Why is it impossible to make a free HB? They say the demand is low at 2.53 per team yet almost every team needs or wants 3 HBs and you can't find any fill your roster. How about you allow agents to make whatever player they want for free including HBs?
Forum > Suggestions > HB and Free Players
No. To unequivocally allow agents to build whatever dot for free they desire would create a market where the ONLY dots being built would be QB's, HB's, and WR's. CPU teams would be filled with stat whoring dots and regular teams wouldn't be able to find the lesser positional players they need for their teams because all any agent would wanna do is build free, high-flex, glamour dots.
But I would support this if it was about separating ST dots (such as returners and STOPS) from regular dots so those don't tilt the market balance out of sorts the way they do.
But I would support this if it was about separating ST dots (such as returners and STOPS) from regular dots so those don't tilt the market balance out of sorts the way they do.
Edited by Theo Wizzago on Sep 21, 2012 00:09:52
Dub J
offline
offline
Only people I've heard complain about it are people with shitloads of multis that can't create HBs and QBs for the team their primary account owns.
greengoose
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
No. To unequivocally allow agents to build whatever dot for free they desire would create a market where the ONLY dots being built would be QB's, HB's, and WR's. CPU teams would be filled with stat whoring dots and regular teams wouldn't be able to find the lesser positional players they need for their teams because all any agent would wanna do is build free, high-flex, glamour dots.
But I would support this if it was about separating ST dots (such as returners and STOPS) from regular dots so those don't tilt the market balance out of sorts the way they do.
The free player slot screams make me a 300 flex position. I'm deaf in one ear and I have to tell that free player slot to tone it down some it. Just let real Supply/Demand dictate the landscape instead of an arbitrary barrier to entry. If someone wants to make a RB they have all the information right there on the page at the time of creation - let them make the decision whether to possibly waste that free player spot on a position that is saturated.
After all, just because it says low demand, doesn't necessarily mean low demand in your age group does it? Isn't that a global counter?
No. To unequivocally allow agents to build whatever dot for free they desire would create a market where the ONLY dots being built would be QB's, HB's, and WR's. CPU teams would be filled with stat whoring dots and regular teams wouldn't be able to find the lesser positional players they need for their teams because all any agent would wanna do is build free, high-flex, glamour dots.
But I would support this if it was about separating ST dots (such as returners and STOPS) from regular dots so those don't tilt the market balance out of sorts the way they do.
The free player slot screams make me a 300 flex position. I'm deaf in one ear and I have to tell that free player slot to tone it down some it. Just let real Supply/Demand dictate the landscape instead of an arbitrary barrier to entry. If someone wants to make a RB they have all the information right there on the page at the time of creation - let them make the decision whether to possibly waste that free player spot on a position that is saturated.
After all, just because it says low demand, doesn't necessarily mean low demand in your age group does it? Isn't that a global counter?
Myd
offline
offline
Originally posted by greengoose
The free player slot screams make me a 300 flex position. I'm deaf in one ear and I have to tell that free player slot to tone it down some it. Just let real Supply/Demand dictate the landscape instead of an arbitrary barrier to entry. If someone wants to make a RB they have all the information right there on the page at the time of creation - let them make the decision whether to possibly waste that free player spot on a position that is saturated.
After all, just because it says low demand, doesn't necessarily mean low demand in your age group does it? Isn't that a global counter?
I see what you are saying, but in my opinion, the lack of players at certain positions (TE, etc) and oversaturation at other positions (HB, Returner, etc) prove, to me at least, that GLB agents don't care about supply and demand. They care about stats.
The free player slot screams make me a 300 flex position. I'm deaf in one ear and I have to tell that free player slot to tone it down some it. Just let real Supply/Demand dictate the landscape instead of an arbitrary barrier to entry. If someone wants to make a RB they have all the information right there on the page at the time of creation - let them make the decision whether to possibly waste that free player spot on a position that is saturated.
After all, just because it says low demand, doesn't necessarily mean low demand in your age group does it? Isn't that a global counter?
I see what you are saying, but in my opinion, the lack of players at certain positions (TE, etc) and oversaturation at other positions (HB, Returner, etc) prove, to me at least, that GLB agents don't care about supply and demand. They care about stats.
Dub J
offline
offline
Originally posted by greengoose
The free player slot screams make me a 300 flex position. I'm deaf in one ear and I have to tell that free player slot to tone it down some it. Just let real Supply/Demand dictate the landscape instead of an arbitrary barrier to entry. If someone wants to make a RB they have all the information right there on the page at the time of creation - let them make the decision whether to possibly waste that free player spot on a position that is saturated.
After all, just because it says low demand, doesn't necessarily mean low demand in your age group does it? Isn't that a global counter?
If we didn't have 5 billion D-leagues for every age group in existence that post would have merit.
The free player slot screams make me a 300 flex position. I'm deaf in one ear and I have to tell that free player slot to tone it down some it. Just let real Supply/Demand dictate the landscape instead of an arbitrary barrier to entry. If someone wants to make a RB they have all the information right there on the page at the time of creation - let them make the decision whether to possibly waste that free player spot on a position that is saturated.
After all, just because it says low demand, doesn't necessarily mean low demand in your age group does it? Isn't that a global counter?
If we didn't have 5 billion D-leagues for every age group in existence that post would have merit.
lexden11
offline
offline
Originally posted by Dub J
If we didn't have 5 billion D-leagues for every age group in existence that post would have merit.
2 prep ,2 uni and 1 at every level above =/= 5 billion
If we didn't have 5 billion D-leagues for every age group in existence that post would have merit.
2 prep ,2 uni and 1 at every level above =/= 5 billion
Dub J
offline
offline
I'm sorry you don't understand hyperbole.
There's 19 D-leagues. 608 CPU teams for people to sign with as well as the plethora of CPU teams in reg/cas/PW leagues. Yeah, there are more than enough CPU teams out there for a glut of useless players to hang out in and further hurt this game.
I would be more concerned about making this game a more enjoyable experience for the people that pay for their dots, pay for teams, and devote countless hours to coordinating rather than cater to a bunch of multis and people that haven't dropped a dime.
There's 19 D-leagues. 608 CPU teams for people to sign with as well as the plethora of CPU teams in reg/cas/PW leagues. Yeah, there are more than enough CPU teams out there for a glut of useless players to hang out in and further hurt this game.
I would be more concerned about making this game a more enjoyable experience for the people that pay for their dots, pay for teams, and devote countless hours to coordinating rather than cater to a bunch of multis and people that haven't dropped a dime.
Edited by Dub J on Sep 21, 2012 15:37:40
greengoose
offline
offline
Originally posted by Dub J
If we didn't have 5 billion D-leagues for every age group in existence that post would have merit.
My point was, once Day 40 hits every position should be High Demand (since no players in existence prior to that can join Day 0 leagues), then that demand starts to deteriorate once the new Season 31 rookies are made. After the 1st season player creation demand is moot - because you can only create a Day 0 player.
If we didn't have 5 billion D-leagues for every age group in existence that post would have merit.
My point was, once Day 40 hits every position should be High Demand (since no players in existence prior to that can join Day 0 leagues), then that demand starts to deteriorate once the new Season 31 rookies are made. After the 1st season player creation demand is moot - because you can only create a Day 0 player.
I think the demand throttle is a good thing.
But I agree that it should -
1) Separate ST dots from the mix.
2) Separate dots parked in D leagues (if they are going to be off by themselves doing whatever, why count them?)
3) Adjust the numbers in the demand ratings to reflect current useage, like 3 HBs or 4 TEs etc.
But I agree that it should -
1) Separate ST dots from the mix.
2) Separate dots parked in D leagues (if they are going to be off by themselves doing whatever, why count them?)
3) Adjust the numbers in the demand ratings to reflect current useage, like 3 HBs or 4 TEs etc.
greengoose
offline
offline
For any Day 0 "class", you want overage - you actually want guys parked in the D-leagues. Once you start the timer on those Day 0 players careers, you can't go back and make more players at their age group. The real problem isn't that there is 2 billion HB's, it's that there is no incentive to make some positions (mainly the O-line and on occasion the D-line when they get hit with the nerf stick) simply because it's like watching paint dry - and having to spend over a year to make the paint......
You are always going to have critical shortages at O-line - no matter how hard the Demand Throttle tries to convince people to make them. Might as well just let them make their HB and park them in the D's. Besides, it makes less than 0 sense to spend a free player spot on a 100 flex position, thats like the Government spending $500 on a hammer.
You are always going to have critical shortages at O-line - no matter how hard the Demand Throttle tries to convince people to make them. Might as well just let them make their HB and park them in the D's. Besides, it makes less than 0 sense to spend a free player spot on a 100 flex position, thats like the Government spending $500 on a hammer.
Edited by greengoose on Sep 21, 2012 17:26:25
Dub J
offline
offline
I think the biggest mistake in all this was when Bort stated that allowing more than one free player slot as long as the total didn't exceed 300 flex is NGTH.
I think we would see a shitload more defensive players and O-linemen if people were allowed to do this. Another instance of GLB cutting off it's nose to spite it's face.
I think we would see a shitload more defensive players and O-linemen if people were allowed to do this. Another instance of GLB cutting off it's nose to spite it's face.
Dub J
offline
offline
Think about it.
1 QB or 3 O-linemen?
1 HB or 1 safety and an O-lineman?
I know there would still be people with hard-ons for QBs and HBs but I think more people than not would see the 2-3 players as a better value than 1 dot.
1 QB or 3 O-linemen?
1 HB or 1 safety and an O-lineman?
I know there would still be people with hard-ons for QBs and HBs but I think more people than not would see the 2-3 players as a better value than 1 dot.
greengoose
offline
offline
We know what the value of 3 O-lineman is to the teams that are in desperate need of them - but what exactly is the value in 3 O-lineman to the player agent? Yeah, you have some that really like to make O-lineman, but they are a vastly overwhelming minority - basically they are on the endangered species list. Most who make O-lineman do so out of necessity, not because they really covet the position.
Thats the problem, we can't look at this through the team owners prism here - they aren't making the player - they need them.
In the end the player position has to hold value to the agent, the flex cost really isn't much of a factor here (if it was there would be no critical shortages). I make G's when I make O-lineman, simply because they actually get a chance to pull on occasion. If I make O-lineman otherwise it's because of the above, out of sheer necessity - there is little joy in the process though.
Thats the problem, we can't look at this through the team owners prism here - they aren't making the player - they need them.
In the end the player position has to hold value to the agent, the flex cost really isn't much of a factor here (if it was there would be no critical shortages). I make G's when I make O-lineman, simply because they actually get a chance to pull on occasion. If I make O-lineman otherwise it's because of the above, out of sheer necessity - there is little joy in the process though.
Dub J
offline
offline
No, I'm referring to the difference between building one dot or building 2-3 dots. For some that don't buy flex it would be more appealing to have multiple dots than just have one playing every other day. Remember back when so many people that didn't coin had multiple non-boost dots rather than having one and using free flex to boost that one dot?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
