how bout more chance for a cinderella story. i mean, i know that my team is gonna lose or win based purley on ratings. When theres a tie with overal, its an up for grabs, wich is cool, but again, more upsets than what u guys have right now!
itsme420
offline
offline
this has nothing to do with this thread but
can we please get some consistency on concession sales from 255-0 games vs normal games? it's impossible to accurately tweak concessions up or down when the discrepancy from revenue is so god damn high from game 2 game.
just sayin'
can we please get some consistency on concession sales from 255-0 games vs normal games? it's impossible to accurately tweak concessions up or down when the discrepancy from revenue is so god damn high from game 2 game.
just sayin'
The Big House
offline
offline
I would just have 10 leagues overall.
USA Pro
USA Minor League 1 USA Minor League 2
Canada Pro
Canada Minor League 1 Canada Minor League 2
Europe Pro
Europe Minor League 1 Europe Minor League 2
Australian Pro
USA Pro
USA Minor League 1 USA Minor League 2
Canada Pro
Canada Minor League 1 Canada Minor League 2
Europe Pro
Europe Minor League 1 Europe Minor League 2
Australian Pro
Edited by The Big House on Jun 11, 2010 10:18:59
Pies_08
offline
offline
Originally posted by itsme4
this has nothing to do with this thread but
can we please get some consistency on concession sales from 255-0 games vs normal games? it's impossible to accurately tweak concessions up or down when the discrepancy from revenue is so god damn high from game 2 game.
just sayin'
well it actually does
this has nothing to do with this thread but
can we please get some consistency on concession sales from 255-0 games vs normal games? it's impossible to accurately tweak concessions up or down when the discrepancy from revenue is so god damn high from game 2 game.
just sayin'
well it actually does
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Fix this shit DD. Please.
workin on it!
Fix this shit DD. Please.
workin on it!
TyrannyVaunt
offline
offline
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Fix this shit DD. Please.
workin on it!
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Fix this shit DD. Please.
workin on it!
Pies_08
offline
offline
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
fix what
i would like a style like highschool. college then pros. realistic
fix what
i would like a style like highschool. college then pros. realistic
MarkTaylorTSax
offline
offline
Originally posted by Pies_08
fix what
i would like a style like highschool. college then pros. realistic
I like that idea.
fix what
i would like a style like highschool. college then pros. realistic
I like that idea.
beenlurken
offline
offline
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Fix this shit DD. Please.
workin on it!
Glad to hear!!!
You working on incorporating plateau extension/accelerated player growth too?
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Fix this shit DD. Please.
workin on it!
Glad to hear!!!
You working on incorporating plateau extension/accelerated player growth too?
jprietman
offline
offline
Okay, my idea isn't complete, but I think the premise of it should be heavily considered:
My idea is to get rid of team promotion/demotion, and force player promotion when they hit certain levels. Let the teams be locked into their level ranges.
You would still have Pee Wee, Minor, Pro leagues as normal, but a Pee Wee team will always be a Pee Wee team and a Pro League team will always be a Pro League team.
Players starting out at level 1 will play for a Pee Wee team until they are at a level that makes them ineligible to play for that team anymore. Then they would be forced to sign a contract with a team at the next level, or otherwise, not play.
But what does this accomplish?
I think it accomplishes a few things:
1. It brings in the idea of having a player draft. Minor Leagues would draft Pee Wee players every season to replace the players that have moved on to Pro. Pro Leagues would draft players that are ready to move up from the Minor Leagues. A lot of GLB users have demanded a draft, because they believe it would be FUN, and this is a way to get it done.
2. It strengthens team rivalries. Because teams cannot move up or down, they will be competing against the same teams indefinitely, thus fortifying any rivalries that may have developed.
3. It brings in a new element of player scouting, recruiting, etc. Teams would now be able to hire scouts to evaluate talent in the lower level leagues, and create draft boards that fit their team's needs.
4. It adds a new dimension to the player community. Many teams currently do not find success because they aren't part of the "in-crowd", and meanwhile, some teams find constant success because they get to field the same team every season, and have the best coordinators, agents, etc. With the new concept, teams and agents would expand their social community as players move up and meet new people, and teams are introduced to new agents as they draft them. Last place teams will have the chance to have good players the following season (however, in order to keep those players past their rookie deal, they would have to improve their own internal structure, otherwise those highly touted players will play out their first contract and sign with another team as a free agent for the rest of their league eligibility)
5. It gives purpose to long term player deals. Pretty self-explanatory I think, but in essence, there is currently no incentive for a player to seek out a long-term deal. With the new concept, a player would seek out a new deal because the threat of getting replaced is always there. Because teams would only see their players for a finite amount of time, they may opt to make "business decisions" and let go of players early to make room for new talent. Those players may be "too young" to advance, and "too old" to get immediately picked up by another team. To protect themselves from that happening, players would seek out long term deals with their teams. In general, I think contract negotiations, as a whole, would take on an entirely new meaning. It would also give purpose to trades within the same league.
6. If you keep the number of league ranges down, to say, just Pee Wee, Minor, and Pro, and split the 75 levels of a player's total career among them, the diversity of players within a single team will be much greater. Teams would consist of starting players with realized talent, and lower level bench players with potential to succeed when the starters advance. This would further counter the negative effects of slow building, because players may not see so much playing time if they continue to be "potentials" rather than "effective players". Sure, players would still slow build, and they may still be highly touted in the later stages of their careers, but since teams do not advance or promote, they will have no interest in fielding a team that doesn't perform. Slow builders will have a more difficult time getting playing time early in their careers. Sorry guys, but it's for the good of competition.
7. It adds realism. In real life, college teams or minor teams don't move up to Pro, and high school teams don't move up to college. The PLAYERS do.
8. But what if I get tired of owning a Pee Wee team and want to move up to a higher league?
Because team owners do frequently fold, there will be plenty of opportunities for someone to purchase a team in a higher league. The new owner would then take over the team's previous roster, bank account, stadium, etc., and the team would continue on as it did, under new ownership.
The former team owner would first have the option to sell the team directly to one of his GMs. If he chooses not to sell the team to one of his own, the top priority of potential new owners would be ranked as follows:
1. A successful team owner of a higher league looking to move down
2. A successful team owner of a lower league looking to move up
3. A less-successful team owner of a higher league looking to move down
4. A less-successful team owner of a lower league looking to move up
5. An agent who has never owned a team before
Potential candidates would also be ranked based on how many seasons they've owned a team. Those with more ownership experience would be more likely to make their team purchase than those with no ownership experience. They would also be ranked by how MUCH success they've had. And no, you obviously wouldn't be able to own two teams within the same league level. Obviously that would cause all kinds of problems.
Also, interleague team trades would also be an option if two team owners want to switch leagues with each other.
By the way, I believe this idea eliminates GUTTING, as players on failed teams will have the extra incentive to stay on their teams because they are likely to get a fantastic new team owner. Also, the addition of a player draft would obviously eliminate farming.
Once again, this is obviously not a complete suggestion. But please consider the concept.
My idea is to get rid of team promotion/demotion, and force player promotion when they hit certain levels. Let the teams be locked into their level ranges.
You would still have Pee Wee, Minor, Pro leagues as normal, but a Pee Wee team will always be a Pee Wee team and a Pro League team will always be a Pro League team.
Players starting out at level 1 will play for a Pee Wee team until they are at a level that makes them ineligible to play for that team anymore. Then they would be forced to sign a contract with a team at the next level, or otherwise, not play.
But what does this accomplish?
I think it accomplishes a few things:
1. It brings in the idea of having a player draft. Minor Leagues would draft Pee Wee players every season to replace the players that have moved on to Pro. Pro Leagues would draft players that are ready to move up from the Minor Leagues. A lot of GLB users have demanded a draft, because they believe it would be FUN, and this is a way to get it done.
2. It strengthens team rivalries. Because teams cannot move up or down, they will be competing against the same teams indefinitely, thus fortifying any rivalries that may have developed.
3. It brings in a new element of player scouting, recruiting, etc. Teams would now be able to hire scouts to evaluate talent in the lower level leagues, and create draft boards that fit their team's needs.
4. It adds a new dimension to the player community. Many teams currently do not find success because they aren't part of the "in-crowd", and meanwhile, some teams find constant success because they get to field the same team every season, and have the best coordinators, agents, etc. With the new concept, teams and agents would expand their social community as players move up and meet new people, and teams are introduced to new agents as they draft them. Last place teams will have the chance to have good players the following season (however, in order to keep those players past their rookie deal, they would have to improve their own internal structure, otherwise those highly touted players will play out their first contract and sign with another team as a free agent for the rest of their league eligibility)
5. It gives purpose to long term player deals. Pretty self-explanatory I think, but in essence, there is currently no incentive for a player to seek out a long-term deal. With the new concept, a player would seek out a new deal because the threat of getting replaced is always there. Because teams would only see their players for a finite amount of time, they may opt to make "business decisions" and let go of players early to make room for new talent. Those players may be "too young" to advance, and "too old" to get immediately picked up by another team. To protect themselves from that happening, players would seek out long term deals with their teams. In general, I think contract negotiations, as a whole, would take on an entirely new meaning. It would also give purpose to trades within the same league.
6. If you keep the number of league ranges down, to say, just Pee Wee, Minor, and Pro, and split the 75 levels of a player's total career among them, the diversity of players within a single team will be much greater. Teams would consist of starting players with realized talent, and lower level bench players with potential to succeed when the starters advance. This would further counter the negative effects of slow building, because players may not see so much playing time if they continue to be "potentials" rather than "effective players". Sure, players would still slow build, and they may still be highly touted in the later stages of their careers, but since teams do not advance or promote, they will have no interest in fielding a team that doesn't perform. Slow builders will have a more difficult time getting playing time early in their careers. Sorry guys, but it's for the good of competition.
7. It adds realism. In real life, college teams or minor teams don't move up to Pro, and high school teams don't move up to college. The PLAYERS do.
8. But what if I get tired of owning a Pee Wee team and want to move up to a higher league?
Because team owners do frequently fold, there will be plenty of opportunities for someone to purchase a team in a higher league. The new owner would then take over the team's previous roster, bank account, stadium, etc., and the team would continue on as it did, under new ownership.
The former team owner would first have the option to sell the team directly to one of his GMs. If he chooses not to sell the team to one of his own, the top priority of potential new owners would be ranked as follows:
1. A successful team owner of a higher league looking to move down
2. A successful team owner of a lower league looking to move up
3. A less-successful team owner of a higher league looking to move down
4. A less-successful team owner of a lower league looking to move up
5. An agent who has never owned a team before
Potential candidates would also be ranked based on how many seasons they've owned a team. Those with more ownership experience would be more likely to make their team purchase than those with no ownership experience. They would also be ranked by how MUCH success they've had. And no, you obviously wouldn't be able to own two teams within the same league level. Obviously that would cause all kinds of problems.
Also, interleague team trades would also be an option if two team owners want to switch leagues with each other.
By the way, I believe this idea eliminates GUTTING, as players on failed teams will have the extra incentive to stay on their teams because they are likely to get a fantastic new team owner. Also, the addition of a player draft would obviously eliminate farming.
Once again, this is obviously not a complete suggestion. But please consider the concept.
Edited by jprietman on Jun 15, 2010 11:47:23
Edited by jprietman on Jun 15, 2010 11:43:15
Edited by jprietman on Jun 15, 2010 11:40:14
Edited by jprietman on Jun 15, 2010 11:36:42
Edited by jprietman on Jun 15, 2010 11:34:50
Originally posted by beenlurken
Glad to hear!!!
You working on incorporating plateau extension/accelerated player growth too?
We are still debating this as well. Leaning towards plateau extension rather than accelerated player growth.
Here is the thread with that discussion in case you wanted to check it out: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3941058
Glad to hear!!!
You working on incorporating plateau extension/accelerated player growth too?
We are still debating this as well. Leaning towards plateau extension rather than accelerated player growth.
Here is the thread with that discussion in case you wanted to check it out: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3941058
cubshater2008
offline
offline
Originally posted by jprietman
This is wonderful. I love the idea, but feel it's going to get the veto from Bort and Co. because they're both hesitant to make a drastic change and don't listen to the player base.
This is wonderful. I love the idea, but feel it's going to get the veto from Bort and Co. because they're both hesitant to make a drastic change and don't listen to the player base.
tuba_samurai
offline
offline
Originally posted by cubshater2008
This is wonderful. I love the idea, but feel it's going to get the veto from Bort and Co. because they're both hesitant to make a drastic change and don't listen to the player base.
Saying that bort is hesitant to make drastic changes after what has happened the last few seasons is lol-worthy at best.
This is wonderful. I love the idea, but feel it's going to get the veto from Bort and Co. because they're both hesitant to make a drastic change and don't listen to the player base.
Saying that bort is hesitant to make drastic changes after what has happened the last few seasons is lol-worthy at best.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
