Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Track6Track7


Eh, you can't have fun trying to find ways for your shitty team to smoke and mirror better ones? It's working for us, we're having a blast.

Nope. Because winning would require beefing up to a silly roster and I will never do that out of principle, because that is a key element to the demise of this once nice game. In fact I'm shedding players if anything. I just released a player a few moments ago and will likely have more releases to come in the future.

And anybody looking to pillage these players, you can look through my roster and anybody who isn't signed beyond this season could end up being available, although most of them are already spoken for, such as Ooga's players and Raves' players that have planned teams to move to.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by Track6Track7



Eh, you can't have fun trying to find ways for your shitty team to smoke and mirror better ones? It's working for us, we're having a blast.

Nope. Because winning would require beefing up to a silly roster and I will never do that out of principle, because that is a key element to the demise of this once nice game. In fact I'm shedding players if anything. I just released a player a few moments ago and will likely have more releases to come in the future.

And anybody looking to pillage these players, you can look through my roster and anybody who isn't signed beyond this season could end up being available, although most of them are already spoken for, such as Ooga's players and Raves' players that have planned teams to move to.

I really don't understand your logic about rosters, the limit now is pretty close to the NFL limit

WE DON'T HAVE INJURIES!

NFL rosters by default have EXTRA guys as INACTIVES because of that, and also by design, a large number of players only play a small percentage of snaps relative to the others, not like the "fair share" common theme that most teams in GLB exhibit. The whole logic and design/dynamics of the NFL game is completely different than what the GLB world is for these reasons and many more.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
WE DON'T HAVE INJURIES!

NFL rosters by default have EXTRA guys as INACTIVES because of that, and also by design, a large number of players only play a small percentage of snaps relative to the others, not like the "fair share" common theme that most teams in GLB exhibit. The whole logic and design/dynamics of the NFL game is completely different than what the GLB world is for these reasons and many more.

Jesus christ. Go fucking buy NFL head coach and shut up.

* Have 3 wins but all against some of the USA Pro's worst teams. Need to turn it up or they may be asking to move to SEAPL after this season.

I love this comment in the WSI portion.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
WE DON'T HAVE INJURIES!

NFL rosters by default have EXTRA guys as INACTIVES because of that, and also by design, a large number of players only play a small percentage of snaps relative to the others, not like the "fair share" common theme that most teams in GLB exhibit. The whole logic and design/dynamics of the NFL game is completely different than what the GLB world is for these reasons and many more.

How would you fix it?

I'd like to see injuries as part of the game, but I also understand the reasoning behind not having them.

And you're right, many players in the NFL on gameday rosters (45 players BTW) don't see much action, but this is a game, and the agents are the ones funding it. Who wants to pay to sit on the bench?

Originally posted by Eli Blanton
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

WE DON'T HAVE INJURIES!

NFL rosters by default have EXTRA guys as INACTIVES because of that, and also by design, a large number of players only play a small percentage of snaps relative to the others, not like the "fair share" common theme that most teams in GLB exhibit. The whole logic and design/dynamics of the NFL game is completely different than what the GLB world is for these reasons and many more.

How would you fix it?

I'd like to see injuries as part of the game, but I also understand the reasoning behind not having them.

And you're right, many players in the NFL on gameday rosters (45 players BTW) don't see much action, but this is a game, and the agents are the ones funding it. Who wants to pay to sit on the bench?

There shouldnt and I highly doubt that there will be injuries in GLB. The most you could do is maybe give like a -5% to all attributes for a quarter or something but thats about it.

Originally posted by Eli Blanton

How would you fix it?

I'd like to see injuries as part of the game, but I also understand the reasoning behind not having them.

And you're right, many players in the NFL on gameday rosters (45 players BTW) don't see much action, but this is a game, and the agents are the ones funding it. Who wants to pay to sit on the bench?

Pffft, I have already tried to offer my assistance to Bort and company in that regard on many, many occasions, but unfortunately he doesn't want my help.

But in regards to your comment about not wanting to sit on the bench, well that's an argument for REDUCING rosters, because those guys that would be bench guys in the NFL are taking heavy snap counts here, so it's one extra reason why the number should be reduced in addition to the others.

Originally posted by Dirtmcgirt66

There shouldnt and I highly doubt that there will be injuries in GLB. The most you could do is maybe give like a -5% to all attributes for a quarter or something but thats about it.

By the way, I'm not necessarily advocating that we have injuries, I'm just using injuries as further rationale for the need for a lower roster limit. But even if you did have injuries, there's all kinds of ways you could incorporate that into the game in such a way where they do sit and not take a silly percentage hit, with the power of creative thought, there's multiple interesting ways you could factor an injury dynamic into the game.

If you were to add injuries though, the ways in my mind that I have it envisioned would require a mess of extra programming and other game elements introduced, it would be a massive time project for Bort to add that in to the mix anyhow, so practically it wouldn't be feasible to implement if we are operating under the assumption that Bort wants to spend less time on things like that so he can spend more time on the baseball game or what not.

I really don't understand why a small detail like this is such a big deal to you, instead of having 1 player playing most of the game you have 2 splitting time, there really is no difference except you have to recruit more players

NFL teams run close to their 45 active day roster when you include dedicated special teamers. You're just mad because you're irrelevant in GLB the last 2-3 seasons. Quit making excuses. If you can't add 5 more players to your 40 man or whatever it is roster, then you're just lazy. Don't pretend you hold higher standards. There were some good GLB teams even in usapl last season running in the 40s as far as player totals go .Get over yourself.

Originally posted by chronoaug
NFL teams run close to their 45 active day roster when you include dedicated special teamers. You're just mad because you're irrelevant in GLB the last 2-3 seasons. Quit making excuses. If you can't add 5 more players to your 40 man or whatever it is roster, then you're just lazy. Don't pretend you hold higher standards. There were some good GLB teams even in usapl last season running in the 40s as far as player totals go .Get over yourself.

LOL, you actually think that I CAN'T find a way to ADD FIVE PLAYERS?? LOL Everything about your post is so backwards with respect to who I am and how I have played this game since the very beginning.

Originally posted by Cactus71
I really don't understand why a small detail like this is such a big deal to you, instead of having 1 player playing most of the game you have 2 splitting time, there really is no difference except you have to recruit more players

I think you underestimate the "detail" as being small. It has ripple effects that spillover into countless aspects and variables of the game in so many intertwined ways that I don't think you really have spent that much time thinking about or analyzing the global impact and relevance that it has to the nature of the game.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by Cactus71

I really don't understand why a small detail like this is such a big deal to you, instead of having 1 player playing most of the game you have 2 splitting time, there really is no difference except you have to recruit more players

I think you underestimate the "detail" as being small. It has ripple effects that spillover into countless aspects and variables of the game in so many intertwined ways that I don't think you really have spent that much time thinking about or analyzing the global impact and relevance that it has to the nature of the game.



Have you thought about what GLB is going to do with all the extra players at each level being cut? Lets use 45 as a base number and realize that a vast majority of AAA and Pro teams have 50-55 man rosters right now. Where are these 5-10 players from each team going to go?

Edit: Without creating more disparity in the leagues lower than AAA or Pro.

Not sure why you would think THAT would be a problem, and that the roster limit is not, but okie dokie! And yeah I have thought about that, and there are all kinds of answers for where those players would go, you could come up with all kinds of solutions for solving the mystery of where do the players go. That's a pretty immaterial concern.