Warrior General Games

Originally posted by suntansuperman
Originally posted by william78

Originally posted by suntansuperman


Wow, seems way too complicated tbh. Sure it adds more fun, but I strongly, strongly, strongly dislike the idea of being kicked off of a team because of level. In fact that's pretty much the only reason I like this game still because all the teams I'm on are pretty awesome, win or lose.

With the level cap being a total level cap you wouldn't be kicked off as you exceeded it but owners would have to manage that if they have a level 30 their backup is gonna be much lower level and indeed would have some choices to make.

As far as complicated the competition issue is one that I think will require some detailed answers weather mine of anyone else's but I think its pretty vital to address it at some point. Lot's of well meaning dedicated owners continue to quit because of the hassle and bother and lots of players are becoming bored with their level 30+ players. At some point a solution for those two issues does need to be addressed.



So in other words, if a bunch of people wanted to be on the same team, all leveled up equally, but then lost someone due to retirement or whatever, they'd be screwed? i.e. All at level 34, so total level would be say, 45*34 which equals 1530, now say in their four seasons starting at BBB, they only made it up to AA, which has the "level cap" of 1232, Say they lost one agent, who owned three players, what would happen then? Would the entire team have to disband to get under the "level cap" or what? And for the record I'm currently on two teams like this.

Great question: I don't think it would create that problem exactly , first off with that setup there would be no BBB as their would be more AAA and more AA teams. Basically with that setup it turns the pyramid into a bit more of a diamond shape - few teams at the top, most in the middle, and some at the bottom. It has slightly more teams (346 more) than GLB has right now. As I said I do have more details in my own forum (about 5 posts that size worth) but even a team over the cap would be allowed to sign a minimum level player (10 for A, 20 for AA) you could replace your guys who wanted to leave but would have to do so by going younger and developing players rather than adding instant star replacements.


Similar to: What the NBA does with the salary cap, teams can go over to sign players to the minimum except in this case it would be minimum level not dollar amount. This would certainly help to increase parity - and the best quote i've read about parity on GLB is "the only people who want more parity are bad teams and smart people".

Originally posted by EagleOtto
Great idea, but like alot of other great ideas, it changes the fundamentals so much it would require a purge of all players, and that will not be acceptable to most players.

I don't think it would require a purge or re-set and I certainly dont want to see one. If you implement it for the next off-season the only issue it creates is establishing the new league structure and then owners getting acquinted with their new divisions (About 1/3rd of the AA teams would have to be moved up to create to new AAA leagues in each region). Also resetting the high level guys to P1 status could start in the off-season give them the full amount of time to chose their player's track.

Really like this suggestion, it's a long one and very well thought out. I don't have much to add at this point, I'll think on it lol.

But right now, I fully agree with all in the OP.

These are way too complicated of solutions.

To solve all the problems mentioned, a salary cap, (as mentioned in the second post here: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=1480920 ) would suffice. It would bunch players into leagues with higher level players and make the game more competitive and less "boring".

In addition, it could be implemented without a total purge to the game or modification of any existing teams. All you have to do is change the ticket sales demand function.

Your solution requires a total recoding of the game.

Salary Cap would work wonders for the game.

*edit - to the OPs message

Your 1st suggestion to have a team cap ( I think level would be better than salary) is a great idea to give non-powerhouse teams a chance. The 2nd suggestion seems a little far fetched though. It would break up teams too easily, IMO.

I agree that the slower development is a problem for higher levels but I can not suggest a better solution. Maybe a faster rate of XP earned somehow...

There are some decent ideas here that could work with some tweaking (for example, RB's that take one with Catching should get overall more points, as that's less important to a back than the other abilities).

But no HARD level cap, ever. Every team should always be able to reneg with their own players, regardless. A soft cap (whether a set level or "total level") along the lines of who can be signed (or traded for) from outside the team is workable and worth consideration below AAA.

We can go with this idea or a salry cap but most some would argue that they built up plenty of money so what would they do with all that money if a salary cap is force upon. I could care less about those owners. I think a salary cap would be the answer where not every good players is looking for a dominating team and a BIG contract, they would have to compromise a maybe not so much dominate team but has plenty room to grow because they are way under the salary cap

As I said obviously a work in progress in terms of the idea but I think most people realize something has to be done on these two problems.

A soft cap with levels i.e. allow you to renegotiate with your own players always but limit what you can go out and add/trade for seems like a good solution. That would leave the off-season with teams that are "buying" i.e. have plenty of soft cap room for good players and those who will fill in their depth with lower levels. That could spread the wealth.

Though something certainly also needs to be done with players over level 32 or so to make them more interesting.

Originally posted by william78
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Two Solutions>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. Create "total team" soft caps. I.E. the maximum number of levels allowed on any 1 team will be set. Yes this will force some "cap casualties" but if done correctly will also encourage owners to acquire younger and lower level players (future stars) to build their team. NFL and College teams do this to improve in GLB you have to try to take players from higher level teams to improve. Even retirement won't solve this problem completly. Also the organization of our current tiers does not sufficiently push enough higher level players to Pro and AAA teams. I have suggested total team caps for AA and A - for AAA and Pro that involves my rework of level 30+.

AA - 1232 Total levels (Suggested: 11 at 22, 22 at lvl 27, and 12 at level 33)

A - 827 Total levels (Suggested 11 at 13, 22 at lvl 18, 12 at lvl 24).

This is an absolutely massive no-no for me - it can be exploited way too easily by super-slow builders.

Imagine if a team signs a player, sits him out for 3-5 seasons whilst he is training and levelling very slowly at 25XP per day, and then lets him play. They will have a low-levelled player with great attributes as they have been trained hundreds of times more than a normally-built player with a similar level.

So this would have the opposite effect to what you want. Less fun would be had as people have to wait half a year to use their players, and when these are used they will blow the opposition away - leading to way less parity.

The second point seems unnecessary to me also. Well-built players do increase at a sufficient rate after level 30 - Between lvls 30 and 38 I went through 5 different caps for example. If anyone really requires a player who will increase fast they can always start to build their 'next-generation' player which will be 'fun' for a few seasons. Hence they have the fun of building with their low level player, and the fun of perfecting a build and playing in a high level league with their high level player.

The changes you propose will lead to builds with massive individual attributes - would you require an entire game re-code to cope with these changes also? The amount of time required to implement this would be massive. We are at season 6, the point where in several cases teams are choosing a well-built lower level player over lvl 40 veterans, and with the slowing down in builds that you don't like the game is perfectly set up so that teams will have a variety of levels (40-60) on them in the next few seasons, and your point 1) will be addressed also.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a well thought out idea. It is just open to massive exploitation from super-slow building and would require an entire game re-code. As we are in the beta phase, I think the resources of the people who code the site would be better spent doing other necessary things, such as a field goal replay and the like.

Originally posted by Maddencoach
We can go with this idea or a salry cap but most some would argue that they built up plenty of money so what would they do with all that money if a salary cap is force upon. I could care less about those owners. I think a salary cap would be the answer where not every good players is looking for a dominating team and a BIG contract, they would have to compromise a maybe not so much dominate team but has plenty room to grow because they are way under the salary cap

Well, not only is a salary cap unfair to those teams that saved money instead of spending everything they took in like drunken sailors, but those it advantages are groups like USAORG that dominate by taking minimum salaries, as well as single-owner, single-agent teams.

If there is any sort of cap, it has to be by level. Salary caps are an awful way to go about anything.

I agree with the OP. you see it in the NFL all the time teams going cutting or trading star players for a youth movment.

dude, you're likely to get shot for bringing up caps of any kind. god forbid a football league would have any kind of salary cap.

but as for parity goes... to me it's more an issue of builds

for each position you have to have X amount in Y attribute or you completely suck. the flip side of that coin is if you have K amount of Z attribute you're a very dominant player.

There is just too big of a difference between the protype "perfect" build and pretty much anything else. It just seems like your player is either great or he gets crushed. Then add to that the level parity issue where 10 SPs can mean the difference between a great player and one that gets crushed.

Maybe there just needs to be more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. Improve the way attributes compliment each other, rather than having everything be one attribute make or break a build.

Originally posted by Maddencoach
We can go with this idea or a salry cap but most some would argue that they built up plenty of money so what would they do with all that money if a salary cap is force upon. I could care less about those owners. I think a salary cap would be the answer where not every good players is looking for a dominating team and a BIG contract, they would have to compromise a maybe not so much dominate team but has plenty room to grow because they are way under the salary cap

You have to implement some reason for players to want big money (e.g. fame or do away with team equipment funds). To stop the argument against saving money, don't actually implement a salary cap, but a revenue cap. See my thread posted above.

The basic idea is that Pro teams have higher demand for tickets than BBB teams, so that Pro teams generate more cash each season than BBB teams (like in real life, where a Div I-A Florida Gators team team sells more tickets and at a higher price than a Div-III MIT team). As a result, Pro teams can offer higher salaries and get better, higher level players, while BBB teams get less desirable (lower level) players at a lower price.

Originally posted by Ken1

Well, not only is a salary cap unfair to those teams that saved money instead of spending everything they took in like drunken sailors, but those it advantages are groups like USAORG that dominate by taking minimum salaries, as well as single-owner, single-agent teams.

If there is any sort of cap, it has to be by level. Salary caps are an awful way to go about anything.


You implement more realistic minimum salaries. So if USAORG wants to continually generate <lvl 15 players, they can afford a BBB team. But once their slow build guys get to lvl 20 or so, they can't afford an entire team with the revenue stream of a BBB team, and either need to promote to A or sell off their players and get new lower level guys.

Which is exactly what would happen in real life.