Warrior General Games

Originally posted by kingjonb
same could be said about boosters, right? Only bitches who can't game plan have to boost to gain an advantage. See, that weak statement can go both ways, probably not unlike you.

Thanks for playing

Why don't you take your stupid, offtopic bullshit to one of the joke threads. srs

Originally posted by kingjonb
same could be said about boosters, right? Only bitches who can't game plan have to boost to gain an advantage. See, that weak statement can go both ways, probably not unlike you.

Thanks for playing

Just so you don't think you pwned me or anything. Comparing SSB to boosters is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board (and considering the shit posted here that is really saying something).

Originally posted by Dub J
Comparing SSB to boosters is one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board (and considering the shit posted here that is really saying something.

It is one of the most insanely stupid things I've ever seen. Something has really butt-hurt this poor kid

Originally posted by haole



Obviously stamina would be a huge factor in a league where nearly every dot is playing on both sides of the ball. I don't think any intelligent person would claim that stamina would be unimportant. I'm sure you'll come back to the point of this later, since there doesn't seem to be any argument here.

EDIT: Oops, guess not. Ok, well perhaps in your response to this, you could also point out that in an Iron Man League, the team that scores the most points in a game will win.

so you're agreeing the team with the highest strength and stamina would win? got it, thanks! exploit solved

Originally posted by haole
Your argument assumes that this imaginary person (a friend of yours?) is making dots just to make dots and then faces this tough choice on whether to make them Iron Man dots or not. Your argument further assumes that this person is not making dots for a team, but just to make them for the hell of it. Your argument assumes a lot of things, actually.

We fully expect that the majority of dots made for Iron Man are dots that will be made for Iron Man. I agree that this argument doesn't carry the weight it once did. On the support list (Page 1) are literally dozens of names of people who wanted to make Iron Man dots, but they're no longer on GLB now making dots for anyone. They were never given the option. Had this been implemented a couple years ago, when the support level was high and enthusiasm was rampant, who knows? Maybe some of those people stick around.

No matter how you stack it, it's six of one, a half-dozen of the other. But I seriously doubt the implementation of Iron Man will have an noticeable impact on the FA market, either positive or negative. There are many other factors causing a lack of enthusiasm for making dots that are much more to blame.

you just don't get it do you, guy? The problem I presented was not from a new team's perspective, but from FA perspective, you know those players people try to sign in the off season when their original players leave the game, don't boost, or decide not to be a part of the team anymore?

you assume all teams keep all their players for their entire career, you assume there is no FA, you assume everybody has a plethora of flex and can create an endless supply of players. You ASSume a lot of things, actually.


Originally posted by haole
So the idea would be SO popular that the game would be overflowing with builds that nobody (but Iron Man teams) can use. We thank you for your optimism and support.

no, meaning that it's hard to find decent players now, and will be even harder if there's another league style depleting the resources.

Originally posted by haole
No idea what this means

I'm not surprised.

Originally posted by haole
First, I bolded the triple negative that made me laugh at your horrible grammar skills. Sorry, but it's an epic failure of a sentence.

Second, this cannot be done currently by a League Underground. Not with 15-man rosters (impossible with the current coding as per Bort) and not with 20 (because the CPU automatically re-does the depth chart before every game if you have fewer than 25 players). As far as I know, there are NOT currently Iron Man League Underground leagues. A couple of aborted attempts have been made to create them, but the depth chart glitch has prevented them from happening. Thank you for making sure you have your facts straight before spending so much time explaining why you are against it.

We thank you once again for your input.

1st, since you appear to be so serious about proper English, I took the liberty of making bold all your grammatical errors. It's not an incorrect sentence either, maybe a little difficult for a person of your intelligence to fathom, however. The statement is that I don't agree with your notion that underground leagues like this one cannot be done at this time.

2nd, it can be done. Just have every team sign 20 additional CPU players to make it an even 40 then set the depth chart with the 20 extra players at the 2nd position and set the energy to 1/2. It can be done if you're serious about it and willing to put in a little effort.

You're still welcome for my input.

lol, I love the hypocrisy you guys show. "my strategy is ok, but your strategy is gaming the system." Grow some balls, ladies. If you can't beat a team, get over it, but don't call the GLB police and try to have them exterminate the strategy you can't beat.

SSB are boosters, Einstein, they just have a different build strategy. It is a completely legitimate comparison. SSB uses one extra season of training to gain the upper hand on their opponent while boosters rely on boosting.

and I do own you pwn you, I pwn you like Thomas Jefferson.

Originally posted by kingjonb
so you're agreeing the team with the highest strength and stamina would win? got it, thanks! exploit solved.

You have seriously reading comprehension problem if you saw anything about strength in either my reply or your original statement that I was replying to

But since this problem pales in comparison to your lack of logic skills, perhaps I should do the right thing and not beat you over the head with it. Logic fail No. 1 is that you say you don't really care whether this gets implemented or not, and yet you keep coming back to argue against it with your various straw man arguments.

Thank you again for your input

P.S. You have bolded things that are are not grammatical errors. lol u

Originally posted by haole
You have seriously reading comprehension problem if you saw anything about strength in either my reply or your original statement that I was replying to

But since this problem pales in comparison to your lack of logic skills, perhaps I should do the right thing and not beat you over the head with it. Logic fail No. 1 is that you say you don't really care whether this gets implemented or not, and yet you keep coming back to argue against it with your various straw man arguments.

Thank you again for your input

P.S. You have bolded things that are are not grammatical errors. lol u

? I guess I do have seriously reading comprehension problem. lol Strength does factor into energy, are you denying this?

I love arguing, what can I say. I might stop tho if you ask me nicely or actually make a logical response to disprove anything I have written.

P.S.
1st bold: should read:
Ok, well perhaps in your response to this, you could also point out that, in an Iron Man League, the team that scores the most points in a game will win.
needs a comma there as it is an aside from the subject.
2nd bold: an noticeable? really? a noticeable
3rd bold: SO should not be in all capitals
4th bold: No idea what this means, this is not a complete sentence
5th bold: bolded is not a word since bold is an adjective and not a verb, you cannot make it past tense by itself. It would be like saying: you're smarted. it's made bold
6th bold: Once again not a complete sentence

Thanks for trying and please feel free to come back again.

edit: LOL

Actually before you come in here shitting up this thread any further, let me tell you where you big logic failure is, and why I have a hard time taking your so-called "argument" seriously (as evidenced by my repeated smartass responses)

You seem to believe that building a team for Iron Man based solely on Strength and Stamina is an exploit, when it is in fact a build strategy. Some teams are built on strength; some are built on speed. Some are built to be running teams and some are built to be passing teams.

If you argument is that you can build some unbeatable Iron Man team simply by building nothing but Strength and Stamina for all your dots, I would happily put my theoretical team against your slow-ass can't-tackle, can't-catch, can't-throw, can't-kick team any day of the week.

Once you grasp the difference between an exploit (something that can't be countered or beaten) and a strategy (a team-wide plan for success), you will do much better in these forums.

Originally posted by haole
Actually before you come in here shitting up this thread any further, let me tell you where you big logic failure is, and why I have a hard time taking your so-called "argument" seriously (as evidenced by my repeated smartass responses)

You seem to believe that building a team for Iron Man based solely on Strength and Stamina is an exploit, when it is in fact a build strategy. Some teams are built on strength; some are built on speed. Some are built to be running teams and some are built to be passing teams.

If you argument is that you can build some unbeatable Iron Man team simply by building nothing but Strength and Stamina for all your dots, I would happily put my theoretical team against your slow-ass can't-tackle, can't-catch, can't-throw, can't-kick team any day of the week.

Once you grasp the difference between an exploit (something that can't be countered or beaten) and a strategy (a team-wide plan for success), you will do much better in these forums.

lol@you thinking it would only be a team of 200 strength and 100 stamina and the rest 20. LOL

it would be an exploit as much as SSB, motivational speaker, pump fake, spin, or any of those other exploits they've worked to eliminate. I say potato, you say potahto

and you're welcome for bumping this thread

Originally posted by kingjonb
lol@you thinking it would only be a team of 200 strength and 100 stamina and the rest 20. LOL

it would be an exploit as much as SSB, motivational speaker, pump fake, spin, or any of those other exploits they've worked to eliminate. I say potato, you say potahto




This is more like you say potato, and I say, uh no dude, that's a fucking cucumber

I haven't read the previous 110 pages of this thread but I assume what I'm about to say has been suggested to you, but I'm too lazy to find it.

Originally posted by haole
Q: Would players have to be built specifically for Iron Man?

Ideally, yes. But there would be no distinction made between an Iron Man player and a regular GLB player.

So, this makes sense with ALGs and stuff like that to be built essentially like a regular GLB player meaning QB/WR/LB/FS etc. But would it be a bad idea to have that player not be labled as any of those and be built to BE an ironman player?
He would be given the title IM for 'Iron Man' and his ALGs would be basic ones while there may be three or four ranging archetypes to pick from.

Originally posted by o The Boss x
So, this makes sense with ALGs and stuff like that to be built essentially like a regular GLB player meaning QB/WR/LB/FS etc. But would it be a bad idea to have that player not be labled as any of those and be built to BE an ironman player?
He would be given the title IM for 'Iron Man' and his ALGs would be basic ones while there may be three or four ranging archetypes to pick from.



Yeah, we recommend that Bort create a couple of Iron Man archetypes to go along with this should the idea ever be implemented. It's not a deal-breaker, just something that's probably a good idea.

This would serve a couple of purposes: to help more easily identify Iron Man players and to allow for ALGs that boost both offensive and defensive stuff. But you're probably right that there should be an additional designation to identify a player as an Iron Man -- a passing QB/CB, for instance, isn't going to have a generic Iron Man archetype. Neither would a K/P.

Gotcha