Warrior General Games

Originally posted by -boz-
Its Great as i previously stated...ONE THING i just thought of.

Maybe make a limit to the amount of owner players, like 10/15... just because i can see alot, alot of 1 man teams happening, which really eliminates the community aspect...

So instead of someone making a handful of players for their own traditional team, they break the bank and make 15 of them for an Iron Man team. I can't imagine that GLB or Bort would have a problem with that. Two words: Cha-ching.

From my point of view, I would lean the opposite way: For this league, one-man (or two or three-man) teams should be encouraged. The sense of community will happen in the league, not just the teams.

Originally posted by butler312
Originally posted by haole

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc


I'd love this as long as the OOP stayed in place. The fun part of the league would be building the team knowing that you would have built in weaknesses.

After a couple of days to think about this, I think it does work best with keeping the OOP in place as it currently is. It makes the strategies a little more complex, but for most of the people interested in this kind of league, that's a good thing. Plus with recruiting and team communication (coordination of builds, tactics, scouting) being so much easier, this can be the trade-off.

I'm not sure what the OOP penalties are, but I've heard people say they are for all attributes. IF this is right, this should not be the case for this league (or any really, but especially for this). Penalties should only apply to vision and confidence.

As far as I know, the actual OOPs are a closely guarded secret. People say a lot of things, but they don't always know what they're talking about.

Regardless, the way I see it is this: The easiest way to kill this idea is to ask for changes to OOPs for just this league. When I initially came up with the idea, I was ready to concede pushing for OOPs changes just to get the idea done.

But after a couple of days thinking about it, and after getting feedback on the idea in this thread, I don't really look at it as a concession. I think it simply becomes part of the strategy that makes the Iron Man league different, more challenging in some respects than the original game, less challenging in other areas (like team communication and coordination and recruiting and so on).

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
I'd love this as long as the OOP stayed in place. The fun part of the league would be building the team knowing that you would have built in weaknesses.

This is a good example of what I mentioned above. The more you think about it, the more sense it makes to keep things the way they are.

Originally posted by chuffmaster2k
Throw my support in again. I know its the off-season and all, but it would be nice to see some kind of response from an admin seeing as how this thread has gotten so many replies (and most seem to be in favor).

Obviously at this point, this idea isn't for Season 9. But it could be a valid idea for Season 10.

The thing that surprises me is that nobody's really poked a gaping hole in this idea yet.

There continues to be discussion about the OOP penalties, but most of those people come around quickly enough to the idea of considering the existing OOPs part of the Iron Man strategy. There have been a few people who thought a roster limit of 15 players wasn't enough and a few who thought it was too many, but most people seem to agree on 15 as a good number, and the median of all the suggestions ends up at about 15.

And there's still the possibility that making a league with a limited roster size might be more work than it appears on the surface -- I know nothing about programming and coding, so I have no idea. Sure, it sounds simple and easy, but it might not be.

But I think this idea is about as refined as it can possibly be at this point unless someone comes up with something that nobody's yet thought of -- which would seem to beg your point about wanting feedback from an admin. Is it possible? Or is this something that will end up in the NGTH because it's a lot harder than we think it is?

I like this idea alot. I'm all for it. +1

I like the idea, but man will that put an emphasis on stamina like never before.

Originally posted by showa58taro
I like the idea, but man will that put an emphasis on stamina like never before.

That's definitely likely to be one of the more popular build strategies

Love the idea! I'd always build more "regular" players than Iron Man players, but I'd definitely want to have a Iron Man player or two going just to see how the concept turned out.

Originally posted by supgreg


What exactly was the official roster size limit in the very beginnings of football? Seems to me, the original style of play was not because there was a rule limiting specific rosters size, but players had to play both ways because there weren't enough good players to field 40-50 man rosters.

Rosters grew as interest in the sport grew and position specialization became the norm. There were never any rules about having to have players play both ways, they did because they didn't have enough players. Don't quote me "roots of the game" nonsense when you are making up rules. You have no idea what the roster size was in 1908 at Notre Dame.

1925 it was 16 players. Also the first set player limit for the NFL.

Originally posted by dmfa41
Sounds fun!

Seems like a coding task, though.

I don't see how, just make a new league, and limit roster sizes to 15 players. I'm sure Bort has it to the point where creating a new league takes all of 5 minutes. putting a limit shouldn't be hard either, simple piece of code that check to make sure the roster isn't over 15 players when signing someone. Its up to the agents to make their players well rounded.

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader




Exactly. Besides, once you "break" the traditional player mode to build an ironman, you're probably not going to suddenly decide to attempt to place him in a traditional football league--he wouldn't perform as well.


Just to keep on topic with a simple question. With your statement there, do you believe that ironman leagues would then be the downfall of the traditional leagues?

This is what I mean.

1) In an Ironman league, your players would get a ton of playing time. More bang for your buck? I think that is a fair statement.
2) If an Ironman player really would be less useful in traditional leagues because of the cross-specialization required to play both sides of the ball, then wouldn't their be less players for the traditional leagues?



I myself wouldn't retire or stop making "regular" players to eventually replace my aged guys, but I would make up to 5 new players for Iron Man specific play right out of the box.

Originally posted by robinhoodnik
Originally posted by supgreg



What exactly was the official roster size limit in the very beginnings of football? Seems to me, the original style of play was not because there was a rule limiting specific rosters size, but players had to play both ways because there weren't enough good players to field 40-50 man rosters.

Rosters grew as interest in the sport grew and position specialization became the norm. There were never any rules about having to have players play both ways, they did because they didn't have enough players. Don't quote me "roots of the game" nonsense when you are making up rules. You have no idea what the roster size was in 1908 at Notre Dame.

1925 it was 16 players. Also the first set player limit for the NFL.

Interesting information ... So it seems we're right on the money

i would make some players for this

Originally posted by haole
Originally posted by robinhoodnik

Originally posted by supgreg




What exactly was the official roster size limit in the very beginnings of football? Seems to me, the original style of play was not because there was a rule limiting specific rosters size, but players had to play both ways because there weren't enough good players to field 40-50 man rosters.

Rosters grew as interest in the sport grew and position specialization became the norm. There were never any rules about having to have players play both ways, they did because they didn't have enough players. Don't quote me "roots of the game" nonsense when you are making up rules. You have no idea what the roster size was in 1908 at Notre Dame.

1925 it was 16 players. Also the first set player limit for the NFL.

Interesting information ... So it seems we're right on the money

Im good for 16... it allows for 5 subs

Does anyone have any suggestions on where to go with this idea from here?

It hasn't generated a response from any admins despite more than 200 posts and overwhelmingly positive support. It also hasn't been made epic.

Should I let it die for now and revisit it later in the season? Or keep plugging away?