Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jcoker007
My solution would be a bit simpler. Instead of moving teams around simply change the cap lvl each season therefore giving bottom teams a chance to compete. If the cap was lvl 13 this season make it 16 for next season and change it by 3 each season. This will give the lesser teams a chance to improve while making it worthwhile for the better teams to stick together as untouched they will stay slightly above the cap lvl.

No because then you're forcing all the other teams to dump guys they spent the previous off season recruiting. "bottom feeders" have a chance to compete the next season by recruiting just as well. Simply put the way things are now teams don't have a chance to redeem themselves from what may have been a slow start. They don't have a chance to learn how to game plan in the offseason and show what they learned against like competition. Instead people automatically assume that teams that struggle should not be in the league they are in. this may be true for some but not ever team at the bottom is in that category.

Originally posted by Tiznut
Originally posted by jcoker007

My solution would be a bit simpler. Instead of moving teams around simply change the cap lvl each season therefore giving bottom teams a chance to compete. If the cap was lvl 13 this season make it 16 for next season and change it by 3 each season. This will give the lesser teams a chance to improve while making it worthwhile for the better teams to stick together as untouched they will stay slightly above the cap lvl.

No because then you're forcing all the other teams to dump guys they spent the previous off season recruiting. "bottom feeders" have a chance to compete the next season by recruiting just as well. Simply put the way things are now teams don't have a chance to redeem themselves from what may have been a slow start. They don't have a chance to learn how to game plan in the offseason and show what they learned against like competition. Instead people automatically assume that teams that struggle should not be in the league they are in. this may be true for some but not ever team at the bottom is in that category.

I'll use your point to help explain mine. You said that bottom feeders will have a chance to compete next season. I agree they should be able to compete but I also don't believe it fair to have a team that was all recruited at or around lvl 13 and is now upper teens be outgunned by a "bottom feeder" that goes out and gets all mid 20s. The successful team that stays together should have an advantage in their league over teams that run out and attempt to buy a title. By slightly increasing the cap 3 levels it will allow teams that did a poor recruiting job to bring in upgrades but not to the extent that they will now dominate the teams that did a good job from day 1.

Originally posted by jcoker007
Originally posted by Tiznut

Originally posted by jcoker007


My solution would be a bit simpler. Instead of moving teams around simply change the cap lvl each season therefore giving bottom teams a chance to compete. If the cap was lvl 13 this season make it 16 for next season and change it by 3 each season. This will give the lesser teams a chance to improve while making it worthwhile for the better teams to stick together as untouched they will stay slightly above the cap lvl.

No because then you're forcing all the other teams to dump guys they spent the previous off season recruiting. "bottom feeders" have a chance to compete the next season by recruiting just as well. Simply put the way things are now teams don't have a chance to redeem themselves from what may have been a slow start. They don't have a chance to learn how to game plan in the offseason and show what they learned against like competition. Instead people automatically assume that teams that struggle should not be in the league they are in. this may be true for some but not ever team at the bottom is in that category.

I'll use your point to help explain mine. You said that bottom feeders will have a chance to compete next season. I agree they should be able to compete but I also don't believe it fair to have a team that was all recruited at or around lvl 13 and is now upper teens be outgunned by a "bottom feeder" that goes out and gets all mid 20s. The successful team that stays together should have an advantage in their league over teams that run out and attempt to buy a title. By slightly increasing the cap 3 levels it will allow teams that did a poor recruiting job to bring in upgrades but not to the extent that they will now dominate the teams that did a good job from day 1.

That's where the chemistry thing is an issue. It's designed for that specific reason much like the NFL. Some times you can go out and buy what you need like the Green Bay Packers getting Reggie White and such. Some times it blows up in your face like Denver going out and getting Travis Henry or TO in Philly his 2nd year.

Originally posted by Tiznut
Originally posted by jcoker007

Originally posted by Tiznut


Originally posted by jcoker007



My solution would be a bit simpler. Instead of moving teams around simply change the cap lvl each season therefore giving bottom teams a chance to compete. If the cap was lvl 13 this season make it 16 for next season and change it by 3 each season. This will give the lesser teams a chance to improve while making it worthwhile for the better teams to stick together as untouched they will stay slightly above the cap lvl.

No because then you're forcing all the other teams to dump guys they spent the previous off season recruiting. "bottom feeders" have a chance to compete the next season by recruiting just as well. Simply put the way things are now teams don't have a chance to redeem themselves from what may have been a slow start. They don't have a chance to learn how to game plan in the offseason and show what they learned against like competition. Instead people automatically assume that teams that struggle should not be in the league they are in. this may be true for some but not ever team at the bottom is in that category.

I'll use your point to help explain mine. You said that bottom feeders will have a chance to compete next season. I agree they should be able to compete but I also don't believe it fair to have a team that was all recruited at or around lvl 13 and is now upper teens be outgunned by a "bottom feeder" that goes out and gets all mid 20s. The successful team that stays together should have an advantage in their league over teams that run out and attempt to buy a title. By slightly increasing the cap 3 levels it will allow teams that did a poor recruiting job to bring in upgrades but not to the extent that they will now dominate the teams that did a good job from day 1.

That's where the chemistry thing is an issue. It's designed for that specific reason much like the NFL. Some times you can go out and buy what you need like the Green Bay Packers getting Reggie White and such. Some times it blows up in your face like Denver going out and getting Travis Henry or TO in Philly his 2nd year.

To a point I agree but even Bort has said that chemistry doesn't play a large role in outcomes at all. He said it's very minor. Certainly not enough to make up for a difference in levels.

the only really problem i have with most of the "this is just plain stupid side" is that i have different players on a team that was gutted. And it still hasnt recovered, we have definately gotten a lot better (at the begining of the season the team i own could have beaten them) but still the entire season we have scored like 10 points and if we lose by less then 40 its a good game.

Also about giving the worse teams more money it wouldnt really work unless they added something in were money mattered for something besides equipement becuase most teams with give their players money on equipement becuase frankly what does it matter having tons of money. The reason so many teams cant get good player is becuase good players dont want to be a shitty teams. For instance my gm got a qb just at the level cap and was the highest level qb in our conference(think he still is) Then all of a sudden we started getting the better players that we sent offers becuase we had a good player at an important position. I dont think there is really any denying that because i know id rather be on the team that has higher level players then the team that offers me a 100,000 signing bonus.

There are good arguements for each side. Overall i think its a stupid idea for the fact that theres maybe enough teams that have been gutted in the entire game to make up like 1 or 2 leagues, so why change around an entire game becuase a small percentage of them are pissed off.

Well, I'm gonna miss the Western A #7 league.
Some GREAT OWNERS and teams there, we had a good repor and man shoot. I understand they have to do what they have to do. I'm still going to miss the league though.

Originally posted by jcoker007
Originally posted by Tiznut

Originally posted by jcoker007


Originally posted by Tiznut



Originally posted by jcoker007




My solution would be a bit simpler. Instead of moving teams around simply change the cap lvl each season therefore giving bottom teams a chance to compete. If the cap was lvl 13 this season make it 16 for next season and change it by 3 each season. This will give the lesser teams a chance to improve while making it worthwhile for the better teams to stick together as untouched they will stay slightly above the cap lvl.

No because then you're forcing all the other teams to dump guys they spent the previous off season recruiting. "bottom feeders" have a chance to compete the next season by recruiting just as well. Simply put the way things are now teams don't have a chance to redeem themselves from what may have been a slow start. They don't have a chance to learn how to game plan in the offseason and show what they learned against like competition. Instead people automatically assume that teams that struggle should not be in the league they are in. this may be true for some but not ever team at the bottom is in that category.

I'll use your point to help explain mine. You said that bottom feeders will have a chance to compete next season. I agree they should be able to compete but I also don't believe it fair to have a team that was all recruited at or around lvl 13 and is now upper teens be outgunned by a "bottom feeder" that goes out and gets all mid 20s. The successful team that stays together should have an advantage in their league over teams that run out and attempt to buy a title. By slightly increasing the cap 3 levels it will allow teams that did a poor recruiting job to bring in upgrades but not to the extent that they will now dominate the teams that did a good job from day 1.

That's where the chemistry thing is an issue. It's designed for that specific reason much like the NFL. Some times you can go out and buy what you need like the Green Bay Packers getting Reggie White and such. Some times it blows up in your face like Denver going out and getting Travis Henry or TO in Philly his 2nd year.

To a point I agree but even Bort has said that chemistry doesn't play a large role in outcomes at all. He said it's very minor. Certainly not enough to make up for a difference in levels.

Well here is one problem with just raising the cap. The teams that were able to get the level 13 free agents that boosted to 16 or waited and boosted at end of season are now level 18-19 and probably boost again. The teams behind in player levels will always be behind unless the cap is removed and they sign a bunch of high level players.

A suggestion I have is use this offseason for a full re-alignment of all leagues. Keep teams in Western Europe, USA, Canada, etc. But take the average player level to determine the pro leagues, AAA leagues, AA leagues, and A leagues, etc. Those leagues that have rivalry's should still be intact because if you have a rivalry with a team you never lose to then what kind of rivalry is that. Looks more like a seasonal beatdown!

The take top 2 teams and move up and bottom two and move down is good and all but I feel a full realignment based on average player level for teams is what will make competition more equal. I am not sold on this idea without discussion but I feel its deserves some attention.

Well one reason I support a raised cap instead of removed is that it helps keep solid teams intact. With a raised cap it promotes the idea of keeping a good built squad together because if someone leaves they have to downgrade instead of giving teams who did a poor job of recruiting the ability to all of the sudden "buy" a title.

Buy a title that is a joke. Many of the teams that recruited the higher level players in the first place are in some way 'buying' a title. It is funny that the people who are objecting to lifting the cap are all like 15-1 or 14-2 teams. This is another effort to reward the haves and punish the have nots. Recruiting is critical at all junctions in this game and by handcuffing the teams who got a late start on recruiting as punishment does not solve a problem but reinforce what is already a bad situation.

Originally posted by jcoker007
Well one reason I support a raised cap instead of removed is that it helps keep solid teams intact. With a raised cap it promotes the idea of keeping a good built squad together because if someone leaves they have to downgrade instead of giving teams who did a poor job of recruiting the ability to all of the sudden "buy" a title.

I have been doing some research and find it funny that like 70% of the high level talent in Europe A#7 is in the Alpha Conference versus about 30% in Zeta. Furthermore there are a handful of players that are already level 20 and 21 this season (before any boosting next season) and like another 30+ level 19 and about 70-100 players in the level 16-18 range. I am still tweaking the numbers but a large percent like in the neighborhood of 60-70% of these players are on the top 5 teams in Alpha and top 3 teams in Zeta. So what this means to those who say game planning and preparation are the keys to success this is my statement. Talent is what makes championships but talent without gameplanning or preparation is wasted. The preparation and gameplanning makes the most out of the talent but without the talent you cannot compete.

People on here are saying they want to compete and have rivalry's and this and that but when you cut through all the posts and who is sending them (meaning who is objecting and who is not) you get the haves versus the have nots like it always is. I mean obviously these top teams did better recruiting under the cap so why would they not do better without a cap? What is the worry that us lowly teams can try and recruit better talent?

I just want to get up and at least believe I have a chance and right now many teams at the bottom have no chance no matter how much gameplannig they do. If you raise the cap to 16 what that means is EVEN if the BEST recruiter ever recruited all 13th level people that boost we would be average level 16 going against the 16-21 levels I mentioned earlier that will boost to be level 19-24 range so you tell me how that is competitive or rewarding for those teams and players.

Alpha Conference Level
Team (by Place) 21 20 19 18 17 16
Transylvania 0 2 1 9 7 2
South Yorkshire 2 4 7 8 7 5
Warsaw 0 1 1 1 6 6
Dublin 0 1 2 5 4 4
Belfast 0 0 1 2 10 3
Amsterdam 0 1 3 3 5 6
Basin City 0 1 0 4 3 3
St. Louis 0 1 0 0 4 4
Totals 2 11 15 32 46 33


Zeta Conference Level
Team (by Place) 21 20 19 18 17 16
Antwerp 0 3 2 4 1 8
Amsterdam 0 1 2 1 7 5
Quebec 0 0 2 3 3 5
Hamburg 0 0 1 1 2 4
Athens 0 1 1 1 0 3
Konoha 0 1 0 0 2 3
Cardiff 0 0 0 0 4 5
Newcastle 0 0 1 0 0 3
Totals 0 6 9 10 19 36

Originally posted by Talon
Alpha Conference Level
Team (by Place) 21 20 19 18 17 16
Transylvania 0 2 1 9 7 2
South Yorkshire 2 4 7 8 7 5
Warsaw 0 1 1 1 6 6
Dublin 0 1 2 5 4 4
Belfast 0 0 1 2 10 3
Amsterdam 0 1 3 3 5 6
Basin City 0 1 0 4 3 3
St. Louis 0 1 0 0 4 4
Totals 2 11 15 32 46 33


Zeta Conference Level
Team (by Place) 21 20 19 18 17 16
Antwerp 0 3 2 4 1 8
Amsterdam 0 1 2 1 7 5
Quebec 0 0 2 3 3 5
Hamburg 0 0 1 1 2 4
Athens 0 1 1 1 0 3
Konoha 0 1 0 0 2 3
Cardiff 0 0 0 0 4 5
Newcastle 0 0 1 0 0 3
Totals 0 6 9 10 19 36


These are numbers of the players now just imagine how much further this divide gets if you put a soft cap of 16 on the teams. Read my previous posts and consider these players are still playing on these teams and most probably will boost thus increasing the gap. You either A) remove cap so all teams can try and equalize and those that do not need to recruit better or B) you do a full reorganization (formation) of the leagues like I mentioned earlier and implement caps accordingly.

If you want a cap of 13 on A league then when is it appropriate to move a team to AA at what level average? Same from AA to AAA and so on.

Are you suggesting a level 16 cap for A and what level 20 for AA and so on. At a certain point there is no need to have a cap at all. Have a cap for the first season of a new conference and then remove it that simple.

I understand your point completely but also realize that mine was not trying to keep other teams down, it was trying to emphasize 2 important points that I believe need to be made.

1. Keeping successful teams together. It would be very unfortunate for successful teams to start dropping and replacing good players with others who are higher level then them just to be ablet to keep up. I think rewarding solid teams who stay together should be a priority. To a point it almost hurts owners who stay loyal to their current players.

2. The leagues should be a tiered structure if they are moving up the league champions. With no cap at all what's to stop teams from loading up with mid 20 level players at the A leagues? This league is supposed to be the "bottom" of the realms and team work their way up to get to better leagues, etc. Why should teams in the lower leagues have the same players as teams in the Pro league? Also, I would hate to see colusion with higher level teams who can't win in their division who gut themselves and come play in the A leagues for an "easy" title. I'd hate to see Transylvania, SoYo, Antwerp, Quebec, Amsterdam, etc lose out on a title they worked for since the start of season 3 because a team that finished 1-15, 2-14, etc gutted a team from the higher leagues and brought them all in here.

Again I'm not saying that these things would happen but under the removed cap they could. At least raising a cap would continue to force owners and GMs to work at improving their team constantly instead of a 1 stop load up on high level players.

This is not a jab at you or any other team but does my point at least make sense?

Your point makes sense to a point. Meaning I understand the loyalty thing and with levels from the season and boosting (those that do) the players that were 13 and boosted at end of season or during to 16, etc and earned there way to level 18-21 range should not get outmatched by level 25 players but when you say a level 16 cap I feel that is too low. Maybe the disagreement is the level each league should be. If you are saying the A league should be a certain level and not look like Pro League then what levels would that look like?

I mean you can play on D-league until level 7 and if you get contract closer to that point can be on D-league until about level 10 (if you boost). So there should be a pool of level 10-13 players out there for A leagues. Now with development, etc when do you decide to move up a team? Are you only moving up the champion or top two? What about the level 16-21 players who will boost to level 19-24 that are on teams that do not get moved up because there is no room for them. Now you are saying okay wait your turn and in about 3 to 4 seasons your 'loyal' guys will be able to compete because the rest of us will have moved up?

It is a slippery slope is all I am saying. Bort and admin and continually trying to add more teams so soon enough A will not be the lowest (who knows).

My other point comes into play now with your idea. Once a full realignment takes place (meaning all leagues USA, Canada, Europe East, Europe West, etc) stay USA, etc but the teams as a whole get numbered. Start with highest average player level for team (figure out a method) and take all teams in PRO, AAA, AA, and A from all conferences and number them starting at 1 for the highest average level. You do this for each league (USA, Canada, etc) and you take the top 32 and that is Pro, the next 32 that is AAA, the next 32 and that is AA, etc. Now to balance the divisions you need to have a snake system similar to fantasy football drafts. So 1,4,5,8,9,12,13,16,17,20,21,24,25,28,29,32 in one division and 2,3,6,7,10,11,14,15,18,19,22,23,26,27,30,31 in other division.

You continue this theory for each and once this realignment is complete you set level caps for each division of play (PRO, AAA, AA, A) and from this point forward you adjust th caps based on player level in conference but no need to realign again (this allows for adjustments for boosting etc.)

This is still a raw idea but i hope you get what I am trying to communicate.

Final point is this at the cost of player loyalty you cause some teams to be discouraged that they never will compete for anything and that is never good. Why do you think the NFL has so much parity now because it is good for the game and the fans and everyone is happier so everyone is spending more money. Same here at GLB. If you create some sort of parity and then move forward from here you make a majority happier thus more willing to spend money on teams, players, custom equipment, and boosting, thus making the creaters of GLB more money.

I can see where you're coming from but I still believe that removing a cap all together is not a good idea. Here is one that might work though. What if all leagues put out contracts for teams just like teams do for players? Basically the league would offer a "spot" for your team to compete in it's league for a set number of seasons, most likely 3. After that period your team is reevaluated (not by the current roster but by your overall performance in that time) and is offered team "slots" by a new crop of leagues. If you have a 40-8 record over that time you would likely be offered a spot in a Pro league whereas if you went 8-40 you would get to chose between A leagues. This would allow for rivalries for a few seasons and then every now and then even out the playing field with teams going to new divisions based on their past performances.

How would that suit everyone?