Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Cybertron
Did you even bother to read the rest of my post...

Nah not really.

If spending skill points is already deemed not interesting, how is spending temporary skill points going to be a huge increase in player interaction?

Originally posted by Corndog
Nah not really.

If spending skill points is already deemed not interesting, how is spending temporary skill points going to be a huge increase in player interaction?

I like spending skill points.

Originally posted by Kvothe27
I like spending skill points.

Me too.

Still think player tactics (expanded) are the better way to go on a 3rd iteration - in a grid for those of us with a hundred players. Meaningful levers but not overpowering and versatile game to game rather than static to emphasize the build.

Originally posted by Corndog
Nah not really.

lol

Originally posted by Corndog
If spending skill points is already deemed not interesting, how is spending temporary skill points going to be a huge increase in player interaction?

Maybe I left this part out. The agent would not assign skill points to the players. The game would automatically assign the points, depending on how well they performed in the practice/scrimmage. So it wouldn't be as time consuming for the agent to add points for each player and it would add a bit of randomness to the game. Or you can come up with some other interesting way for the players to gain temporary points. It would give the agents something to do/look forward to doing or discovering on the day off. "Hey, my QB had a great practice and is getting +2 to pass technique this coming week!!!" or "Crap, I can't believe my HB fumbled twice in practice...he is getting -2 to carry grip!!! "

It might not change a lot, but with every player being slightly better or worse each game (at Vet anyway), it could make things more interesting, especially with big games.

Or just make a big button on the player page. "Press your luck! Click the button and see if you get points added or subtracted from your players skills this week!!! " That way the agent doesn't have to take the risk if they don't want to. And if you do, it doesn't automatically give you an advantage because you could actually lose skill points.

So it's basically zero interaction and a random modifier is applied? How is that engaging for individual players?

Originally posted by Corndog
So it's basically zero interaction and a random modifier is applied? How is that engaging for individual players?

You can combine a random modifier with some type of interaction from the agent. I don't know exactly how the agent can interact...can be a combination of all of the above, or take a few pieces of it. Maybe there can be an option for his player in the practice that is more difficult to obtain and has a higher risk? He can play it safe and select his HB to get 50 yards and get +2 to power running or elusive if he gains it or gamble and select his HB to try and get 100 yards (+4 to power running or elusive). If the HB fails to meet the challenge, he gets -2 or -4 power running or elusive.

I am just throwing out ideas.

Originally posted by Cybertron
Maybe I left this part out. The agent would not assign skill points to the players. The game would automatically assign the points, depending on how well they performed in the practice/scrimmage. So it wouldn't be as time consuming for the agent to add points for each player and it would add a bit of randomness to the game. Or you can come up with some other interesting way for the players to gain temporary points. It would give the agents something to do/look forward to doing or discovering on the day off. "Hey, my QB had a great practice and is getting +2 to pass technique this coming week!!!" or "Crap, I can't believe my HB fumbled twice in practice...he is getting -2 to carry grip!!! "

It might not change a lot, but with every player being slightly better or worse each game (at Vet anyway), it could make things more interesting, especially with big games.

Or just make a big button on the player page. "Press your luck! Click the button and see if you get points added or subtracted from your players skills this week!!! " That way the agent doesn't have to take the risk if they don't want to. And if you do, it doesn't automatically give you an advantage because you could actually lose skill points.

No. The game is already highly valued by power users - that's not the intent and as you point out it's a total pain for people who have 50-100 players, plus its random. Plus your solution makes power users spend a lot more time on a low payoff variable output task.

The issue I'm pointing out - which Corndog acknowledged and I'm sure Bort knows well - is that the game while great for power users who want to own teams/design game plans/and watching replays - the novelty of it has long ago worn off and if your game expereince either due to time or budgetary reasons is that you want to have 4 to 5 players - it's simply as good of a product as it needs to be to attract the right ratio of owners/powerusers vs. agents. What does someone with limited time do who doesn't want to go full gameplanner? - My guess is and a quick survey of all agents will back it up - is he picks a different game.

Let me clarify a little of what I mean - the improvement isn't for you it's for the game overall - both in terms of economy (more users spending more money) but also more agents being available.

User Story: Brand Newbie signs up - he creates a few players and enjoys assinging points(hey almost everyone loves it).

Your user-tactics are assigned by a coaching class that has variance in scouting results. So even though more levers might be available the amount and quality of those levers changes from game to game (it wouldn't be the same options every time).

So I have a LB ZEB The LB who primary plays ROLB for Newbie's REnegade team. We've drawn 1980's NCAA Legends of Gridiron in our First Scouted Game.

Since I'm a Rookie Level I have 1 drop down tactic - there maybe 12 points of scouted data generating options but I have 3 to chose from , presented in narrative form :
Drop Down Option 1 - "QB Jamele Holiway has run QB rollouts several times recently but handles the ball like a loaf of bread I want to spend time stripping the ball" [If I choose this drop down option I'll receive a bonus to Strip Technique Pre-Game]
Drop Down Option 2 - "RB Bo Jackson is leading Sun League in Broken Tackles he's a load to bring down, let's work on wrapping up [If Chose this I receive a bonus to wrap up tackling]
Drop Down Option 3 "The 1980's NCAA Legends of Gridiron have burned several of their last few opponents for big gainers on counter plays, lets play it safe" [If I chose this option I have a less of chance of being fooled on a counter play]

- That choice isn't overpowering - but it's meaninfgul. It's also not disrupting anyone's game planning since all of those concern might well be valid. Plus it's not something the owner can tell you what to pick because he won't know which options each player has received (though it could be a topic for team forum discussion which would be nice).
- Your "casual" user with 3-5 players that's a real choice - if he watches the sim later and he chose the last one and Zeb the LB stays home on a counter that fooled the rest of his teammates - he pats himself on the back , if Bo Jackson trucks him even though he picked wrap up he's a little frustrated but he's onto the next game. Either way a choice was made - it had an impact - but it can't be stacked.
- For power users, and I'm including myself, a Single button at the top that displays "My Player tactics" and then shows a GRID of your players with 5 total tactics spot (1 for each tier for example) I can pretty quickly go down the drop downs pregame. The narrative is fairly meaningless to many overall as I've seen it multiple times shortly after it rolls out but I already have knowledge of my player builds and team objectives making the choices is super easy for me.

Sophomore Option - I get another global load that's pre-game application (again minimal computer power).
Drop Down Option 1 - "When the 1980s NCAA Legend Run it's behind Craig Ironhead Heyward Sun League's most powerful blocking FB, best to go around him" [Bonus to pursuit]
Drop Down Option 2 - "Tony Manderich has suffered a bunch of reverse pancakes he seems really undsteady on his feet, bull rush him" [Bonus to pass rush power]

-Ok so the coach did a poor job scounting my 2nd tier option and I'm left with a so-so option and one I can't personally use because of my build if I've got a speed type LB - that said prusuit never really hurt a LB so I go option one on tier 2. I've still made a meaningful choice - it still hasn't screwed up a game plan and it's still easy for a power user to make choices from a grid in a very short amount of time

Jorneyman Option Can be pre-play but not matchup specific - still compute saving in terms of sim replay time
Drop Down Option 1 - "When the 1980's NCAA Legends of the Gridiron have 3rd and less than 2 they usually run offtackle, I'll sell out" [3rd and 2 Bonus if it's an off-tackle run, penalty if its anything else]
Drop Down 2 - "When the 1980's NCAA Legends of the Gridiron have 3rd and more than 5 but less than 10 it's usually an outside run, I'll have my eyes open" [Bonus to pursuit on outside runs penalty to man awareness/zone awareness if not]
Drop Down 3 - "1980's's NCAA Legnds of Gridiron almost always starts 1st down with a running play to the outside" [Bonus to pursuit if outside run on first down minus to pusuit on all other plays]
Drop Down 4 - "1980's's NCAA Legnds of Gridiron starts 1st down with a running play" [Minor bonus to break run block if 1st down is a run, no penalty to other plays]

- Again those are all meaningful choices, they are not overpowering however, it's also not something where there is going to always be a correct choice - it's the ideal experience for someone who wants to have 4-5 players watch their replays and make a few more choices other than where to put their points after the game - it gives them a chance to have an impact by a choice they've made without overpowering the game or requiring them to fully commit multiple hours into gameplanning.

Originally posted by william78
- Again those are all meaningful choices, they are not overpowering however, it's also not something where there is going to always be a correct choice

So, I didn't respond the first time because it looked like you put a lot of effort into it, and I didn't want to burst bubbles, but...

The primary flaw in your whole idea is that the "scouting" is done by an active GM. This means, basically all players in the d-leagues or on a team with bad owners (hint: literally every new player), this change actually does nothing. So as far as getting new users to stick around, this idea does nothing.

But on another note...isn't this basically just small bonus tactics with a different name? You're just changing your tactics to what the GM is telling you to, not exactly compelling gameplay. How are the "options" even generated if not done by a person? Are they just completely made up?

Originally posted by Corndog
So, I didn't respond the first time because it looked like you put a lot of effort into it, and I didn't want to burst bubbles, but...

The primary flaw in your whole idea is that the "scouting" is done by an active GM. This means, basically all players in the d-leagues or on a team with bad owners (hint: literally every new player), this change actually does nothing. So as far as getting new users to stick around, this idea does nothing.

But on another note...isn't this basically just small bonus tactics with a different name? You're just changing your tactics to what the GM is telling you to, not exactly compelling gameplay. How are the "options" even generated if not done by a person? Are they just completely made up?

What if instead you just had a second category of SP? It would be a small pool, maybe 5% of your total SP, but it would be floating - you'd be able to respec it between every game, giving each player the freedom to make slight alterations for every opponent.

Originally posted by Kvothe27
What if instead you just had a second category of SP? It would be a small pool, maybe 5% of your total SP, but it would be floating - you'd be able to respec it between every game, giving each player the freedom to make slight alterations for every opponent.

Which, I think, harkens back to an earlier point. Most of these suggestions are coming from team owners, and team owners are a lot more involved and care a lot more about "making slight alterations for the next opponent". The average user on a random team doesn't care much whether they win or lose, and aren't looking to put effort into scouting out and deciding the best plan of attack to win...otherwise they'd be running a team. Any "gives a slight bonus next game" is either going to be set it and forget it or be dictated by the GMs that are actually planning the games. Not much agency and engagement on the player's behalf.

The problem, I think, is how player interaction is intrinsically linked to games played. Games take a long time to happen, and are primarily a competition between owners and GMs. More levers to pull to get a slight advantage is more relevant to team owner interests than player agent interests. What needs to happen is to identify and enhance player agent interests. And I think one of the major failings of the game, has been not having enough player agent interests.

From a personal perspective, and what I enjoyed in GLB Classic when I was just a regular user, was experimenting with builds and trying to find ways to break the game. Unfortunately, while I do believe GLB2 has that particular interest going for it, the pacing is less favorable than it was in 2008. And outside of that reverse engineering interest, I think player agent interests are pretty slim pickins.

Part of the one to many idea from the other thread (somehow these two threads crossed wires), is that it creates a player agent interest in trying to get their player recruited to multiple teams. Rather than waiting for individual games to sim, they have a meta game of trying to "sell" their player, probably competing in some combine type things, etc.

I guess you could compare it to like, WoW raiding.

The guild leader is primarily concerned with making the guild better, and completing dungeons, killing bosses. For the 40 raiders though, their primary motivation is getting the awesome gear from the bosses you kill, they don't care about making the guild stronger as much as they care about getting gear for themselves to be stronger inside and outside of the raid.

Team owners are the guild leaders, concerned with winning games and making the team better. The problem is that individual players on the team lack a primary motivator, and trying to use the team owners' primary motivator to motivate the individual players falls a bit flat. There's no individual loot to make them better, and they don't even "exist" outside of the team they are linked to.

Originally posted by Corndog
So, I didn't respond the first time because it looked like you put a lot of effort into it, and I didn't want to burst bubbles, but...

The primary flaw in your whole idea is that the "scouting" is done by an active GM. This means, basically all players in the d-leagues or on a team with bad owners (hint: literally every new player), this change actually does nothing. So as far as getting new users to stick around, this idea does nothing.

But on another note...isn't this basically just small bonus tactics with a different name? You're just changing your tactics to what the GM is telling you to, not exactly compelling gameplay. How are the "options" even generated if not done by a person? Are they just completely made up?

Wasn't worried - like I said it's free - I already had the concept from a proof of concept project I was considering doing several years ago only time was retyping it - albeit it was from a completely different game I wanted to pay to have designed for a totally different reason. Very Very short - big big contract was going to go to a company that had 10 traits we had 8 of them one of the things they were looking for was experience creating simulation experiences - which we don't do I contemplated sticking one of my development teams in a room for 8 months to do a development and this was part of it because well I knew football and I'd played GLB before so I at least knew something of the economic pitfalls - not a ripoff of the game just an area - it just turned out at the end of the day it was a lot less risky to spend a few hundred thousand to buy a company with a first person shooter sim that was already done , we probably could have built it less expensively but the failure possibility/overrun was higher - none the less I'd done the user stories/design notes etc.


Point was : I had coaching classes as part of the design plan. One of those atrributes was scouting ability - all the options were generated by that after the team had played 3 or 4 regular season games (so no indiviudal scouting on the agent part - it's system generated - much like what you have from Stobie's Scout tool these days).

As far as in-game effect: The hgiher the scout - the more available options to the player on drop down - so it's not really 1 of 3 choices it's 12 to 24 potential choices based on the overall scoutability and player position - but the player may only have 3-6 show up from available options.

WAsn't all just minor bonses - some of them were more powerful at high levels of scouting/player discipline they'd be akin to you changing the base rate of success for something. The big point was though the effect didn't alter the gameplanning which was still owner/power user driven - and was difficult to stack because there was no guarantee your players would get the same option.

Most of it at the higher levels was also a matchup driven output - IE your OT was in the game at LT for 40 of 50 plays, their RDE was in say 35 of 50 plays so knowing things like RDE you'll be facing up against (likely) is a speed rush quick off the snap beat you around the edge junky is valuable information and the opposing OT saying - hey I'll overload towards speed rush has a meaningful impact but can't really throw off the power users experience.

Originally posted by Corndog
I guess you could compare it to like, WoW raiding.

The guild leader is primarily concerned with making the guild better, and completing dungeons, killing bosses. For the 40 raiders though, their primary motivation is getting the awesome gear from the bosses you kill, they don't care about making the guild stronger as much as they care about getting gear for themselves to be stronger inside and outside of the raid.

Team owners are the guild leaders, concerned with winning games and making the team better. The problem is that individual players on the team lack a primary motivator, and trying to use the team owners' primary motivator to motivate the individual players falls a bit flat. There's no individual loot to make them better, and they don't even "exist" outside of the team they are linked to.

What about making changes that effect coaching then? You are going from player to owner, but leaving out coaches. Give the coaches some options to select how their players will preform. O-Coordinator could have some options to choose how the offense would perform, same with defense, special teams, scouting, etc....

I think to really get involved in this game, an agent has to at least be a coach. An agent who only owns players and not a team or coaches will not stay very long and I don’t think that will change for this game. I think upgrades or adding coaching interactions might be the best way to go. You get the “I am not tied to 1 team” perspective like you were mentioning above. Also, you can make coaching more of a development thing where they get skills and points.

Originally posted by Corndog
The problem is that individual players on the team lack a primary motivator, and trying to use the team owners' primary motivator to motivate the individual players falls a bit flat. There's no individual loot to make them better, and they don't even "exist" outside of the team they are linked to.

I think a place to look into isn't to make the game more attractive to agents who only create players, but rather to incentivize players to become coaches by making the ease of entry into these roles easier for players.

Let players implement coaching strategies for pickup games. Let players sign up to coach a pick up game, then display their choice of offense or defensive playcalling - alongside the opponents choice of playbook they intend to run (I'm sure pickup games just randomly choose between the default playbooks). To keep it simple only pit defensive playcallers against each other so they both get to attack the CPU offense, or vice versa with offensive playcalling. A lot of people have a hard time getting a shot in this game in the coaching role because who wants to gamble on an unknown? Basically forcing players to earn their chops in uncompetitive teams or self fund their own team just to try to playcall.

Also, it isn't great that in order to reasonably scout your opponent you need another website. Why has this functionality not been folded into GLB at this point?

Why when I look at a play in the sim is there not a little ticker at the bottom telling me exactly what play the offense is calling and the defense is calling? This can be a great tool for up and coming coaches to start to recognize play patterns.

In the same vein, why is player creation so nebulous? We rely on GLB2Scout to build players because the actual site provides no information on what anything does. How are players going to be invested in their dots when so many are abject failures because they don't know how to properly build a player, and what's more have an avenue TO LEARN other than being told by other players how to do it. Again, why are we relying on Stobie to provide a service that should just be a natural part of GLB2?

Originally posted by Corndog
Which, I think, harkens back to an earlier point. Most of these suggestions are coming from team owners, and team owners are a lot more involved and care a lot more about "making slight alterations for the next opponent". The average user on a random team doesn't care much whether they win or lose, and aren't looking to put effort into scouting out and deciding the best plan of attack to win...otherwise they'd be running a team.

The suggestions are coming from your userbase. What percentage of your active userbase isn't a team owner? I'd venture to argue that your average user at this point in this game is a team owner. Even if not, why do we care so much about securing an average user that only creates a player or two?

IMO you should stop trying to secure your idealistic "average" user and focus on attracting and retaining/exciting the (albeit fewer) cash cows that have heavy interest in this area of games/sports. Hell, if there are more of these, then more of your "average" users will trickle in.