Warrior General Games

You can't tell people where they can play. It just doesn't work. This entire game is based on the community. You can't say to the community that you can't fill your roster with your own players bc you're about to go over a cap.


You can't limit people to where they can play dotball. Look at the game. Nobody can stay within 50 of valhalla, if you make a change like this , nobody will be able to stay within 100 of teams being built from scratch.

Hell bring it on, I will just sell back all my teams right now, start my own 55 man rosters and dunk on you suckers till the end of time

Originally posted by Bort
Ok...so what would you do? Allow super teams? Allow people to go over the salary cap but have a luxury tax?

Take back this entire revision tbh

There was a reason salary cap was NGTH, and that's because it's impossible to wrinkle out the problems.

"Luxury tax" isn't going to do anything in this system, since the only thing people pay for is salaries, and teams that are dominating because they will be over the cap will be earning a higher income anyway since they will be winning.

Honestly, this "revision" is mindblowing.

How is the EQ gonna be handled then, with existing players?

I know they are giving free equipment out, with free upgrades every 8 levels, does this mean that players this off-season can sell their equipment to get training money or money for other things, if those are introduced, and then be able to get fully equipped with the new system?

*stands by and watches Bort deal with people*

Ahhhhhhhhh

Can you guys please stop rolling out huge lists of changes? Just stop... wait a couple days... figure it out. Then when you come back, give us the scoop and stick with it. I can accept whatever changes you feel like making assuming that you're doing what you think is best for the game. It's my call at that point if I'm sticking around or not. What I can't accept is reading through pages of changes to try to understand exactly what is going on only to hear a little later that you decided to go another way.

Originally posted by Catch22
*stands by and watches Bort deal with people*

Ahhhhhhhhh

You got hired for a reason. you played this damn game, you're the only voice we have. Explain to him why player movement is the best thing in this game.

Originally posted by EagleOtto
Effective Level is such a useless way to measure builds, and now the higher your effective level is because of how you built your guy, your actually may be less sought after because you will cost too much money.

Why penalize good builds vs bad builders, it should be based off of level, plain and simple....
Or age of player is even better yet, this would even make it so lower level teams that want to take on over the hill guys have to pay a premium to be able to do so...

But using effective level....wow just penalize those with high stats....

I guess we now have a reason to not to slow build LOL....

You seem to contradict yourself. First you imply that effective level is not a good measure of builds. But then you say that it will penalize those with high stats--presumably because they have good builds.

Frankly, I don't see how it does that. If you have a good effective level build you will get more salary. How is that a penalty?

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.

look who is crying now LOL

Originally posted by sigepmagicmike
Bort/Catch,

In the event you have 1 QB on your team and they go inactive and their contract expires but you are over the salary cap now...are you supposed to do without a QB?

I would really like an answer to this if you guys have one before I head to bed. It would be appreciated.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Take back this entire revision tbh

There was a reason salary cap was NGTH, and that's because it's impossible to wrinkle out the problems.

"Luxury tax" isn't going to do anything in this system, since the only thing people pay for is salaries, and teams that are dominating because they will be over the cap will be earning a higher income anyway since they will be winning.

Honestly, this "revision" is mindblowing.

Hell just froze over, I agree with Deathblade here,

I think the first system was fine, yes, some people might have been overwhelmed, but they were overwhelmed when the DPC came out etc....

If this is the vision you guys had, stick to it.

Originally posted by Bort
This is a worry? Super teams being hard to assemble?

Risking the whole "brown noser" label, I'm on board with Bort.

The reason there is a salary cap in the NFL is to encourage parity. So many people were in favor of a lower roster limit because they thought it would help spread the talent around. Now, this sort of thing will help spread talent around in a manner very similar to the NFL, and people are against it?

You won't have super teams - Good. It forces those teams who form networks and bring hoards of top level players on to one team from doing that. I can see how you'd be frustrated, but it just seems that we have a Yankees type thing going on. If you're good, you go to a good team, only making the rich get richer type situation. You'll still be able to field a top notch team, but just not with these super mergers.

You won't be able to have teams of friends - Yes, you will. Do you have 56 friends on GLB that you'd like to be on a team with? If you have 55 or fewer, you could easily be on a team with all of your friends. Hell, I'd rather run my team all by myself and compete AGAINST some of my friends, but that's different. You'll still be able to field a team with friends, just maybe not as many players per agent as before, if they're top notch players.


A salary cap is a very real thing, and if we were able to tie player salary into effective level, I'm in favor of this 100%. Are there flaws in my logic? Quite possibly, but I know you'll all let me know about it.

Just lower the roster limit to 50. Problem solved. Scrap the salary cap.

Allow teams that have more than 55 signed longterm to keep them, but put up a slight penalty for having more than 50.

Originally posted by David Stern
You can't tell people where they can play. It just doesn't work. This entire game is based on the community. You can't say to the community that you can't fill your roster with your own players bc you're about to go over a cap.


You can't limit people to where they can play dotball. Look at the game. Nobody can stay within 50 of valhalla, if you make a change like this , nobody will be able to stay within 100 of teams being built from scratch.

Hell bring it on, I will just sell back all my teams right now, start my own 55 man rosters and dunk on you suckers till the end of time



To be fair, a salary cap is hardly forcing people where to play. Again I ask, is it really that big of a deal if you play with 45 of your best internet buddies instead of 55? I mean, do you really have that many close friends here?

Or is it really about networks and alliances and gaming the system?

Originally posted by Bort
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.

Ok...so what would you do? Allow super teams? Allow people to go over the salary cap but have a luxury tax?

What happened to this stance?

Epark88- Why do teams now have to sell out and join somebody's network in order to win? It's getting harder for the independent teams to recruit the best dots when they're already allocated to some Pro/WL parent club two or three seasons down the line.

No disrespect to the Addicts, Black Hand Cartel, DTD, etc. because they're pretty cool. But owners who prefer to keep their team's identity intact should have the opportunity do do so and still have a reasonable chance to recruit great dots, win games and advance to the highest levels as well.

Bort- Nature of the game (and life) I guess. Making connections and friends always helps no matter what we're talking about. We really have no control over who decides to sign with who. We try to provide people with the tools to find players out there, such as the marketplace, private messages, and the forums, but it's up to the owner to use them and convince people.

Like you said, it's just the nature of the game. People will work together to win. I just honestly don't think it's a good idea to attempt to kill super teams. What's the point of starting a team from scratch with agents you know will build good dots if you won't be able to retain all of those good dots in the future due to the salary cap?

As for what I would do, I would go forward with the original financial plan you had. It still gave some incentive for free agents to maybe choose a higher contract, but still didn't make it NECESSARY to sign high contracts because teams could accommodate you in other ways with luxury items and perks of that nature. I thought it was a pretty cool feature, and people jumped the gun a little on hating the idea without fully understand how it would work. The "salary will effect your morale" part is all anyone saw, and they hated the idea of that without realizing if you DON'T sign a really high contract, you can still make up for that morale difference with team items.

Originally posted by sjmay
Hell just froze over, I agree with Deathblade here,

I think the first system was fine, yes, some people might have been overwhelmed, but they were overwhelmed when the DPC came out etc....

If this is the vision you guys had, stick to it.

I Hated the fact morale/conf was tied into salary, but that was playable, and a strategy. This just destroys the dynamic of the game.

Glb's biggest strength is its community based MMO enviroment. Change #5 completely destroys that, and makes this game absolutely worthless.