User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Game Changes Discussion > Proposed Changes > GLB Financial System Discussion
Page:
 
Sik Wit It
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by Bort

The idea would be that you could resign to go over the cap, but not sign new guys.

Luxury tax and all that sounds very complicated when you don't know how it works.


So...that creates a system where if a team sticks together with good builds, it is actually impossible to compete with them unless you start a team from scratch?

Cool.


Yeah, I am not liking this at all. It's actually worse than what we have now, and MUCH worse than the proposed system imo.
 
Link
 
Yet another "let's just make it up as we go along" moment.
 
sunshineduck
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bort
This is a worry? Super teams being hard to assemble?


yes

oh god, yes.
 
CampPen33
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by sigepmagicmike
Who cares? We have gotten rid of the SSB scum finally and now its going to be harder to recruit and fill voids. You are basically taking the only reason I still play here and thats the friends I build players and teams with and saying well if someone drops out and you're over the cap then you're screwed...what if your team has one QB and he goes inactive are you supposed to do without a QB?


 
Sik Wit It
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by Sik Wit It

I worry about it being literally impossible to sign a team full of the best players in the game simply because of salary concerns.


This is a worry? Super teams being hard to assemble?


Should we not be allowed to take our players where we want? Why are we trying to over-regulate player talent? All this will do is to force talent to spread around and make it literally impossible for certain players to play for certain teams at any given time.
 
.spider.
Lead Mod
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Deathblade
So...that creates a system where if a team sticks together with good builds, it is actually impossible to compete with them unless you start a team from scratch?

Cool.


Well to be fair, we dont know the figures yet....but yeah. I'd be concerned if a group of friends cant play together because they happen to build 55 damn good players.

On the flipside I am not a fan of MERGERS, however mergers and a group of good builders are 2 diff things.
 
sjmay
offline
Link
 
Disappointed as well, was definitely looking more towards the original finance model.

Catch/Bort,

Are you going to allow teams to move leagues in the future, from say regular <the way it is now> to hardcore in the future?
 
Catch22
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by sjmay
Disappointed as well, was definitely looking more towards the original finance model.

Catch/Bort,

Are you going to allow teams to move leagues in the future, from say regular <the way it is now> to hardcore in the future?


Yes.
 
Deathblade
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by jbleich
Well to be fair, we dont know the figures yet....but yeah. I'd be concerned if a group of friends cant play together because they happen to build 55 damn good players.

On the flipside I am not a fan of MERGERS, however mergers and a group of good builders are 2 diff things.


Well, the suggested "fix" for the 55 good players not playing together, is to allow teams like Vahalla where they have been together since creation to actually have 55 good players, while nobody else can sign 55 good players.

So it makes it a choice between "start from scratch and stick together, or lose to teams that do because you can't sign good players"
 
Sarg01
offline
Link
 
Some mechanic has to exist for preventing the network from being all-powerful. It's necessary for the future of the game. Bort's making the right call, though it's going to produce a ton of screaming since we're 15 seasons in and the networks are entrenched.

 
FBGProfessor
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by hays23
if that's the case, this is a terrible idea.


45 players isn't enough? How many friends playing this game do you have? Are they friends or part of a larger alliance? If this undermines the alliances somewhat then I like it.
 
Plankton
OPL4Lyfe
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by jbleich
Well to be fair, we dont know the figures yet....but yeah. I'd be concerned if a group of friends cant play together because they happen to build 55 damn good players.

On the flipside I am not a fan of MERGERS, however mergers and a group of good builders are 2 diff things.


Based on Catch's quote on page 1 or 2, the intent is to limit the number of very good players that a team can sign. Thus, even without the figures, we can rightfully be concerned since the intent is there.
 
sunshineduck
offline
Link
 
I mean, if you're trying to force top teams to dilute their talent in order to create some semblance of league parity, you are going to have a zillion fucking problems, the least of which is that the majority of agents aren't going to sign their well-built dots to competing teams because you won't let them sign where they want - they're going to retire them.
 
e1iterate
favorite prism
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by FBGProfessor
45 players isn't enough? How many friends playing this game do you have? Are they friends or part of a larger alliance? If this undermines the alliances somewhat then I like it.


with the changes to stamina and morale 45 players certainly isnt enough.
 
sjmay
offline
Link
 
At any time Catch or is there gonna be a time limit on it?

Meaning, 3 seasons down the road, I want to move to Hardcore etc, can I do that? And once I do, will I have the option to move back?
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please login if you want to post a reply.