid for his players, so sure, he doesn't have to worry about inactives... But the multi-user team owner isn't paying out the same amount of cash for his team's players and is only liable financially if he has to clone an inactive. It doesn't sound fair to the single user team owner to me in that regard since he spent way more money.

That seems like very strange logic to me.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
That being said, for you and the rest, I'm gonna reintegrate here: I think this is a good idea, but I also think it's silly that you "clone" a player and get everything but his name and stats. If they are paying for it, you might as well give the rest too.

I know you keep repeating this, but I can't take you serious being so hung up on the player's name. Like, that seems so unimportant?

It feels like there's pretty obvious reasons why you wouldn't keep stats. Let's get this HoF player to go inactive so I can clone his player and also have a HoF player with the same stats that never played a game.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar

But the multi-user team owner isn't paying out the same amount of cash for his team's players and is only liable financially if he has to clone an inactive.


Having neared the hopeful, merciful end of finishing putting together a team heading to Vet with several users; I paid in my sanity.

Originally posted by Corndog
I know you keep repeating this, but I can't take you serious being so hung up on the player's name. Like, that seems so unimportant?

You know I get a little jealous when you get passive aggressive or snide with another player

I just love how active this topic has made the forums this offseason.

Overall kudos to the developers for stirring the pot!!!

GLB2 will always be an awesome game/sim just glad to see it sticking around!!!!

Originally posted by Corndog
That seems like very strange logic to me.

That someone who paid more of his money on the game is getting the short end of the stick? Oof.

Originally posted by Corndog
I know you keep repeating this, but I can't take you serious being so hung up on the player's name. Like, that seems so unimportant?

It feels like there's pretty obvious reasons why you wouldn't keep stats. Let's get this HoF player to go inactive so I can clone his player and also have a HoF player with the same stats that never played a game.

I see your point, but what does that matter? You all made it clear the HoF isn't that big of a priority when it took years to get a fix on how MVP and Broken Tackles were weighed but you left the old guard's standing intact and unadjusted.

It feels pretty contrarian or at least arbitrary to me if stats and multi-user teams suddenly matter so much now after years of this game.

Originally posted by ellix
Having neared the hopeful, merciful end of finishing putting together a team heading to Vet with several users; I paid in my sanity.

Try doing it for going on 50 seasons.

So this is my next question. Say we have a S* LB that is a baller and just picks of any pass near him. What’s to stop an owner from being like, I want 2 of those!! So him and the agent conspire to not sign a contract and he goes inactive until the offseason. The owner clones the S* LB and then boom the other agent logs back in and signs with the team in time to get in a 50 chemistry and be put in a high contract so he catches up quickly. Now there are two of that bastard roaming around.

Originally posted by rabidlizard24
So this is my next question. Say we have a S* LB that is a baller and just picks of any pass near him. What’s to stop an owner from being like, I want 2 of those!! So him and the agent conspire to not sign a contract and he goes inactive until the offseason. The owner clones the S* LB and then boom the other agent logs back in and signs with the team in time to get in a 50 chemistry and be put in a high contract so he catches up quickly. Now there are two of that bastard roaming around.

Potential exploit there, however it would just put the team in a better position compared to the top teams who are already decked out with S* power and have already pushed the salary to the max.

I will say that some LB positions are better for snagging picks than others in this scenario.

Originally posted by rabidlizard24
So this is my next question. Say we have a S* LB that is a baller and just picks of any pass near him. What’s to stop an owner from being like, I want 2 of those!! So him and the agent conspire to not sign a contract and he goes inactive until the offseason. The owner clones the S* LB and then boom the other agent logs back in and signs with the team in time to get in a 50 chemistry and be put in a high contract so he catches up quickly. Now there are two of that bastard roaming around.

Interesting...you could potentially have just 2 agents with 12 S* on one team.

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
Potential exploit there, however it would just put the team in a better position compared to the top teams who are already decked out with S* power and have already pushed the salary to the max.

I will say that some LB positions are better for snagging picks than others in this scenario.

Yeah I was just using it as an example. LB was in my mind at the time lol because I was looking for a S* coverage one.