Warrior General Games

As alot of us know we see a ton of teams each season that aren't filled and are just not competitive. this happens in every league and it is due to to many teams and not enough players. so my thoughts are to cut the number of teams and bring back the waiting list to buy a team. if we cut the number of teams down that will ensure that teams will have a easier time getting filled with human owned dots. this in turn should improve the competitiveness overall to a extent.

I also think that if people have to wait to own a team that they will be more inclined to have their teams planned out and there will be less teams just thrown together at the last minute because someone got a wildhair and bought a team. I know some people won't agree with this suggestion. but before you just post a -1 take the time to add to the discussion and lets work together to try to improve the game.

+1

I agree, also, teams should not be allowed to be sold during the season.

A finite number of teams would be my way to go. If there are a ton of players without a human team to play on, release more.

The way it is now means there are a ton of half-filled teams, which do nothing for league parity or competitiveness.

doobas™

I think I stated this earlier as part of a suggestion, but it didn't have much to do withe the OP. However, playing against teams that only have 15 or so dots isn't much different from playing a CPU based team as far as competition goes. They add nothing to the League they are in & the game itself as far as I'm concerned unless they are playing similar teams. So if we can get away from this nonsense & at least get the minimum 40 human players on a team which should be a minimum to play in a regular League I am all for this.

+1

Well the first step on this path would have to be getting rid of CPU teams and teams that are owned but have an entire roster of CPUs. If you aren't going to address these things first, then the rest of the OP is a waste.

Originally posted by Raiders12
Well the first step on this path would have to be getting rid of CPU teams and teams that are owned but have an entire roster of CPUs. If you aren't going to address these things first, then the rest of the OP is a waste.

I agree with getting rid of the CPU teams but take a look... they are making sure the Conferences are full. And human owned
teams with CPU rosters.... well, I've done that before a restart. Just haven't done it for more than one season. Maybe there needs
to be a limit on how long you can Own a team and have CPU's on it if that's not already in the rules. I'm all for not going past one season with it.

As to the OP.......... it might just be a good idea to go back to the Waiting List. So...........

+1

Huuuuuuge +1.
Something needs to be done to fix the team to available player ratio etc.

I can understand the thinking behind this and might somewhat agree, however i don't think they will. It's not financially benefiting them unless you want to count potential loss because people play blowout games causing them to leave.

Reason being, if they cut down significantly on the number of available teams and re-institute a waiting list you will have people who want to buy a team, and cannot for potentially 2 months (or more depending on how many people get into the list). So you have people willing to pay the flex, who cannot spend it or people who would potentially buy flex in order to buy a team not doing so because they won't get one.

A waiting list also does not mean that teams will be bought by quality owners. You will still get people who really have no clue what they are doing ending up with teams that are half filled or have no idea how to run a team etc. And potentially good owners might change their minds if they end up being told- nope sorry you signed up 3 spots too late, you can't have a team this season. This could cascade down as well since that might also mean a whole batch of new players not being made because some friends/group wanted to build together and now can't do so and they don't bother spending the money to make players.

Last issue is- If you restrict leagues down to the point where you have almost no overflow leagues (like the 6th league in a 6 league level) you leave little room for existing teams to make up for player loss along the way, unless teams start gutting, in which case that causes money issues since those teams are no longer being paid for each season.
Without teams to have excess players, people without a team (other than D league) will have no where to go. It's not very interesting to watch your player on a D league team. And thus those people will either not learn from other people, or get bored and leave, which cuts down on the pool of players and again affects the player/team ratio

With the current structure of age based leagues all feeding into a giant pool at the end, there is little chance you can implement this and have any significant effect on competition, player/team ratios or other issues within this area.

To sum up: This likely won't change, and the implementation in our current league system won't sustain it well for the reasons noted above. I wouldn't be bothered if it were implemented but i don't think it will be beneficial to the GLB system overall.

So can't give it a +1 or -1, just a 0. Consider my points, if they're not clear (went back a few times to add things so might be a bit jumbled) just ask.

+1

And I think we should be restricted to one of each league type as well. Pretty retarded to see two or three teams owned by one person in the same league.

Originally posted by alindyl
I can understand the thinking behind this and might somewhat agree, however i don't think they will. It's not financially benefiting them unless you want to count potential loss because people play blowout games causing them to leave.

Reason being, if they cut down significantly on the number of available teams and re-institute a waiting list you will have people who want to buy a team, and cannot for potentially 2 months (or more depending on how many people get into the list). So you have people willing to pay the flex, who cannot spend it or people who would potentially buy flex in order to buy a team not doing so because they won't get one.

A waiting list also does not mean that teams will be bought by quality owners. You will still get people who really have no clue what they are doing ending up with teams that are half filled or have no idea how to run a team etc. And potentially good owners might change their minds if they end up being told- nope sorry you signed up 3 spots too late, you can't have a team this season. This could cascade down as well since that might also mean a whole batch of new players not being made because some friends/group wanted to build together and now can't do so and they don't bother spending the money to make players.

Last issue is- If you restrict leagues down to the point where you have almost no overflow leagues (like the 6th league in a 6 league level) you leave little room for existing teams to make up for player loss along the way, unless teams start gutting, in which case that causes money issues since those teams are no longer being paid for each season.
Without teams to have excess players, people without a team (other than D league) will have no where to go. It's not very interesting to watch your player on a D league team. And thus those people will either not learn from other people, or get bored and leave, which cuts down on the pool of players and again affects the player/team ratio

With the current structure of age based leagues all feeding into a giant pool at the end, there is little chance you can implement this and have any significant effect on competition, player/team ratios or other issues within this area.

To sum up: This likely won't change, and the implementation in our current league system won't sustain it well for the reasons noted above. I wouldn't be bothered if it were implemented but i don't think it will be beneficial to the GLB system overall.

So can't give it a +1 or -1, just a 0. Consider my points, if they're not clear (went back a few times to add things so might be a bit jumbled) just ask.

why couldn't Bort and Co simply look at each age tier and see how many players are at that age level then possibly add a league if needed to hold those overage players each season. then each season they could look at each age tier and say there are 32 teams that either aren't full teams or CPU's. this could be done for every league put a stipulation that if a team is under 40 human owned players on a roster that they will lose their team. this will make owners either get better as a owner and work to have more successful teams or they lose their teams. I just think something needs to be done to further what the age based leagues started. there are more competitive games now but still when you can look at a league and pretty much pick what teams are going to be fighting for a championship each season it just plain sucks.

Personally I would rather go 8-8 and have all my games be good competitive games as go 16-0 and haven't had to gameplan once all season.

It was done in the name of making sure every single dot had a team. Shit leagues will kill this game off much faster than a few random terribad builders that can't sign on with a human owned team.

Originally posted by Dub J
+1

And I think we should be restricted to one of each league type as well. Pretty retarded to see two or three teams owned by one person in the same league.

I agree somewhat I don't mind agents owning teams in the same age bracket I just think they need to be in 2 completely different leagues.