Warrior General Games

Originally posted by digitaldaggers
Hmmm...I really like your ideas on this...not sure on how long/how tricky this would be to implement, but I'll be talking with Bort about this concept no doubt...we've talked about "player reputations" and something similar to this would flesh things out even more...


Thanks so much for the thoughts Drifter, we'll keep you informed!

One other possibility is to give Owners the rights to tag players with certain titles.

Some guys are just quiet grinders who work out and do their business. Others are in the teams locker room actually trying to (vocally) help the team.

Others are inactive (and yes, they should be punished on a case-by-case basis IMO).

You could set up a number of tags that would give the owners some minor control over how this works out.

1 - I'm a film guy/assistant coach type for my team in our locker room. So maybe I get a vocal leader/vision boost from the owner at the end of the season.

2 - Another teammate might be someone who is focused on working out...so he get's a strength/speed boost.

3 - Another teammate might just be an on field performer, despite doing nothing special with the team. He might be viewed as a me-first player with applicable bonus/negatives. (Yes, this looks similar to #2, but it should be an option available).

4 - Another teammate might be the guy who handles press conferences and such...and so would get a "fan favorite" style tag.

The owners will know who's good and who isn't better than some randomly created computer question with pre-programmed answers.

I like that idea, but, quite frankly, I don't trust owners to always do the right thing. It would be too easy to abuse the system and give your buddies all the tags or any players that you manage.

Maybe the limit could be one (or two) tag(s) per Login Profile then...to limit that. That might hurt a guy with mulitple players on multiple teams (to some extent) but still give the owners a chance.

Besides, if this is going to have some semblance to RL, then odds are there is going to be some "Al Davis" who makes no sense with his decisions...and one "Daniel Snyder" who is going to crush his Salary Cap every season to bring in the biggest and best!!!

There are certain situations a player may end up in where he would obviously be unhappy. He may want to renegotiate his contract, but the owner is unwilling to. He may want to be traded to a winning team. He may want more playing time.

The player is ultimately bound by his signed contract and must serve the full length of it and has no control over his situation if the owner does not want to trade or renegotiate.

I've seen it suggested before, but want to expand on it. I think in situations like this, it would be desirable for the player to have the option to express their unhappiness and that comes with negative side effects, both for the player and the team.

If this 'unhappiness' option is enabled, the player's performance, training, morale, etc. is decreased. At the same time, it also spreads to the rest of the team causing a lower team morale, which could affect team performance.

I think with this feature, it would detract players from declaring their unhappiness unless there really is no other option, since their experience and training gain is reduced significantly. It also entices owners to solve the conflict because the rest of the team is affected.

You could add to this the option to hold out which would be even more extreme, because then the player is ineligible to play and training would be significantly reduced or even halted.

Very cool idea cajik. It gives the player some leverage too in dealing with owners. For example, I know someone who had a QB on a CPU team. The CPU team was bought, the owner created his own QB and plugged him in as starter. In your scenario, the original QB could have the option of pumping up the discontent which would then have a detrimental effect on the team as a whole, and the owner would be forced to deal with it.

thats good, but i dont want my guys performance downed by one unhappy guy when he should be able to talk it out with the owner (in a perfect GLB world).

Originally posted by jake13
thats good, but i dont want my guys performance downed by one unhappy guy when he should be able to talk it out with the owner (in a perfect GLB world).

Hopefully he takes that tactic first (talking with the owner) but if that doesn't work, he has another option. As an owner, if you have a problem with a player who pumps up his discontent before talking to you, you know you have a bad egg and can choose to dump him.

I didnt read every post so i'm not sure what has been said or changed, but id prefer being able to do some minigame type stuff in between games that can earn you some skill points or gear/money rather than choose your adventure type thing.

I hate the idea of a mini-game. This is supposed to be a sim - I don't think your skill points or whatever should be based on how well you play a stupid flash game.

Originally posted by jake13
thats good, but i dont want my guys performance downed by one unhappy guy when he should be able to talk it out with the owner (in a perfect GLB world).

Like drifter said, the option of being discontent is only a last resort. If somebody wants to be a griefer and immediately go to it, nothing is stopping the owner from dumping him.

The option is there to stop owners from keeping unhappy players around with no consequences.

Right now, players have little or no leverage. They can be signed to long-term contracts, but they are not guaranteed and owners can release them at anytime with no penalty. At the same time, players are forced to serve those contracts.

A thought on a way to prevent every player from just loading up on the Lockerroom leader points would be to have only the highest player's points count not the total, because that would reduce the amount of people who do that to boost the whole team so everyone's cumulatively boosting everyone.

Question though, should everything you choose your player to do and say always have a negative?

Originally posted by Bernard Pollard
Question though, should everything you choose your player to do and say always have a negative?

I addressed this. It doesn't but I think the net gain should always be just .5. So if there is not negative, the positive would be .5. If there is a -.5 then the positive would be 1.

i like the idea alot, but im not sure about the multiple choice thing.

i would love to see this though.

makes a great game even better.

Originally posted by dctitan49
i like the idea alot, but im not sure about the multiple choice thing.

i would love to see this though.

makes a great game even better.

The multiple choice thing was just to give players something else to look forward to/do on off days. Do you have another idea or do you think it should just be like any other attribute?