Warrior General Games

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.

I think its wonderful too, and I actually think its the sort of thing Bort was aiming for at the very beginning.

I like Bort, and I think he had a great concept at the very beginning, but I think GLB has been derailed by a few early BAD decisions. I think if youre going to make a big change in league structure, you should do it RIGHT. Make the difficult change that happens to be correct, not the easy change that happens to fix only a few of the current problems.

Originally posted by jprietman
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.

completely different and best idea ever.

Originally posted by jprietman
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.

I think its wonderful too, and I actually think its the sort of thing Bort was aiming for at the very beginning.

I like Bort, and I think he had a great concept at the very beginning, but I think GLB has been derailed by a few early BAD decisions. I think if youre going to make a big change in league structure, you should do it RIGHT. Make the difficult change that happens to be correct, not the easy change that happens to fix only a few of the current problems.

The problem is that Bort was swayed away from his original intentions by the vocal minority, and it's gotten too far away now.

However, GLB needs a full-fledged fix, and this might just do it.

Originally posted by jprietman
I think its wonderful too, and I actually think its the sort of thing Bort was aiming for at the very beginning.

I like Bort, and I think he had a great concept at the very beginning, but I think GLB has been derailed by a few early BAD decisions. I think if youre going to make a big change in league structure, you should do it RIGHT. Make the difficult change that happens to be correct, not the easy change that happens to fix only a few of the current problems.

What about players who are a group of friends that want to stay on the same team?

What if I own a "college" level team and create 6 dots in one season so I can have them later, then when they are finally at level I own a team at, 5 of them are drafted by other teams. Why would I want to keep them around?

Why would owners create several players every season or any one single season for that matter?


It definitely improves the game for player agents who only want to own 1-4 dots at a time, but not sure it is a good business model because it cuts down on a lot of income from the Hall of Fame package customers.

I still think you should make it so that

Teams cost more to own

Players cost less to make and maintain


Have a team cost 1500 flex per season

However, cut the player cost to make and maintain a player by 75%.

OL, K, P - 25 flex (75 to fully boost)
Defense, FB, TE - 50 flex (150 to fully boost)
skill position - 75 flex (225 to fully boost)

Team ownership will be more expensive, so people will be less likely to buy a team on a whim, however, dedicated owners willing to spend cash won't be spending any more money since they usually maintain at least 5 or 6 players anyway.

There isn't as much money tied into any 1 player, so having to retire one won't seem like such a huge waste of cash.

More players will be created, so recruiting won't be as huge of a nightmare.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
What about players who are a group of friends that want to stay on the same team?

What if I own a "college" level team and create 6 dots in one season so I can have them later, then when they are finally at level I own a team at, 5 of them are drafted by other teams. Why would I want to keep them around?

Why would owners create several players every season or any one single season for that matter?


It definitely improves the game for player agents who only want to own 1-4 dots at a time, but not sure it is a good business model because it cuts down on a lot of income from the Hall of Fame package customers.

1. I think "draft boards" would be biased anyway to help friends get on the same team. But at least the draft prevents all the ELITE friends from constantly being on the same team and leaving other teams miserable.

2. If you were drafted on a team that isn't with your friends, you could still play out your rookie contract and then sign with your friends team as a free agent, just like it's done in the NBA (yes, I said NBA).

3. If you weren't drafted by your friends team, and were instead drafted by a team competing against them, would you still play? I sure as hell would love to beat the snot out of my friends during my rookie contract It would be a great way to earn a starting position with them later on when I sign with them as a free agent.

4. You can still acquire your friends' players via trades.

5. Your rookie contract is probably going to consist of a lot of time sitting on the bench anyway. If you ABSOLUTELY need to sit on the bench with your friends, see #4.

You're right that it would cut down on profits from owners that create a bajillion players for all their teams.

But then again, Bort IS working on an iPhone app that should net him a crap ton more money than he was previously getting. I believe his business will continue to succeed. There are so many ways for Bort to earn money with this whole GLB thing. I hardly think his entire business is dependent on those Hall of Fame owners. Putting GLB in the iTunes store is a pretty big deal. He'll see even more income when it goes into the Android market.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
I still think you should make it so that

Teams cost more to own

Players cost less to make and maintain


Have a team cost 1500 flex per season

However, cut the player cost to make and maintain a player by 75%.

OL, K, P - 25 flex (75 to fully boost)
Defense, FB, TE - 50 flex (150 to fully boost)
skill position - 75 flex (225 to fully boost)

Team ownership will be more expensive, so people will be less likely to buy a team on a whim, however, dedicated owners willing to spend cash won't be spending any more money since they usually maintain at least 5 or 6 players anyway.

There isn't as much money tied into any 1 player, so having to retire one won't seem like such a huge waste of cash.

More players will be created, so recruiting won't be as huge of a nightmare.




If this is an addition to jprietman's suggestion, +1.

Alone, it does little to help league structure.

sorry double post. meant to edit, not quote.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
I still think you should make it so that

Teams cost more to own

Players cost less to make and maintain


Have a team cost 1500 flex per season

However, cut the player cost to make and maintain a player by 75%.

OL, K, P - 25 flex (75 to fully boost)
Defense, FB, TE - 50 flex (150 to fully boost)
skill position - 75 flex (225 to fully boost)

Team ownership will be more expensive, so people will be less likely to buy a team on a whim, however, dedicated owners willing to spend cash won't be spending any more money since they usually maintain at least 5 or 6 players anyway.

There isn't as much money tied into any 1 player, so having to retire one won't seem like such a huge waste of cash.

More players will be created, so recruiting won't be as huge of a nightmare.




Not a bad idea,but 1500/season ?..No way i would pay that to keep my teams.

Originally posted by vinman
Not a bad idea,but 1500/season ?..No way i would pay that to keep my teams.

True, but that idea would be to get away from everyone and their mother owning a team... the issue with teams being cheap is that it leads to irresponsible owners (since teams have p much a throw away cost). ~$7.50/mo, it kind of makes people think about actually owning a team.

Originally posted by Warlock
True, but that idea would be to get away from everyone and their mother owning a team... the issue with teams being cheap is that it leads to irresponsible owners (since teams have p much a throw away cost). ~$7.50/mo, it kind of makes people think about actually owning a team.

If they raised the price of owning a team, I know I would sell mine.

Edit: Unless they dropped player prices, like mentioned about.

Originally posted by 5STAR
consolidate leagues and quit spreading the user base over some many different options.

Example would be casual and normal....make normal easier to run and remove casual.

Way too many caps...we have a cap for just about every level...serious overkill

Stop adding layers to the game. Each time you add an additional layer it is something the best teams will master creating a bigger gap between the haves and have nots.

You gotta ask yourself...
Do we really needs coaches? Because it will be one thing teams must have to win

Do we really need 55 man rosters? Most average teams can not field a full team and thus have no shot

Do we really need to increase the energy/morale drain? You are causing more morale spirals making decent games blow outs

Do we really need to add more options to team finances? Another thing great owners will master while the average guy has little chance

AEQ and VAs are another thing that kills competition. The best dots always have the best VAs and AEQ and that leads to blowouts. If you want to have VAs and AEQ you need to cap it at like 30 VAs and 1-2 AEQ pieces or the normal user will NEVER compete.

ALGs force dots to be built in a way that is counter intuitive.....if you do not train correctly or hit high caps early enough you will never compete. Plus building in this manor make the lower leagues worthless. People do not want to build a dot for a full calendar year to spend 2-3 seasons playing meaningful games but yet ALGs make them do just that.

League structure is a very minor problem to the competition problem. The main cause is there are way too many things for the normal user to keep up with and in result he gets annihilated by teams who can manage everything.

This game has been on a track to cater to the hardcore user for so long it has lead to a few elite teams and 29 others that have no chance in EVERY league.


5star...... +1000! And the bolded parts are +10,000.......

Originally posted by vinman
Not a bad idea,but 1500/season ?..No way i would pay that to keep my teams.

But let's say you have 5 players on that team. (or have 5 players so you can owner swap to fill out roster every season) 1 WR, 1 CB, 1 LB, and 2 OL.

If you boost them every season the cost is

400 for team, 900 for WR, 1200 for defensive players, 600 for OL. Season cost is 3100.

Now change it to

1500 for team, 225 for WR, 300 for defensive players, 150 for OL. Season cost is 2175.

Originally posted by We_Rule
5star...... +1000! And the bolded parts are +10,000.......

Get rid of regulars and there will be less Ai whiners, repeat play BS whiners. The rest looks fine by 5Star.

Originally posted by Rage Kinard
I still think you should make it so that

Teams cost more to own

Players cost less to make and maintain


Have a team cost 1500 flex per season

However, cut the player cost to make and maintain a player by 75%.

OL, K, P - 25 flex (75 to fully boost)
Defense, FB, TE - 50 flex (150 to fully boost)
skill position - 75 flex (225 to fully boost)

Team ownership will be more expensive, so people will be less likely to buy a team on a whim, however, dedicated owners willing to spend cash won't be spending any more money since they usually maintain at least 5 or 6 players anyway.

There isn't as much money tied into any 1 player, so having to retire one won't seem like such a huge waste of cash.

More players will be created, so recruiting won't be as huge of a nightmare.




Sounds great to me, but then it would since I'm a player only agent.

Still think it's a good idea though.