Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Ken1
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 totally agree with this point - a salary cap is a waste of time, needs to be some sort of level cap. Level caps reward teams with good builds which I have no problem with - salary caps will be exploited just as you say.

Originally posted by ryanshaw
Originally posted by Ken1

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 totally agree with this point - a salary cap is a waste of time, needs to be some sort of level cap. Level caps reward teams with good builds which I have no problem with - salary caps will be exploited just as you say.

Level caps on the higher leagues will be exploited equally as badly and should not be considered as a viable option. See my previous post in this thread.

Originally posted by mandyross
Originally posted by ryanshaw

Originally posted by Ken1


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 totally agree with this point - a salary cap is a waste of time, needs to be some sort of level cap. Level caps reward teams with good builds which I have no problem with - salary caps will be exploited just as you say.

Level caps on the higher leagues will be exploited equally as badly and should not be considered as a viable option. See my previous post in this thread.

The obvious answer is to ban slow building, which is basically a joke anyway. I have no idea why we allow something that is clearly an exploit. In regards to your earlier point about having super high level players unbalancing the game, this could be correct.

Originally posted by ryanshaw

I totally agree with this point - a salary cap is a waste of time, needs to be some sort of level cap. Level caps reward teams with good builds which I have no problem with - salary caps will be exploited just as you say.

As discussed before, level caps are (1) unrealistic ("you're too good for Div I-AA, so we're forcing you to go play Div I-A") and (2) prevent teams that have worked together from staying together (you could picture a situation where a bunch of friends have a team that fails to get promoted and they're forced to disband).

If you cap a team's revenue stream, it's a completely obvious, effective, and realistic way to avoid all of these problems.

Seriously, is it really that hard to understand? Are people just not thinking hard enough about it? What's the problem?

Moved to EPIC SUGGESTIONS!

Originally posted by matta
As discussed before, level caps are (1) unrealistic ("you're too good for Div I-AA, so we're forcing you to go play Div I-A") and (2) prevent teams that have worked together from staying together (you could picture a situation where a bunch of friends have a team that fails to get promoted and they're forced to disband).

If you cap a team's revenue stream, it's a completely obvious, effective, and realistic way to avoid all of these problems.

Seriously, is it really that hard to understand? Are people just not thinking hard enough about it? What's the problem?

Yeah. Sort of shocked this got moved to Epic.

Originally posted by SwagOnLock
Originally posted by matta

As discussed before, level caps are (1) unrealistic ("you're too good for Div I-AA, so we're forcing you to go play Div I-A") and (2) prevent teams that have worked together from staying together (you could picture a situation where a bunch of friends have a team that fails to get promoted and they're forced to disband).

If you cap a team's revenue stream, it's a completely obvious, effective, and realistic way to avoid all of these problems.

Seriously, is it really that hard to understand? Are people just not thinking hard enough about it? What's the problem?

Yeah. Sort of shocked this got moved to Epic.


I am in a lot of support of the fun of the game coming before realism at this point.

The level capping of leagues is a SMART thing for parity, so that you can hit a point in which the top teams are scrambling for dominance with coordinating. Sure, there will be a 5 level 'growth period' in which you can exceed the level cap if you've been signed with the team for a season or longer and once you're past that 5th level above the cap you're automatically booted off the team by the season. This can be a development of a 'league super-star' or 'franchise player' giving him a good extra season or so to work in their old league and whole teams who build up like this will WIN their leagues if they are pushing the cap.

Also, the level cap itself would have to be raised and raised or something to combat with overall level increases.

To be honest, I moved it to epic for the player build part, instead of parity part.

Originally posted by matta
Originally posted by ryanshaw


I totally agree with this point - a salary cap is a waste of time, needs to be some sort of level cap. Level caps reward teams with good builds which I have no problem with - salary caps will be exploited just as you say.

As discussed before, level caps are (1) unrealistic ("you're too good for Div I-AA, so we're forcing you to go play Div I-A") and (2) prevent teams that have worked together from staying together (you could picture a situation where a bunch of friends have a team that fails to get promoted and they're forced to disband).

If you cap a team's revenue stream, it's a completely obvious, effective, and realistic way to avoid all of these problems.

Seriously, is it really that hard to understand? Are people just not thinking hard enough about it? What's the problem?

The issue is pretty obvious - teams that have a lot of the owners' own players or agents to who are friends will sign their guys up for min salary whilst everyone else will get in bidding wars in the FA market. This already happens. The last thing we want is to give yet more advantages to owners who staff teams with their own players. It is totally unrealistic for agents to get their players to sign for min salary so I don't think we should encourage it.

The only way a salary cap would work is if the game fixes the salary rather than it being negotiated. So everyone would pay the same for the same sort of player. To be honest, this would not be the worst outcome in the world as players demanding silly salaries are driving many owners mad.

I have yet to come across a single player in my 5 years of team ownership who asked for anything beyond minimum salary.

Er, 5 seasons I mean.

First of all, an important difference is that I'm advocating an INCOME cap for teams, not a salary cap or a level cap.

The important difference is that owners will have to chose between developing a stadium or signing high level players each season. Further, teams will have to balance between one high level player (a franchise player) and many lower level guys, or a team of all medium level guys (high, medium, and low levels are with respect to the rest of the league, which will even out as the game matures).

Originally posted by ryanshaw

The issue is pretty obvious - teams that have a lot of the owners' own players or agents to who are friends will sign their guys up for min salary whilst everyone else will get in bidding wars in the FA market. This already happens. The last thing we want is to give yet more advantages to owners who staff teams with their own players. It is totally unrealistic for agents to get their players to sign for min salary so I don't think we should encourage it.

You implement a system where players are incentivized to request more than the minimum salary. For example, institute Fame or eliminate team equipment funds (and only allow contracts at the conclusion of the previous). Right now there's no reason to want more money, so no one does. Create a situation where people do need more than the minimum, and the problem's solved.

That could lead to a situation where an agent owns 40 players that are all, say AA-level, and that owner will have to chose between keeping that team in BBB and not being able to afford equipment, or moving the team to AA and affording equipment.



Originally posted by ryanshaw

The only way a salary cap would work is if the game fixes the salary rather than it being negotiated. So everyone would pay the same for the same sort of player. To be honest, this would not be the worst outcome in the world as players demanding silly salaries are driving many owners mad.

Not true. This only happens when there's no incentive for receiving higher pay. Why does the NFL work? Because players want as much money as possible so they can pay for ancillary things (jewelry, cars, houses, etc.). In this game, there are no ancillary things to buy, so there's no reason for a player to ask for more than min salary. Before the team equipment fund kicked in, there was a reason to ask for bonuses, but not any more. So create ancillary "things" to buy or reasons for people to spend money, and that solves a lot of problems.

It creates an advantage to be in Pro and not BBB, prevents the migration of teams downward, balances competition within leagues, and creates a self-organizing solution to the problem, which is exactly what you want.

Honestly, I think it's a pretty obvious and elegant solution.

On the player tacks issue, I actually dont think it would distrub the game too greatly(I think it would actually help by making the game more fun for high level players) also since its only moving SOFT CAPs and not adding a direct bonus the advantage is muted. I.E. A receiver who wants to be fast will have no doubt built up his speed long before level 34 to well over the soft cap but this would allow him to add a few more if he really wants to be a track star. On the other hand if you want a powerful physical receiver this gives you the opportunity to do so without turning your receiver into a mini-LB. In any case since it got moved to epic suggestions for this reason I decided to post the tracks I had come up with for players at P-1

QBs:
Track A: Drop Back Passer (Throwing Soft Cap +45)
The default and the prototypical drop back NFL QB ex. Drew Brees, Drew Bledsoe, Peyton Manning
Track B: Running QB (Speed +25, Agility +25)
The Scrambler self explanatory but obviously Michael Vick and Vince Young come to mind
Track C: Gunslinger (Strength +25 Confidence +25)
This player has a cannon arm and enjoys the deep ball he loves throwing early and often (ex. Brett Farve, John Elway)
Track D: Understudy (+15 Vision, +15 Throwing, +15 Agility, +10 Confidence)
This player intends to spend time learning the game perhaps as a backup for a season or two(though he's not required to do so) he'll work on footwork and throwing mechanics.

HB
Track A: Bruiser (+25 STR +25 CAR)
This HB looks to run people over he may not be the fastest but he's a load to bring down ex. Jerome Bettis, Brandon Jacobs, Christian Okoye
Track B: Cutback Runner (+25 VIS, +25 AGIL)
This is the protoypical one cut and go back he can see and hit the right hole, he may not be the strongest or fastest but he could be among the best ex. Clinton Portis, Terrell Davis, Emmitt Smith
Track C: 3rd Down Back (+25 SPD, +25 CATCH)
On many teams this guy is the passing specialist on 3rd down though he doesnt need to be in GLB in fact perhaps some of the true multi-talented backs fall into this category ex.. Marshall Faulk,
Track D: Prime Time Back (+15SPD, +15AG, +15 CAR, + 10 Catch) The jack of all trades back pretty good at alot of things but not the fastest, strongest, etc... ex. Matt Forte

WR
TRACK A: Speedster (+45 SPD)
This guy may not be a complete player but he can turn on the jets
TRACK B: Leaper (+30 SPD +20JMP)
Randy Moss comes to mind here , its not just his speed but his size and his ability to outleap the corners ex. Randy Moss, Lynn Swann
TRACK C: Route Runner (+25 SPD, +25 AGL)
Makes awsome cuts in a clear and precise manner ex. Marvin Harrison
TRACK D: Mr. Physical (+20 SPD, +25 AG, +10 STR)
This receiver may not fly down the field but his agile big and strong ex. KeyShawn Johnson, T.O.

TE
TRACK A: Mr. Physical (+25 STR , +25 CTCH)
Not the fastest TE on the field but a load to bring down runs over defenders not the other way around ex. Jeremy Shockey, Mike Ditka
TRACK B: Blocking TE (+25 STR, +25 BLK)
Exactly as it sounds Jim Kleinsauser is a good example
TRACK C: Receiving TE (+25 SPD, +25 CTCH)
Burns the field openly like an extra wide receiver but bigger ex. Shannon Sharpe

FB's
TRACK A: Lead Blocker (+45 BLK)
Exactly as it sounds ex. Lorenzo Neal
TRACK B: QB's Best Friend (+25 CTCH +25 BLK)
Excels at picking up the blitz and as a safety valve for the QB ex. Daryl Johnston
TRACK C: Shortyardage Hero (+25 STR , +25 CAR)
This player is a bettering Ram ex. Mike Alstott

OT
TRACK A: Technique Blocker (+25 STR , +25 BLK)
Skilled and powerfull this tackle is equally equipped to handle a bull rusher or speed rusher ex. Chris Samuel
TRACK B: Drive Blocker (+45 STR)
Nasty Nasty powerfull T who prefers to maul the DE
TRACK C: Finesse Blocker (+25 AG, +25 BLK)
Difficult to rush around the edge of this nimble OT excells at riding speed rushers right out of the play ex..

OG
TRACK A: Pulling Gaurd (+15 STR, +15 AGL, +15BLK, +10SPD)
Watch out around the end this guy may not be the nastiest drive blocker but he can get around the edge and level his competition
TRACK B:Goliath (+45 STR)
Viscous Drive blocking beast of a guard ex..
TRACK C:Technique Blocker (+25 STR, +25 BLK)
Skilled just like the tackle with the same ability ex..

C
TRACK A:Line Captain (+25 STR, +25 CON)
The ultimate in line leadership not the biggest or fastest but is always there to lead his teammates in the right direction
TRACK B:Mauler (+45 STR)
Exactly like it sounds able to crush DT's ex. Dermonti Dawson
TRACK C:Finesse Blocker (+15 STR, +15BLK, +15AG, +10 VIS)
No DT is putting the swim move on this guy, also adept at picking up blitzers ex..

DT's
TRACK A: 1 Gap Tackle (+45 STR)
Doesnt need to move and doesnt like to responsible to push the OL right backwards ex Gilbert Brown
TRACK B: 2 Gap Tackle (+25 STR, +25 AG)
The Agile pass rushing cousin can bring pressure up the middle and play gap control
TRACK C: Line Captain (+15 STR, +15 AG, +15 VIS, +10 CON)
Gets all his linemantes in the proper gaps and rush lanes

DE's
TRACK A: Speed Rusher (+45 AG)
This end loves speed and agility to get around the OL flanking him on either side ex. Simeon Rice
TRACK B: 2 Gap End (+15 STR, +15 TAK, +15 VIS , +10 AG)
Does a little of eveything solid against the run with occasional pass pressure
TRACK C: Bull Rusher (+35 STR, +15 VIS)
Would prefer to nock the tackle down than go around him to the ball carrier or QB

LB's
TRACK A: Read&React (+25 VIS, +25AG)
Exactly as it sounds diagnoses the play and then gets there
TRACK B: Sideline to Sideline Tackler(+10 SPD, +15 AG, +15 TAK, +15VIS)
Hammers down ball carrier s from one sideline to the other
TRACK C: Defensive Stallwart (+25 TKL, +25 VIS)
Classis power MLB build who always gets his man ex. Ray Lewis
TRACK D:Blitzer (+10 SPD, +15AG, +15VIS, +15 STR)
Specializes in exactly what it says
TRACK E:Coverage LB (+10 SPD, +20AG, +10 VIS, +10JMP)
Shutdowns backs out of the backfield and TE's trying to run routes

CB
TRACK A: Speedster (+45 SPD)
TRACK B: Shutdown Corner (+30 SPD, +20AG)
TRACK C: Man Cover Corner (+25 SPD, +15 AG, +10 JMP)
TRACK D: Zone Cover Corner(+25SPD, +15VIS, +10AG)
TRACK E: High Flyer (+30 SPD, +20JMP)

SS
TRACK A:Midfield Enforcer (+15SPPD, +15STR, +15TAK, +10 VIS)
TRACK B:Zone Coverage(+25 SPD, +15AG, +10VIS)
TRACK C:Man Cover(+25SPD, +25AG)

FS
TRACK A:Last Man Standing(+35 SPD, +15VIS)
TRACK B: Hard Hitter (+25SPD, +10STR, +15TAK)
TRACK C: Zone Coverage(+30SPD, +20VIS)

K
TRACK A: Purist (+45 Kick)
TRACK B: Long FG (+30 STR, +20KCK)
TRACK C: Kickoff Specialist (+45 STR)

P
TRACK A: Coffin Corner Artist (+10 STR, +25 VIS, +15PNT)
TRACK B: Purist (+45 PNT)
TRACK C: Boomer (+25 STR, +25 PNT)

Originally posted by matta

First of all, an important difference is that I'm advocating an INCOME cap for teams, not a salary cap or a level cap.

The important difference is that owners will have to chose between developing a stadium or signing high level players each season. Further, teams will have to balance between one high level player (a franchise player) and many lower level guys, or a team of all medium level guys (high, medium, and low levels are with respect to the rest of the league, which will even out as the game matures).

Originally posted by ryanshaw


The issue is pretty obvious - teams that have a lot of the owners' own players or agents to who are friends will sign their guys up for min salary whilst everyone else will get in bidding wars in the FA market. This already happens. The last thing we want is to give yet more advantages to owners who staff teams with their own players. It is totally unrealistic for agents to get their players to sign for min salary so I don't think we should encourage it.

You implement a system where players are incentivized to request more than the minimum salary. For example, institute Fame or eliminate team equipment funds (and only allow contracts at the conclusion of the previous). Right now there's no reason to want more money, so no one does. Create a situation where people do need more than the minimum, and the problem's solved.

That could lead to a situation where an agent owns 40 players that are all, say AA-level, and that owner will have to chose between keeping that team in BBB and not being able to afford equipment, or moving the team to AA and affording equipment.



Originally posted by ryanshaw


The only way a salary cap would work is if the game fixes the salary rather than it being negotiated. So everyone would pay the same for the same sort of player. To be honest, this would not be the worst outcome in the world as players demanding silly salaries are driving many owners mad.

Not true. This only happens when there's no incentive for receiving higher pay. Why does the NFL work? Because players want as much money as possible so they can pay for ancillary things (jewelry, cars, houses, etc.). In this game, there are no ancillary things to buy, so there's no reason for a player to ask for more than min salary. Before the team equipment fund kicked in, there was a reason to ask for bonuses, but not any more. So create ancillary "things" to buy or reasons for people to spend money, and that solves a lot of problems.

It creates an advantage to be in Pro and not BBB, prevents the migration of teams downward, balances competition within leagues, and creates a self-organizing solution to the problem, which is exactly what you want.

Honestly, I think it's a pretty obvious and elegant solution.


Income caps would only partly solve the issue, additionally I dont think they should be implemented because a good chunk of AA and AAA teams have already fully developed their stadium. Plus their are people like me who simply sign and trade their own players in the off-season to develop their stadium (i've done it quite a few times). It's too hard to universally enfore.

A team with a total level cap (# of levels) would seem to work better especially as a "soft cap" NBA style. Teams could exceed the level cap to re-sign their own players but if they are already over it they would need to sign players below a certain level. This would allow teams to stay together if they wanted but not constantly upgrade by free-agency unless they have the cap space (more players to the teams that truly need them.

Also if you do institue a total level cap though you would need to mandate roster size and at least some play time for backups or else you get owners who would sign level 1's to get them on the roster and then simply not play them - retire them at the end of the season and sign a fresh new batch after that.

Mandating a roster size with a 15-20 play per game mandatory would require teams to balance depth with front line talent. At the same time the total level cap would create a situation where the teams who need the top free agents most would be most likely to get them.

...

1. Lack of Parity - The league has haves and have nots. More games than not end in blowouts and while their should be some blowouts in an ideal game alot of games should be close. Their is less jeopardy week to week in this game than their should be. Fundamental Problem: The way depth is structed, in order to be competative you need backups who are similar level to your starters - anything else creates huge problems. Which means players of a similar level huddle around the same teams instead of spreading the wealth.

...

Someone just looking for another way to solve recruiting problems?

Parity is already adressed by teams moving up and down the leagues every season. If you can't manage to get up - you're just right in your league.

Forcing good teams to disband to "spread the wealth" with every no-idea-owner and I-once-watched-football-on-TV-coordinator? Having lv. 10 backups for lv. 30 starters?

Nope.

Bad idea!

Totally bad idea about the level cap. My team is loaded with all of my friends and you would force us to split up just so some other team that is crying for players can try and pick that player up. Hell no we as a group of friends pay the same money everyone else does to play together so how unfair is that if you force us to split. Terrible idea.... -1000

Originally posted by Unspoken
Totally bad idea about the level cap. My team is loaded with all of my friends and you would force us to split up just so some other team that is crying for players can try and pick that player up. Hell no we as a group of friends pay the same money everyone else does to play together so how unfair is that if you force us to split. Terrible idea.... -1000

I'm in the same situation, and our agents would all drop the game if we were forced to split. A revenue cap, however, avoids that problem. With such a system, you could stay together but would either have to promote, or would suffer from decreased player development. Your team wouldn't be able to pay for equipment and your team would suffer from lower "fame" until you promoted (which should be the next season if you severely out level your competition.

What it comes down to is this: is it fun to have a team of guys with lvl 40 players in a league of level 20 guys? You don't even need to bother game planning.

This system would encourage people to promote without forcing people to do so.