Warrior General Games

Originally posted by PP
Originally posted by Tigerbait0307

I think lowering the roster limit would be a bad idea. In my opinion it should be expanded to allow a full set of Special Team players. With the FG and PAT Replays you can now have players that just play STs and get max xp.



QB: 2
RB: 2
FB: 2
TE: 2 (which you need 3 in the Depth Chart or it will force your FB in on Goal line Formations)
WR: 5
Oline: 10
Dline: 8
LBs: 6
CB: 5
FS: 2
SS: 2
K/P: 2
KR/PR: 1
----------------
49 players at MINIMUM



Why lower it?

I can give my thoughts on that one, just keep in mind that these are only my thoughts:

When you boil it down, there's really 2 groups of owners that GLB: The Haves and The Have Nots. For The Haves (I'd include myself, all WL owners, the most successful PL owners and then a handful of others that are either very well connected or make most/all the dots for their teams themselves), large rosters are an awesome thing. Since we are able to fill them with top quality dots, the more the better. Frankly, large rosters allow us to have more specialists and keep the overall energy lvls of the team higher.

Unfortunately, large rosters suck for most of The Have Nots. Look through the roster of the WL teams. Most have 55 players, only 2 have less than 51, and those are 15th & 16th place teams. Now go to AAA leagues and start checking the teams that finished 8-8 or less. All of a sudden, you start seeing a ton of teams with roster sizes in the low 40s. Simply put, there's a dot shortage in this game and it's killing the majority of teams. Why would a decent built dot go to an 8-8 AAA team when there are good PL teams fighting for him? How does the 8-8 team owner break out of his rut, no matter how good he is, when he just can't field a team of anything but the worst built dots (slight exaggeration, but not that far off either), and he can't even come up with 55 of them?

More often than not, he can't. So, he sells his team and some other poor sucker gets stuck in the same position, only to repeat the cycle. The more that happens, the larger the gap between The Haves and The Have Nots becomes, the more unbalanced the game becomes and the less fun it is for everyone.

I have no desire to reward crappy builds or owners. That's not my style. However, I do think you have to give potentially good owners a fighting chance to eventually field good teams. Since ssn 1 I've owned a team every ssn, but 1. My teams have made the POs every ssn, I'm well connected and have an OMG staff of real GMs. All that gives me a very large advantage over the majority of owners in this game. Still, I had to work very hard to field a full roster for next ssn. I started day one of this one and I just finished yesterday. If I had to work that hard, what chance does the AAA 8-8 owner have?

IMO, dropping the rosters to 50 (I would argue hard that anything lower than that is too low) would be a very big help. Not every dot that can't make a WL, PL or friends team will continue playing, but many of them will. In turn, that produces more dots to be spread out. Additionally, it's easier for the team with 44 dots to play against one with 50 than 55. Those 5 less dots makes a big difference in both areas.

Those are my thoughts/motivations, for what it's worth.

Extending the plateau (even just one season) would go a long way towards helping increase the amount of dots (good and bad) in the game. I have no idea why the powers that be (Bort and Co) are not giving it more thought.

FWIW... when I say plateau I mean making it a true plateau where the players does not get better (training, VA's) or worse.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3586097

Originally posted by beenlurken
Extending the plateau (even just one season) would go a long way towards helping increase the amount of dots (good and bad) in the game. I have no idea why the powers that be (Bort and Co) are not giving it more thought.

FWIW... when I say plateau I mean making it a true plateau where the players does not get better (training, VA's) or worse.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3586097

i suggested the same thing in the thread discussing this on the test server, but leaving the plateau as it is now, just adding a ssn to it. I didn't get a response. Obviously, I agree.

P.S. I think the combo of a 50 limit and an extra plateau ssn would be a huge, huge help.

^ one thing I'd love to see is the decline to be kept as it is...but with a new VA that eliminates some of the decline (maybe 0.5% / level) which would get rid of the first season of decline and a little bit of the second, which would accomplish the same thing basically, but force players to give up a little bit in terms of VAs to do so.

Originally posted by PackMan97
^ one thing I'd love to see is the decline to be kept as it is...but with a new VA that eliminates some of the decline (maybe 0.5% / level) which would get rid of the first season of decline and a little bit of the second, which would accomplish the same thing basically, but force players to give up a little bit in terms of VAs to do so.

So basically a +0.05% (or whatever the mathematical equivalent to whoarding off decline is, shouldn't be hard to figure out) to all attributes type VA would be the exact same thing, methinks?

This would be easy to determine what the % would need to be mathematically, and then compare it to the other +% VAs (+0.5% or +0.3% etc).

It would need to be slightly more valuable than just using the normal +% VAs, which is also a popular way to fight decline, else the VA would never be used because you're wasting your time on punting, etc.

OK, a run at the math:

Figure in first season of decline, you get hit by -2.5% to all attributes.

In the same time, you can earn 8 VAs. IMO, you shouldn't be able to FULLY stop decline, so maybe you could invest 8 VAs to get 2% back. That would make the VA be something like +0.25% to all attributes.

That seems like an INSANELY valuable VA, seeing as +0.3% is what we currently get to major sim attributes (str, spd, agi, etc.)...

---

So IF some "stop decline" type VA was put into place, it would be far and above more valuable than the current attribute style VAs. Is that what we want?

It isn't really comparing apples to apples, as only declining players could USE this VA. It's basically giving them a better option than the +0.3%/+0.5% VAs.

Originally posted by Octowned
OK, a run at the math:

Figure in first season of decline, you get hit by -2.5% to all attributes.

In the same time, you can earn 8 VAs. IMO, you shouldn't be able to FULLY stop decline, so maybe you could invest 8 VAs to get 2% back. That would make the VA be something like +0.25% to all attributes.

That seems like an INSANELY valuable VA, seeing as +0.3% is what we currently get to major sim attributes (str, spd, agi, etc.)...

---

So IF some "stop decline" type VA was put into place, it would be far and above more valuable than the current attribute style VAs. Is that what we want?

It isn't really comparing apples to apples, as only declining players could USE this VA. It's basically giving them a better option than the +0.3%/+0.5% VAs.

Make age 400+ A pre-req.

Forgive me if I missed something earlier, Wouldn't it be just easier to slow the rate of decline over the 1st 2 seasons so that it could be offset for the most part by training? That would actually allow a player to improve slightly over the first season, as you could still train up your most important skills, while some of the unimportant ones would decline.

Originally posted by Octowned


Figure in first season of decline, you get hit by -2.5% to all attributes.

---

So IF some "stop decline" type VA was put into place, it would be far and above more valuable than the current attribute style VAs. Is that what we want?

It isn't really comparing apples to apples, as only declining players could USE this VA. It's basically giving them a better option than the +0.3%/+0.5% VAs.

Actually -2% on average, 0% for the first 8 days, -4% for the last 8. Don't get to -5% untl day 481. Well, sure it would be powerful, but you can only use it to keep from getting weaker, not to get stronger.

Besides, a lot of VA's are insanely overpowered that I'd much rather take them and accept the decline. Maybe it needs to be weaker or something?

I just throw the VA out there, because it's a super easy fix that requires bort to do very little work.

Could make the VA, modify the age just for decline calculations.

VA lowers age by 4 days per point for purposes of calculating Decline.

So 8 points would lower your age by 32 days, making the decline almost gone for first season.
But you can only put 15 points in it so it'll max out at 60days, basically increasing lifespan at max a season + a half.

Also there should be a drawback to this ability.
My favorite suggestion would be 6% penalty to VXP received, so when you max it out you have a -90% penalty and will not receive much VXP...

so while you improve your lifespan you are lowering your ability to gain VAs....I think that gives a tradeoff that some people might actually rather have the extra VAs and take the decline, instead of it being a VA everyone automatically takes.


(It could be 3 days per point i guess but it doesn't work out as well to make an even number, etc...)

I don't think Bort has any intention to slow down decline. He put the decline feature in to make sure newer dots can replace older dots, and many of them still played into their 12th or 13th season. If we had this VA, the old dots would stay active for longer --- against what Bort intended.

Mat is obviously doing a good job - as has PP and many others -

looks like they are also bringing in help?



Originally posted by catch22

Q & A Moderators will be assisting me in going through the questions for the Q & A sessions and in organizing the information that is put out in both the Q & A sessions and the test server so that GLB users are more in the loop on what is going on.

1) on extending plateau...I think that solves a short term problem and creates a long term problem. If Bort is really going to start advertising soon, there will be another growth spurt and soon there won't be enough teams for players, especially in the Pro/WL and you'll need to be "connected" to get a lvl 70 player into WL. Even though I might be in that club, I still think it's bad for the game. Keep rosters where they are.

If there are any limits, put them in the cloud only where there are more teams and more unbalanced rosters. Don't force it on the Pro/WL level or even AAA or it will cause future problems, imo.

2) On the proposed ALG change, why have the position focus (i.e. different ALG for elusive vs power back)? The issues I see are a) sometimes people change build plans later in their career b) it will encourage cookie cutter builds vs. if you could choose your own 6 ALGs, you get more diversity as people will try different things, and c) if power or elusive is considered better, then everyone will gravitate towards one since you still need most of the main attributes to one degree or another - e.g. power backs will pick the combo tree cause you'd rather have agility than blocking (blocking, really???) to go with strength.

Why not just have every position have 5 majors and 5 minors and you get to pick them? That would encourage the most diverse builds and eliminate flaws like OC having an advantage over NT because the OC has better ALG.

Originally posted by ijg
2) On the proposed ALG change, why have the position focus (i.e. different ALG for elusive vs power back)? The issues I see are a) sometimes people change build plans later in their career b) it will encourage cookie cutter builds vs. if you could choose your own 6 ALGs, you get more diversity as people will try different things, and c) if power or elusive is considered better, then everyone will gravitate towards one since you still need most of the main attributes to one degree or another - e.g. power backs will pick the combo tree cause you'd rather have agility than blocking (blocking, really???) to go with strength.

Why not just have every position have 5 majors and 5 minors and you get to pick them? That would encourage the most diverse builds and eliminate flaws like OC having an advantage over NT because the OC has better ALG.

While this is a quality rant, along with the original suggestion, I also added in an option for a "custom archetype" which people could choose their own ALG (with a limit obviously...don't need to see 170 speed WRs anytime soon).

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by ijg

2) On the proposed ALG change, why have the position focus (i.e. different ALG for elusive vs power back)? The issues I see are a) sometimes people change build plans later in their career b) it will encourage cookie cutter builds vs. if you could choose your own 6 ALGs, you get more diversity as people will try different things, and c) if power or elusive is considered better, then everyone will gravitate towards one since you still need most of the main attributes to one degree or another - e.g. power backs will pick the combo tree cause you'd rather have agility than blocking (blocking, really???) to go with strength.

Why not just have every position have 5 majors and 5 minors and you get to pick them? That would encourage the most diverse builds and eliminate flaws like OC having an advantage over NT because the OC has better ALG.

While this is a quality rant, along with the original suggestion, I also added in an option for a "custom archetype" which people could choose their own ALG (with a limit obviously...don't need to see 170 speed WRs anytime soon).

You tha man DB

Originally posted by Deathblade
While this is a quality rant, along with the original suggestion, I also added in an option for a "custom archetype" which people could choose their own ALG (with a limit obviously...don't need to see 170 speed WRs anytime soon).

This is a good way to do it - some basic archetypes for beginners, and a "create your own" for the more advanced agents who want to try something new.