Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog
Hot take is that the game has far too few users to split them up even further with different game modes without significant alterations to the foundation of the game to keep the current format functional.

Even if it did split up some of the users, that doesn't necessarily mean a net negative effect - I for one would play all 3 of the modes, which would be a dramatic increase in my personal investment compared to right now playing just "Team" mode. Other power-users would probably dabble in multiple modes as well, meaning there wouldn't necessarily be an exodus but rather an expansion. Over a long enough period of time, I'm sure it would attract and retain a lot of agents who might otherwise have left with just the "Team" mode, and those two considerations together may compensate (or overcompensate) for whatever drawbacks come from moving some of the less interested players away from the owner-based experience, which is currently their only option. I think if you can get past the downside of the current leagues losing a minority of active agents (as most of the power users I expect will continue to play Team League), perhaps the upside is high enough to warrant it.

Originally posted by Corndog
Hot take is that the game has far too few users to split them up even further with different game modes without significant alterations to the foundation of the game to keep the current format functional.

thats not a hot take

The only suggestions I've seen that really holds water is an expedited league/leagues and they would need to be at least 4x faster. As fun as it would be to build/test and play around in a turbo environment I'm fairly certain it would also be difficult for a casual player to keep up with that pace and nearly impossible to really coach for it. you would almost need a system or setting that says i want this "archtype" of player and have the CPU spend points for you in accordance to that archtype. Speaking to CD's point of uniqueness i think it would be cool to have those elements such as Max SP in a skill change season to season or a variable skill point award for games completed. Prehaps a PERMANENT player trait or option that disallows you to spend skill points directly but follows a weighted archtype for SP Distribution but gives a small SP Boost, say an aggressive +15%. You could get really wild and rework the Early Bloomer/Slow Built traits. Early Bloomer increasing SP Gains by +15% in the first 90 games and -10% in the next 90 games. With Slow built working the opposite -10% in the first 90 and +15% in the next 90 games. Unbalanced traits above i know but just an example.

Its also very important that any changes in SP generation be out of any players control. Cant tie it to wins or in game performance. you could maybe have a small bonus based on daily login ??? but even that could be a bit much.

if you used 650-850 as an example most players would have about as many skills points as we do currently but some could have 97500 not counting boosts,levels or milestones and some could have 127500.

Originally posted by ThePh33P
Its also very important that any changes in SP generation be out of any players control.

Which I mean, really defeats the whole purpose.

Originally posted by Corndog
Which I mean, really defeats the whole purpose.

The purpose of what?

Originally posted by ThePh33P
The purpose of what?

Giving player agents a meaningful way to interact with the game that makes their player better.

Originally posted by Corndog
Giving player agents a meaningful way to interact with the game that makes their player better.

Yea you probably shouldn't do that if it distrupts parity. Otherwise people will just do the thing whatever it is to make their player better than a player than a player not doing the thing. That's not really player engagement it's more a mandatory chore for the power gamers.

What meaningful thing are player agents expecting to do besides spend SP and Observe how their players are doing? And maybe tick a tactics box which for the most part is a static choice.

Besides a daily login bonus of some kind which would be pretty lame on a day without a game lol.

I mean I can't think of anything that would help engagement more than just having more points to spend and games to watch. But ya know 14 day seasons would probably kill the rack.

Originally posted by ThePh33P
Yea you probably shouldn't do that if it distrupts parity. Otherwise people will just do the thing whatever it is to make their player better than a player than a player not doing the thing. That's not really player engagement it's more a mandatory chore for the power gamers.

Well I think you've proven my point quite convincingly.

Originally posted by ThePh33P
What meaningful thing are player agents expecting to do besides spend SP and Observe how their players are doing? And maybe tick a tactics box which for the most part is a static choice.

Besides a daily login bonus of some kind which would be pretty lame on a day without a game lol.

I mean I can't think of anything that would help engagement more than just having more points to spend and games to watch. But ya know 14 day seasons would probably kill the rack.

Something skill-based with a chance of failure. If simply adding more tasks is a dichotomy between doing the thing or not doing the thing, making the rewarding task a less than 100% chance to succeed, based on the performance of the agent in some way, solves that. Instead of giving more SP and saying spend it or don't, you lock that SP behind a puzzle or a task that requires some kind of athleticism on the part of the gamer to solve. Perhaps you have to beat CD in a Torbjorn 1v1, or answer complex trivia about GLB history, or solve a very difficult captcha, which has the added benefit of also weeding out who of us is not human... Could even make it like H.O.R.S.E., where agents take turns setting up their challenge for the day. Can't squat 3x your own weight? No SP for you!

So..... Why can't we have some running plays that involve the WR position?

TE pitch?