Warrior General Games

Max XP for Every Player Every Day

Discussion began: 2/28/10

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂


► Current status:

Being discussed. Bort hasn't chimed in yet, but there has been little (no) opposition to the idea from the tester group.


► Some quotes from the discussion:

Originally posted by Tester
What would be the disadvantages of this? It has tons of advantages.
Originally posted by Deathblade
i have went over and over it in the mod forum with bort
he thinks owners will recruit a full roster and only play 11 players or something i dunno
Originally posted by Tester
Why would an owner have people on a team and not play them unless it was something to do with mentors? It would eliminate SSBing, rotting players (except for stats I guess), some farming of players to random teams to get max XP at lower levels.

I am sure there are some negatives. I just can't think of them. Most pro teams have the max number of players and the number of plays needed at that level to get max XP is very low anyway. We have roster limits so it's not like a team can sign 70 players. Maybe people would make players but not sign them to teams. I cannot really see why this is a negative. In terms of its impact on the game as a whole it seems neutral. This is pretty much how I felt as an owner: if a player wants to be on team x he will find a way to make it happen; if he doesn't, why would an owner want a player on his team against that player's will? Nothing good ever comes from that for the team.

Overall I would bet that max XP every day for everyone would mean more player creation and also people with players unable to sign to teams would maintain their interest in the game longer. Stamina might be seen as less important, but this kind of goes hand in hand with the roster limit issue. Most Pro league players play only 25-40 snaps anyway and get max XP. Stamina now is less about being able to stay on the field and more about being at maximum performance while you're in the game. I don't see how giving people max XP regardless would change this. I suppose you could have specialists who only play 5-6 plays per game, but I can't really think of a scenario where this would be useful enough for someone to do it or abuse it. Maybe a catching HB? But most people paying for players want them to play a decent amount regardless of XP for the stats.
Anyway I'm rambling, but I would be curious to hear others' thoughts.
Originally posted by Deathblade
Really don't know.
That reason made zero sense to me. Owners don't recruit a max roster to only play 11 players. Owners recruit max roster to win with energy/morale. Owners don't recruit a max roster for the sole purpose of getting people max XP, tbh, I doubt that EVER crosses an owner's mind when they are going through the part-time job of recruiting.
The exception are assholes who recruit for the sole purpose of rotting a player, but I really don't see how keeping the current system is somehow making that more difficult...it just makes their asshole moves cost other people real money.
Originally posted by Tester
I really do not see any issue with this either. If you are on a team, you should get full experience no matter how many downs you play.
Adding this to must be on a team to get training points and you have effectively killed SSB.
Additionally its a boon to players who get rotted so while they may not be getting stats at least they are getting full exp and can go elsewhere when their contract is up and not be at a huge disadvantage.
[...]It really should be a no brainer.
It would make lots of people happier and would have very few negative effects if any. I can see folks signing certain specialist roles and having them only play a few plays (Return men, etc) but this is normal and part of real football at a professional level.
Originally posted by Catch22
well if you have max XP for all players - you really don't need XP at all. You just would base level ups based on age of the player.
I think the problem Bort has with it (and I'm just guessing here) is that most RPG's give out XP based on things you do. I'm not sure the XP system however works with a football sim so I think that removing XP from the equation is probably a good idea.
Originally posted by Deathblade
The problem with that line of thinking, is that other RPGs don't make you delete your character after X amount of time, and only allow you X number of chances to gain XP (which coincidentally enough, you have zero control over whether you gain XP or not, someone who has paid less does).
Originally posted by Catch22
Agree completely.
Originally posted by Tester
Bort likes realism in his game, correct? In real football, you practice, study film, get coached on specifics, but if you're not a starter, you generally don't get 30-40 plays a game. However, you still gain a lot of experience just being in practice.
If we'd like to see starting roles actually MEAN anything, then removing the "# of Plays = XP" approach might help out, and would DEFINITELY do away with super slow building. SSB is the least of my worries, but having to constantly focus on getting guys the right number of plays, or worrying "If the DC doesn't put my LB in on enough positions and doesn't sub him in and out properly, he's going to suffer in the long run", etc.
Giving max XP every game, every day, no matter what would pretty much do away with this play # requirement, would probably lead to less rotation on every play (maybe even higher stamina numbers) and I'm sure the list of positive effects would go on and on with getting rid of the XP per play idea.
Originally posted by Tester
You could try to fix the problem of only playing 11 players by trying it to chemistry.
If you play less then 40 different players a game (minimum 15 plays each?) your chemistry takes a hit. Think about it, would you get along with 11 of your teammates who are playing both ways while you ride the bench?
Originally posted by Tester
I don't even think this is necessary. As a DC I always wanted to think more about putting my best players on the field and allowing them to win and less about how often everyone is playing. Real coaches don't think about that, although I understand we can't map everything in real life onto GLB because of injuries and talent disparities between starters and backups (in real life finding a great starting QB, much less a backup too, is quite a challenge).
Originally posted by Tester
The disadvantage is that I'd have to do less shenanigans when playing gutjobs.
Originally posted by Tester
I am on board 100%.
Downside is difficult to even detect and the upside is great for all the right reasons.
Originally posted by Tester
I like this idea, along with the max XP and training points only for everyone who is on roster. Without any penalty to widely different playing time you will have owners especially in lower leagues who will screw players over by signing them to make up the roster minimum but then essentially rotting them on the bench in favor of their own guys. This has the potential to disenchant agents with the game as a whole, and that can't be the target. I know at the highest level there are lots of agents who are ok with limited or specialised roles for their players, but at lower levels people will get unhappy if their players don't see the field much, max XP or not.

Make it staggered, no chemistry penalty for any player who gets at least 20 plays in a game, 0.25 per player getting 15-19 snaps, 0.5 per player from 10-14, 1 per player < 10. This likely won't be too game changing, especially with the usual chemistry gain at rollover, but it could make the difference in a close game, and it will prvent an owner from not getting half the players on the roster their fair share of playing time (and fun).
Originally posted by PP
Agree completely....just give everyone max XP each game and stop screwing dots because the owner screws up or is purposefully trying to hurt an agent.
An unmentioned massive plus to giving out max XP is that it'd make to lower lvls more competitive. My system will carry the minimum amount of dots we can reasonably get away with (after the change, that will be 30) at the lower lvls, just we can max XP. Give everyone max XP and we go with more reasonable/competitive rosters. If I'm "smart" enough to figure that out, a hell of a lot of others are most likely doing the same thing.
Originally posted by Tester
I strongly agree that this would be a good change for the many reasons others have mentioned. I'll also add that with certain rosters making sure every player gets 20 plays can be one of the most pain in the ass parts of coordinating and can really take the joy out of game planning.

I love this idea the best. It's so damn hard to get everyone max xp, doing this and adding the chemistry hit to team that don't would be a quick fix to SSB, rotting, and just make an unecessarily hard part of the game (getting everyone max XP) easy.

Doesn't stamina prevent owners from signing a full roster and only playing 11?

I actually like XP. It makes development different between dots. But I agree it needs some changes.
Currently SB players have an incentive to be on SB teams (since they cannot compete for PT on regular team due to stamina). If XP will be tied to team success this will make SB teams a problem (since they usually lose 2-3 of their first seasons). It also make everyone care more about winning in the cloud.
A possible change may be:
- Make stamina more important
- A player get 50% less XP for plays that his team lose, 100% for 'par' plays and 150% for good plays (the sim already measure a play success for the auto adjust).

This will make SB a a less desires strategy, while giving better incentive for everyone to be interested in the cloud. It is not a rich get richer solution, since now you need to balance between ALG gains and XP. If get more of one you lose the other.

One issue with no playtime XP, is that it effectively give a team roster spots for young builds (about 5 sport per team).. You put on your level 4 players on the AAA team and just let them develop without the need to bother with the minors. Keeping more players out of the cloud and making the cloud even less relevant in the users mind.

Originally posted by tragula
I actually like XP. It makes development different between dots. But I agree it needs some changes.
Currently SB players have an incentive to be on SB teams (since they cannot compete for PT on regular team due to stamina). If XP will be tied to team success this will make SB teams a problem (since they usually lose 2-3 of their first seasons). It also make everyone care more about winning in the cloud.
A possible change may be:
- Make stamina more important
- A player get 50% less XP for plays that his team lose, 100% for 'par' plays and 150% for good plays (the sim already measure a play success for the auto adjust).

This will make SB a a less desires strategy, while giving better incentive for everyone to be interested in the cloud. It is not a rich get richer solution, since now you need to balance between ALG gains and XP. If get more of one you lose the other.

One issue with no playtime XP, is that it effectively give a team roster spots for young builds (about 5 sport per team).. You put on your level 4 players on the AAA team and just let them develop without the need to bother with the minors. Keeping more players out of the cloud and making the cloud even less relevant in the users mind.




The real answer to getting rid of SB is to get rid of ALG's. But that's a NGTH, unfortunately. This idea also punishes guys who legitimately run bad teams, and will make recruiting even harder for them. More punishments for bad teams is not what GLB needs. Guys would already rather go be backups on good teams than start for bad ones.

Originally posted by mbinger
The real answer to getting rid of SB is to get rid of ALG's. But that's a NGTH, unfortunately. This idea also punishes guys who legitimately run bad teams, and will make recruiting even harder for them. More punishments for bad teams is not what GLB needs. Guys would already rather go be backups on good teams than start for bad ones.

I have nothing really against SB (hate the SSB) but the main issue is the competition in the cloud. SB teams most of the time just don't care.
You are right about bad team recruiting getting harder, it can be a real issue. One can put more emphasis on the # of plays needed to max XP to make it less favorable for player to be backups. And may have compensation for under leveled players. I didn't put it as suggestion (it is not even half baked yet), just a different view on the XP issue.

Originally posted by tragula
I have nothing really against SB (hate the SSB) but the main issue is the competition in the cloud. SB teams most of the time just don't care.
You are right about bad team recruiting getting harder, it can be a real issue. One can put more emphasis on the # of plays needed to max XP to make it less favorable for player to be backups. And may have compensation for under leveled players. I didn't put it as suggestion (it is not even half baked yet), just a different view on the XP issue.


With the new "Effective" rating system wont the SB and SSB issue go away because they are all grouped together?

Originally posted by Dr. E
With the new "Effective" rating system wont the SB and SSB issue go away because they are all grouped together?

Not necessarily, I OC a cap 30 SB team (4th season players), we are surrounded by teams with a similar effective level but are SSB or non-boosters with loads of players in their 7th or 8th season and therefore had at least twice the amount of training done.

The effective levels are similar because we are building for the Pros and therefore took main attributes to the 4th or 5th cap which means our effective level increases by a greater amount due to ALG's each level than the SSB's/non-boosters who are less likely to go as extreme with their build (2nd or 3rd cap) as they are in the later stage of their career and will already have rounded out the build with the secondary attributes. SSB's in their 7th season are going to have roughly less than 120SP's to get an effective build than a SB in their 7th season so can't afford reach as high a caps and still round out the build.

Teams need to be sorted by both age and effective level in my opinion.

Owners wont care to give all their players much playing time. They'll have the excuse "he's getting max XP anyway, so it doesn't matter how much he plays".

I have a QB who's backing up. I noticed in a couple of blowout games this season he got fewer than ten reps. I sent a message to the owner who said he noticed it and will try to fix it. I replied to thank the owner but mentioned it doesn't matter too much since in games with a 70+ point differential he'll get max experience anyway. Since then my player hasn't been getting many snaps, and in a few games he got none. Most of them were blowouts so my guy got experience, but in one game he got no experience at all.

Because most of the games my player got limited time in were blowouts, and because he kept getting experience in those games, playing time was not important at all.

There needs to be some incentive for teams to play every player. I'm sure no agent wants to spend money on boosts and CE for a player that hardly sees the field.

There are other ways to address the SSB issue. Link training points to a number of plays played. If you don't play, you don't train.

Suggestions:

1. Lower the play requirement to 16 plays for max XP. Make that apply to players of all levels not just 29+. That'll allow coordinators to favor certain players whilst still giving them incentive to play everyone on the team. The lower requirement will also make it easier for them to give everyone enough reps.

2. Link training points during the season to number of plays played during the game. 1 TP per 4 plays up to a maximum of 4 TPs for 16 plays played. That'll keep SSBers from being able to train.

My own suggestion was a Hybrid.

Max XP for all players through level 29... If you are on a team, you get MaxXP every game.

Then, once 29 Hit, then the # of play requirements toearn maxXP returns. After level 29 you need 20 plays to get max just like present.

What this does is simulates that as a player is young and learning the game, they all learn about equally due to practices and scrimmages and everything else a team does. But at level 29 you hit your learning plateau and you really need certain amount of game experience to continue advancing.

What this does is allows teams to be created and from the very start, have full rosters (instead of half rosters that experienced builders know is important to ensure maxxp for the players) and everyone plays together from the very start. This means more competitive teams at the lower levels which is great because the lower levels is where the game sorta just stinks because mostly its filled with great builders and players who are just going through the motions in their early seasons to get their players ready for later.

Under this hybrid system, they would still be just building their players to get ready for the future, but at least they would all be on one team instead of 25-30 on one tam and 25-30 on another team and neither team being competitive.

By making it so that once you hit 29 you still have a required number of plays it does enfrce some strategy and tactices with th depth charts to ensure all the players continue to advance, so it puts in some of the differentiation Tragula states above as being desireable while ensureing that at the early levels at least (and the most important levels for NEW agents to GLB, because this is the game they see first) its harder to screw players over, the game is more competitive, etc, and thus its easier to hold onto new agents/customers AND they aren't being screwed over by bad/malicious owners so they are guaranteeed to be getting full XP for a few seasons while they are learning.

Originally posted by Enkidu98
My own suggestion was a Hybrid.

Max XP for all players through level 29... If you are on a team, you get MaxXP every game.

Then, once 29 Hit, then the # of play requirements toearn maxXP returns. After level 29 you need 20 plays to get max just like present.

I like this, altho I would raise the required plays to 30. it has never made sense to me that backups and starters play equally. players who are good enough to start should be encouraged to be seeking starting jobs. just look at the nfl this weekend, and how many players are talking about joining new teams that give them the best chance to start.

I think we need to keep game XP part of the game, but I do agree changes need to be made. How about something like this.

1) 30 plays for max XP for all levels.

2) Cut game XP in half, and put that towards nightly training.

It would like something like this

level Game XP Daily XP
1 284 242
2 270 231
3 257 220
4 245 209
5 232 198
.
.
.
30 50 50

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
Originally posted by Enkidu98

My own suggestion was a Hybrid.

Max XP for all players through level 29... If you are on a team, you get MaxXP every game.

Then, once 29 Hit, then the # of play requirements toearn maxXP returns. After level 29 you need 20 plays to get max just like present.

I like this, altho I would raise the required plays to 30. it has never made sense to me that backups and starters play equally. players who are good enough to start should be encouraged to be seeking starting jobs. just look at the nfl this weekend, and how many players are talking about joining new teams that give them the best chance to start.

I heard Brett Favre might return for another season and start working on his 7th VA. Individual agents have the opportunity to choose if they want to go to a team where they will start or a team where they are more likely to experience high-level success. I don't like the idea of increasing play requirements.

Sounds like the testers and others in the OP are pushing this thing in the right direction.

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
Originally posted by Enkidu98

My own suggestion was a Hybrid.

Max XP for all players through level 29... If you are on a team, you get MaxXP every game.

Then, once 29 Hit, then the # of play requirements toearn maxXP returns. After level 29 you need 20 plays to get max just like present.

I like this, altho I would raise the required plays to 30. it has never made sense to me that backups and starters play equally. players who are good enough to start should be encouraged to be seeking starting jobs. just look at the nfl this weekend, and how many players are talking about joining new teams that give them the best chance to start.

First off this isnt the nfl. Who the hell would want to play backup if you have a slim chance of reaching 30 plays at some positions... it forces you to fall further behind the starter. Horrible idea.

Originally posted by beenlurken
First off this isnt the nfl. Who the hell would want to play backup if you have a slim chance of reaching 30 plays at some positions... it forces you to fall further behind the starter. Horrible idea.

I agree. I was torn on 20 plays honestly. I think 15 should be enough, but I stuck with 20 as it made for the least amount of change while creating the desired outcome.

That and I think 15 plays could be too few/too easily abused. I do agree that there should be some differentiation of players beyond just the Building factor. Just believe that too much of that occurs early in a players career when they are new, have little control over it, etc, and essentially the 'Haves' which are players hooked into a system who will ensure new players get maxXP etc and so they have the best players and the 'have nots' are everyone else, casual folks, etc, who might play mor ebut end up quitting because the game is no fun at the low levels.

Giving MaxXP makes the game more fun at low levels, removes the worries that your player will be gimped before he even gets into a higher tier of play, AND make the low level game more fun as teams can field full rosters and be competitive from the very start instead of spreading their development players onto several teams so they can ensure they get max XP.