Warrior General Games

Short version: If your player doesn't perform, he retires.

Long version:
There are a number of issues with competitiveness, especially in the lower levels. Also, there are a lot of complaints about cookie cutter builds. Finally, SSB ruins the game for everyone between levels 10 and 50.

What if players on teams that went 4-12 or worse had a chance of retiring? If there are two consecutive seasons of < 5 wins, they automatically retire.

Another way to attack it: what if players who didn't get at least 160 plays per season auto-retired after a season?

This idea obviously has some major drawbacks, but it would encourage people to make players that could play at every level, and it would encourage players to sign with teams that they thought had a chance of winning. It would totally shut down SSB. It would make the game more fun and competitive at all levels.

Flame on, fellas. Flame on.

You've inspired me.

What happens if you have a player you're really excited about, and then suddenly your owner goes AWOL and the team sucks...your guy can possibly be retired w/o your permission?

No Way.

Or, if your owner is a douche and benches you so you might have to retire...again, No Way.

Not to mention it's tough for a lot of teams to fill their rosters...less players means less teams which means less $$ for Bort.

-1

Originally posted by Jack Del Rio
You've inspired me.

please tell me this makes the list...

Originally posted by SikoraP13 DTD
Originally posted by Jack Del Rio

You've inspired me.

please tell me this makes the list...

It inspired me to MAKE a list

-1000....Its not april fool's day yet. Save this for that date

Originally posted by Jack Del Rio
It inspired me to MAKE a list

you almost forgot? It would've been a sad day for me personally.

This would destroy the chances for any team who had a losing season to recruit players, and would most likely cause teams to lose even more players who don't want to risk "losing again".


Some people aren't able to come in and instantly form a winning team. Sometimes, they'll put up a 0 win season, then the next year have a 5 win season. They made a 5 game improvement, but by your "rule", they'd be forced to retire. That's not right in any sense. Forcing people to do much of anything other than be demoted or promoted in this game is very touchy.

By putting this into the game, you'd almost guarantee that a team that has a losing season would be facing "retirement" the next season. How is he supposed to sign players with that looming over his head? Can't sign solid talent? Then you can't win. Can't win? Can't bring in talent because they might be retired. Do you see a problem there?

Yeah, I didn't really expect this idea to get a lot of traction. Just wanted to spark a discussion of competitiveness across the capped leagues. I would welcome better suggestions, and would happily update the OP with any that seem workable.

Originally posted by Gongadan
Yeah, I didn't really expect this idea to get a lot of traction. Just wanted to spark a discussion of competitiveness across the capped leagues. I would welcome better suggestions, and would happily update the OP with any that seem workable.

I think the recent change to the way teams are promoted is definitely going to help, and if Bort follows through on his Rivalry kick, that will increase competition even further. I think he's headed in the right direction.

Originally posted by Staz
I think the recent change to the way teams are promoted is definitely going to help, and if Bort follows through on his Rivalry kick, that will increase competition even further. I think he's headed in the right direction.
Yeah, that's true; but because of the way player building currently works, there will still be:
- SSB teams
- Players built for WL that will blow chunks for 5 seasons and then be merely bad for another 3 seasons before being very good their last 2

On the other hand, Bort has said that some changes to player building are in the works. Without knowing what they are, it's hard to say whether they'll address these two issues that are killing competitive play for multiple seasons in exchange for dominance in the last couple of seasons.

this is pretty much on the NGTH list, unofficially

Originally posted by Decline FAQ

Will I ever be forced to retire my player?
No, you can keep playing with him as long as you want, even as he ages. When to press the retire button is entirely up to you.


from that quote, I think it means Bort would say no to this

lolggestion

I nominate this suggestion for the worst suggestion of season 13.

No forced retirement. The only time a player will be retired is when you yourself click the retire button and enter the password.

If you want to come up with a different idea go ahead, but this is on the NGTH list.