Warrior General Games

Originally posted by william78
Your viewing this as an argument not a discussion, no need for an idea to help newcomers be adversarial

If they are auto-sorting by length of ownership , they wouldn't have to take the time to open them all. Length of GLB2 signup certainly isn't perfect but it would better approximate skill than simply randomly putting leagues together based on order of signup. Assigning a script to return the length of time on the account and spitting teams out in that league order wouldn't be overly complicated.

Again there is one team per person so length of ownership is really an unimportant number.

Originally posted by TxSteve
they'll phone it in a lot...

some will sign up and take the flex and never log in again.

some will answer questions for a few minutes and then get scarce

others will essentially become GM and hold hands the whole way through.

will be a broad spectrum

Well, it would be every season. And I'd guess the owner could remove you if you weren't helping.

You'd have to go back to Williams idea --- I think they would have to be hand selected mentors --- similar to mod selections but not nearly as stringent

or start with a sign up post with a list of criteria:

- sign up date more than 1 full season ago
- must have been an owner or GM yourself
- etc

Originally posted by Xavori
Do you see how maybe that second statement completely invalidates the first?

I don't think it's possible to render Yorick useless. mutley had Denver run scrims on me all morning where I was just using inside runs. They work, too.

On outside runs, especially goalline, I really do want the LB's and safeties to play smarter. Have them make Pursuit rolls that keep them moving down the line rather than into the scrum. Then it becomes a case of skilled builds going up against skilled builds rather than requiring that you know enough about how the defensive AI works to force the sim to keep guys on the outside.

Oh, and I already know I could build a team to stop Yorick. The problem that is in doing so, I'd have a team that couldn't beat Air Raid, Lost Lounge, or DADDY ever.

I took your post about having no elements of a passing game to mean you were against a fix.

Originally posted by TxSteve
You'd have to go back to Williams idea --- I think they would have to be hand selected mentors --- similar to mod selections but not nearly as stringent

Agreed. Also generally I'd say have the mentored team fill out a survey about how the mentor did at the end of the season.

The team being mentored probably wouldn't need it for more than 1 season but certainly having one, especially one whose been vetted would help alot with those who get totally lost.

Originally posted by bhall43
Again there is one team per person so length of ownership is really an unimportant number.

At the moment. Length of time on GLB2 is still a good approximation, perfect no but better than nothing.

that's the real problem - anything that ultimately requires a programmer...or an HR head (like things like surveys would) is doomed to failure as there doesn't seem to be the man power to do anything like that (with corndog being split between GLB1 and 2 from what I can see)

Originally posted by Corndog
Even thought it is ripe for exploitation, an "adopt a team" type thing, where older users could sign up to help a new team, and get half of the flex cost of the team. Could help encourage teaching new users, and trying to keep the team from folding.

1. You can't adopt a team you have players on or a formal coaching position. (No flex for what would likely be network adoptions)

2. You can only adopt rookie teams. (Because if they haven't learned after their first season, they're Jampy)

3. You can only adopt one team per season. (Because you want this to be something your mentors can focus on)

4. You can't adopt a team with an owner who has a full season's worth of coaching/ownership experience. (Again, no networks/resets/etc)

5. The team owner has to accept being adopted, and can rescind acceptance at any point before the first star. (They should be able to judge how helpful you're being. At the same time, if you put enough effort as a mentor up the star that they were okay with you, they should be able to 'fire' you just to keep you from earning your flex)

Originally posted by Corndog
But then, is 250 flex really enough for people to put in that much effort? lol

Prolly not. How 'bout 1000 flex with the above restrictions?

Ya. This is enough that people will be able to own their own team for free and a couple players, but if they're helping build your user base, I think it's worth it.

Originally posted by Corndog
Even thought it is ripe for exploitation, an "adopt a team" type thing, where older users could sign up to help a new team, and get half of the flex cost of the team. Could help encourage teaching new users, and trying to keep the team from folding.

I'd also consider rewards other than flex. For some the flex is a great incentive, if you have a ton and are relatively well resourced 250 isn't a huge impact. SuperStar recognition , an atta boy, recognition on the agent page ..something other than the lucere

Originally posted by Xavori
Do you see how maybe that second statement completely invalidates the first?

I don't think it's possible to render Yorick useless. mutley had Denver run scrims on me all morning where I was just using inside runs. They work, too.

On outside runs, especially goalline, I really do want the LB's and safeties to play smarter. Have them make Pursuit rolls that keep them moving down the line rather than into the scrum. Then it becomes a case of skilled builds going up against skilled builds rather than requiring that you know enough about how the defensive AI works to force the sim to keep guys on the outside.

Oh, and I already know I could build a team to stop Yorick. The problem that is in doing so, I'd have a team that couldn't beat Air Raid, Lost Lounge, or DADDY ever.

Yep the problem is a defense has to have rounded builds or they will get destroyed by a team.

Where as on offense if you are putting all your points into 1 type of offense, you are going to have an advantage over the defense who have gone 50/50 or even 70/30 on run pass as you've gone and put everything into it.

I know there's been an arguement going on about putting players on the depth chart OOP. Maybe it could help to allow a depth chart on the goalline plays you have in your defense where you can play safeties and LBers at CB with no penalty but only against the goalline.

Don't know if that could be a short term fix

Originally posted by bhall43
I took your post about having no elements of a passing game to mean you were against a fix.

Just FYI, always assume I want to make the game better and more challenging.

For example, I really did take the time to break down Civ V's AI so that I could beat it on Deity, and that's pretty normal for how I approach gaming

I really like the idea of a free player tied to the team >_>

Then they have a reason to care about the team.

Or...a free superstar tied to the team.

If the team folds or you get fired, you lose the player.

Originally posted by TxSteve
I'd be curious.

If I went to every rookie league forum (all 8) and posted:

"Any rookie teams looking for help with their team? I've owned a team here since season 1 and would love to answer any questions or give you any tips. send me a PM to discuss"

How many responses would I get? (I'm not sure I'd even get one but I'm wrong a lot)


so far: 1 PM from an experienced owner of a team who finished 2nd in their league last season....and 8 snarky comments (none from Xav).

Originally posted by Corndog
Or...a free superstar tied to the team.

If the team folds or you get fired, you lose the player.

wow - that one is interesting

but then isn't there a risk that the 'mentor' really ends up just taking over the other guys team...