Warrior General Games

I checked the NGTH section as I am surprised this isn't something that has com up multiple times already.

At this point in the game, there is no reason for a player not to be on hard unless they are mad at an owner or something...which isn't a reason to have it. They already get max XP o matter how many plays. don't see a benefit to keeping this around at all.

It gets suggested once a season or so... and ignored by GLB each time. Its just a remnant of an old system. +1 again.

Originally posted by Myd
It gets suggested once a season or so... and ignored by GLB each time. Its just a remnant of an old system. +1 again.

Yeah, its just a needless clicking and n00b boobytrapping unless there is something put into the game to make it relevant (which I suggested once, forget the details but basically the ability to save up some juice to use in the big games, like temporary bonuses but paid for with reserve energy points gathered from taking games off, maybe some other things could go into it too, forget - it also went toward making for more balanced games since powerhouses would take games off against weaker teams to save for their contending rivals).

So +1

It goes right in the pile with fame & money, just sitting there stinking up the joint.

Originally posted by yello1
Yeah, its just a needless clicking and n00b boobytrapping unless there is something put into the game to make it relevant (which I suggested once, forget the details but basically the ability to save up some juice to use in the big games, like temporary bonuses but paid for with reserve energy points gathered from taking games off, maybe some other things could go into it too, forget - it also went toward making for more balanced games since powerhouses would take games off against weaker teams to save for their contending rivals).

So +1

why am I not surprised that everytime someone suggests something that you will come in and let everyone know that you already suggested something similar or something to go along with the current suggestion. seriously if you would slow down and not make 30 suggestions a day maybe people would look at what you suggest a little more and stop just glancing and then moving onto something else.

+1 to OP

+1

Originally posted by hatchman
Originally posted by yello1

Yeah, its just a needless clicking and n00b boobytrapping unless there is something put into the game to make it relevant (which I suggested once, forget the details but basically the ability to save up some juice to use in the big games, like temporary bonuses but paid for with reserve energy points gathered from taking games off, maybe some other things could go into it too, forget - it also went toward making for more balanced games since powerhouses would take games off against weaker teams to save for their contending rivals).

So +1

why am I not surprised that everytime someone suggests something that you will come in and let everyone know that you already suggested something similar or something to go along with the current suggestion. seriously if you would slow down and not make 30 suggestions a day maybe people would look at what you suggest a little more and stop just glancing and then moving onto something else.

+1 to OP

Hatas Gonna Hate

I think Bort actually mentioned this as a possibility a long while back

+1, but tactics overall need a complete overhaul really. Many of the things in tactics are leftovers, have no real use, or are (like this suggestion) only going to have 1 setting used.

Giving people a choice is only worth while if there are good alternatives to making the choice. There are a number of settings that are just not really giving players a choice of things to set. For example on offense, setting run or pass focus is silly. They know what the play is going to be. Why would they be pass focused on a run play? D should adjust based on vision or some other setting (maybe in D ai when plays are made).

But this is all something for another suggestion i guess.

meh can't say get rid of it, we did a test few years ago and did 1/3 the season on each setting. i seem to remember someone saying something about it works out to(hard) -10%energy/+10% to stats and vice versa and normal was +/- 0%.

Originally posted by opie4507
meh can't say get rid of it, we did a test few years ago and did 1/3 the season on each setting. i seem to remember someone saying something about it works out to(hard) -10%energy/+10% to stats and vice versa and normal was +/- 0%.



In the past, Bort has talked about permanently setting everyone to Intense and then just getting rid of the option to change it.