Originally posted by yello1
Read the forums more, look at league standings, this is not just about me and my teams.
Yes it is.
Read the forums more, look at league standings, this is not just about me and my teams.
Yes it is.
Forum > Suggestions > Parity Stick, Hard Salary Caps and Steeply Ramped Salary Minimums Based Upon Effective Level
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by Yello1
Secondly, regardless of what they were built for, if a team succeeds and its dots are uber enough at some point they may want to shed some due to the salary cap, putting those dots on the market unless the agent wants to retire and waste his flex. Either way the Uber Dot team is weakened and if the agent decides to play out the dots career, he will make some other team better.
So you're punishing a team for being good-- and punishing the guy who makes a player for making him well, by forcing off the team he was made for.
Secondly, regardless of what they were built for, if a team succeeds and its dots are uber enough at some point they may want to shed some due to the salary cap, putting those dots on the market unless the agent wants to retire and waste his flex. Either way the Uber Dot team is weakened and if the agent decides to play out the dots career, he will make some other team better.
So you're punishing a team for being good-- and punishing the guy who makes a player for making him well, by forcing off the team he was made for.
Originally posted by Ken1
So you're punishing a team for being good-- and punishing the guy who makes a player for making him well, by forcing off the team he was made for.
Kinda, but if its what is necessary to make the game last, what are ya gonna do.
If my premise that the lack of parity in large part is self sustaining, that winning teams attract winning dots, and that lack of parity is costing GLB to lose players due to folks not liking in general to pay to constantly be trampled, then something needs to be done to make parity happen.
This would be a way to do it. A more sure fired way than any other suggestion I have seen. Not perfect, but still effective.
If there is a better less annoying way to do it, thats fine by me. But they locked my suggestion along those lines because Bort doesn't want to hand out reward flex as a carrot to get people to sign good dots with losing teams.
So you're punishing a team for being good-- and punishing the guy who makes a player for making him well, by forcing off the team he was made for.
Kinda, but if its what is necessary to make the game last, what are ya gonna do.
If my premise that the lack of parity in large part is self sustaining, that winning teams attract winning dots, and that lack of parity is costing GLB to lose players due to folks not liking in general to pay to constantly be trampled, then something needs to be done to make parity happen.
This would be a way to do it. A more sure fired way than any other suggestion I have seen. Not perfect, but still effective.
If there is a better less annoying way to do it, thats fine by me. But they locked my suggestion along those lines because Bort doesn't want to hand out reward flex as a carrot to get people to sign good dots with losing teams.
Originally posted by beenlurken
Yello just focus all of your efforts on trying to make one relevant team.
I feel sorry for you dude.
Thanks for the sentiment, but we can be 0-16 or 16-0 and I am still going to be posting ideas about the game till I run out of them.
That could happen though. My first 10,000 posts on WWIIOL forums were mostly game design ideas. But the last 50,000 were mostly politics. You can only chew over a game structure so long before you've hit all the angles twice.
Yello just focus all of your efforts on trying to make one relevant team.
I feel sorry for you dude.
Thanks for the sentiment, but we can be 0-16 or 16-0 and I am still going to be posting ideas about the game till I run out of them.
That could happen though. My first 10,000 posts on WWIIOL forums were mostly game design ideas. But the last 50,000 were mostly politics. You can only chew over a game structure so long before you've hit all the angles twice.
Edited by yello1 on Apr 12, 2012 03:56:10
Originally posted by pimpin_snoopy
i'm here for the party stick and the biblically-based astrophysics
lol not biblically based.
Just noting in the bible that there are passages that without too much imagination can be seen as references to things that modern science are telling us actually happened. Kinda gives credence to the book. More importantly it poo poos the notion that folks on both sides of the debate sometimes get that science and the bible can not coexist.
Not to go too far afield or in too much detail but things like "face moving over the waters" section in the first part of Genesis and the time line after that coincides with planetary accretion and the formation of the crust, atmosphere and seas. The Sun and Moon and stars bit seems off but its true that the "dust" in space left over and not yet absorbed or blown away by stellar wind, as well as the clouded atmosphere on the forming earth, would have obscured those sights from the Earth. And the moon was formed later. So its possibly a reference to those elements, or its a mundane edit made after the fact by earth centric transcribers. Evolutionary time line is pretty accurate in that section as well in terms of order of evolution. Adam's rib transfer is how you might describe a gene being passed on to someone that doesn't know what a gene is. Etc Etc Etc. Taken in the context of how God might relate to his bronze age creations the creation in a way they could grasp and remember and retell orally, it seems right to me anyway. How would YOU tell it to a three or four year old and have them remember and repeat it?
But in any case, the science does come first, not the other way around. I am not a creationist trying to explain away fossils or cramming the timeline into the mistranslations that created the 6000 year old earth theory.
i'm here for the party stick and the biblically-based astrophysics
lol not biblically based.
Just noting in the bible that there are passages that without too much imagination can be seen as references to things that modern science are telling us actually happened. Kinda gives credence to the book. More importantly it poo poos the notion that folks on both sides of the debate sometimes get that science and the bible can not coexist.
Not to go too far afield or in too much detail but things like "face moving over the waters" section in the first part of Genesis and the time line after that coincides with planetary accretion and the formation of the crust, atmosphere and seas. The Sun and Moon and stars bit seems off but its true that the "dust" in space left over and not yet absorbed or blown away by stellar wind, as well as the clouded atmosphere on the forming earth, would have obscured those sights from the Earth. And the moon was formed later. So its possibly a reference to those elements, or its a mundane edit made after the fact by earth centric transcribers. Evolutionary time line is pretty accurate in that section as well in terms of order of evolution. Adam's rib transfer is how you might describe a gene being passed on to someone that doesn't know what a gene is. Etc Etc Etc. Taken in the context of how God might relate to his bronze age creations the creation in a way they could grasp and remember and retell orally, it seems right to me anyway. How would YOU tell it to a three or four year old and have them remember and repeat it?
But in any case, the science does come first, not the other way around. I am not a creationist trying to explain away fossils or cramming the timeline into the mistranslations that created the 6000 year old earth theory.
Originally posted by yello1
Thanks for the sentiment, but we can be 0-16 or 16-0 and I am still going to be posting ideas about the game till I run out of them.
That could happen though. My first 10,000 posts on WWIIOL forums were mostly game design ideas. But the last 50,000 were mostly politics. You can only chew over a game structure so long before you've hit all the angles twice.
well I think you have turned a corner in your suggestions process. now when I disagree with your suggestions I do not have to put up with you in the forum. Now I have people associated with you blow-up my inbox threatening to get me perma-banned if I keep messing with you. Yello1 you really need to get a handle on those kids. you know they should be seen but not heard.
Thanks for the sentiment, but we can be 0-16 or 16-0 and I am still going to be posting ideas about the game till I run out of them.
That could happen though. My first 10,000 posts on WWIIOL forums were mostly game design ideas. But the last 50,000 were mostly politics. You can only chew over a game structure so long before you've hit all the angles twice.
well I think you have turned a corner in your suggestions process. now when I disagree with your suggestions I do not have to put up with you in the forum. Now I have people associated with you blow-up my inbox threatening to get me perma-banned if I keep messing with you. Yello1 you really need to get a handle on those kids. you know they should be seen but not heard.
Edited by hatchman on Apr 12, 2012 05:33:54
beenlurken
offline
offline
Originally posted by yello1
Thanks for the sentiment, but we can be 0-16 or 16-0 and I am still going to be posting ideas about the game till I run out of them.
That could happen though. My first 10,000 posts on WWIIOL forums were mostly game design ideas. But the last 50,000 were mostly politics. You can only chew over a game structure so long before you've hit all the angles twice.
Dont lie... you are only making this suggestion because you are unable to be competitive at the Nat Pro level... you would not be making this if your team(s) was a playoff contenders.
If you would just step back and take an objective unselfish look at the game you will finally realize that the league structure is what is hurting this game at the end game level. Whether you admit it or not the game cannot support 8 competitive pro leagues.
The answer is not what you naively suggest in this thread. It will never fly.. it's a game and if users want to build every player for ther team the should be able to.. if a group of friends want to build a team they should e able to. Listen to what EVERYONE in this thread is telling you.
That said, the only way to fix parity at the end game level is to contract the Pro leagues. It Bort finally decides to market this game and it begins to grow again then the Nat Pro level can be expanded back but for now there should only be 4 leagues with higher promote/demote. It is just too easy to reach Nat Pro... it's practically a guarantee you will get there. Also it is ridicously easy for shit teams to stay in Nat Pro... you of all people should know this. The problem with that is that these teams buid a reputation of losing and will never be able to sign competitive dots (I would rather put my dots on a promising reg pro team than one of your teams yello.. and that's excluding our history).
Lastly, how did this thread make it to page 10? This is NGTH
Thanks for the sentiment, but we can be 0-16 or 16-0 and I am still going to be posting ideas about the game till I run out of them.
That could happen though. My first 10,000 posts on WWIIOL forums were mostly game design ideas. But the last 50,000 were mostly politics. You can only chew over a game structure so long before you've hit all the angles twice.
Dont lie... you are only making this suggestion because you are unable to be competitive at the Nat Pro level... you would not be making this if your team(s) was a playoff contenders.
If you would just step back and take an objective unselfish look at the game you will finally realize that the league structure is what is hurting this game at the end game level. Whether you admit it or not the game cannot support 8 competitive pro leagues.
The answer is not what you naively suggest in this thread. It will never fly.. it's a game and if users want to build every player for ther team the should be able to.. if a group of friends want to build a team they should e able to. Listen to what EVERYONE in this thread is telling you.
That said, the only way to fix parity at the end game level is to contract the Pro leagues. It Bort finally decides to market this game and it begins to grow again then the Nat Pro level can be expanded back but for now there should only be 4 leagues with higher promote/demote. It is just too easy to reach Nat Pro... it's practically a guarantee you will get there. Also it is ridicously easy for shit teams to stay in Nat Pro... you of all people should know this. The problem with that is that these teams buid a reputation of losing and will never be able to sign competitive dots (I would rather put my dots on a promising reg pro team than one of your teams yello.. and that's excluding our history).
Lastly, how did this thread make it to page 10? This is NGTH
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by yello1
If there is a better less annoying way to do it, thats fine by me. But they locked my suggestion along those lines because Bort doesn't want to hand out reward flex as a carrot to get people to sign good dots with losing teams.
The "less annoying" way is not to do it at all, because just about all of us want free choice over the teams our players play for.
If there is a better less annoying way to do it, thats fine by me. But they locked my suggestion along those lines because Bort doesn't want to hand out reward flex as a carrot to get people to sign good dots with losing teams.
The "less annoying" way is not to do it at all, because just about all of us want free choice over the teams our players play for.
Originally posted by hatchman
well I think you have turned a corner in your suggestions process. now when I disagree with your suggestions I do not have to put up with you in the forum. Now I have people associated with you blow-up my inbox threatening to get me perma-banned if I keep messing with you. Yello1 you really need to get a handle on those kids. you know they should be seen but not heard.
I didn't even know I had a posse. I just thought I was being followed.
LOL.
I'll put more free food in the limo to distract them.
well I think you have turned a corner in your suggestions process. now when I disagree with your suggestions I do not have to put up with you in the forum. Now I have people associated with you blow-up my inbox threatening to get me perma-banned if I keep messing with you. Yello1 you really need to get a handle on those kids. you know they should be seen but not heard.
I didn't even know I had a posse. I just thought I was being followed.
LOL.
I'll put more free food in the limo to distract them.
Originally posted by Ken1
The "less annoying" way is not to do it at all, because just about all of us want free choice over the teams our players play for.
I know, but...if its the difference between having the game or not?
The "less annoying" way is not to do it at all, because just about all of us want free choice over the teams our players play for.
I know, but...if its the difference between having the game or not?
Originally posted by yello1
I know, but...if its the difference between having the game or not?
it's not the difference.
Is it ever possible for you to admit one of your lame ass suggestions is just that, a lame ass suggestion. Just let it go man, take 10 deep breaths and think of your happy place. Let it go
I know, but...if its the difference between having the game or not?
it's not the difference.
Is it ever possible for you to admit one of your lame ass suggestions is just that, a lame ass suggestion. Just let it go man, take 10 deep breaths and think of your happy place. Let it go
Edited by Bane on Apr 12, 2012 15:40:21
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
