Warrior General Games

the numbers here are staggering and I doubt many folks would pay the penalties described here.

IF (and its a huge if) someone would pay up to 3000 flex to convert one dot AND have that dot lose 30% of its abilities, then I don't see any reason why GLB wouldn't want to do something like this--another income stream.

But this seems like a solution to a problem some people have created for themselves--too many teams and not enough dots. Any time someone buys a team, they need to have a plan for how to recruit or fill the roster. If they don't, then they shouldn't have a team or as many teams.

Originally posted by yello1
@ Myd - thats why its negotiable in the details. Would have to be balanced and only Bort could really do the math on that.

I'm not fully comfortable with Bort's math skills. No offense to him but.. well.. no...

Originally posted by fogie55
the numbers here are staggering and I doubt many folks would pay the penalties described here.

IF (and its a huge if) someone would pay up to 3000 flex to convert one dot AND have that dot lose 30% of its abilities, then I don't see any reason why GLB wouldn't want to do something like this--another income stream.

But this seems like a solution to a problem some people have created for themselves--too many teams and not enough dots. Any time someone buys a team, they need to have a plan for how to recruit or fill the roster. If they don't, then they shouldn't have a team or as many teams.



The particular position scarcities are hard to predict from season to season so not sure about your last point.

But yes the penalties may be too harsh. But its supposed to make it a rarity, rather than an exploit. Also the penalties are there to erase any concerns about using it to make a cheaper more effective dot than you could make normally.

And if you keep it close to the dots nature, like Guard to Center, the penalty is not that bad. Particularly if you see the shortage in your age range early and convert it at a lower level. The shortage of OTs in that one generation was ridiculous, for instance. Would have happily converted one of my guards to cover the gap a little. And it would have been early enough he would have outgrown the 10% hit for the most part I think.

Thats why the OOP is in the game. Play a G at C for minimal OP. Or for that matter, FB at TE or vice versa, or any other swap. Just have to deal with the penalty. One C is sufficient if he has good stamina and doesn't play ST. Not optimal, but it will work if you don't want the OOP.

Originally posted by Vortus
Thats why the OOP is in the game. Play a G at C for minimal OP. Or for that matter, FB at TE or vice versa, or any other swap. Just have to deal with the penalty. One C is sufficient if he has good stamina and doesn't play ST. Not optimal, but it will work if you don't want the OOP.

^^^ this ^^^

i thought that any type of position change was ngth. i swear i remember catch shooting this down multiple times in the past.

Originally posted by Vortus
Thats why the OOP is in the game. Play a G at C for minimal OP. Or for that matter, FB at TE or vice versa, or any other swap. Just have to deal with the penalty. One C is sufficient if he has good stamina and doesn't play ST. Not optimal, but it will work if you don't want the OOP.

Yes but

1) It does not reflect the player who at some time in his career made a permanent change of position. Like the high school QB or even college QB who is a CB in the NFL.

2) It does not bring the right SAs to the job, meaning its not just a poor substitute but really no substitute at all. While you take the OOP hit permanently in this idea, you get your SA points to respend. VA too AND BTs. So while the dot will not be great due to the 10/20/30 percent reduction across the board, he gets to truly rebuild as that position.

Your correct, and have to accept that penalty as well. And just because something isn't ideal, doesn't mean it won't work.

Sometimes you have to take what you get and run with it. Totally rebuilding a dot is simply not, to my mind a needed part of the game.

And, for arguments sake, lets say you do allow this altered, permanently nerfed dot. When a better comes along, he will be replaced. And you have a very expensive dot that not many will want. Or worse, there are enough of that position to go around later on, and the players old position becomes the new need. Few in GLB could afford that flex hit, and those that can got that way by not being frivolous. So no, not needed or wanted.

the real suggestion should have been to make all positions fun to play so that there are reasons to build every position. just because o-line are cheap is no longer a valid reason to build them. real centers have been in short supply for at least 7 seasons.

Originally posted by Vortus
Your correct, and have to accept that penalty as well. And just because something isn't ideal, doesn't mean it won't work.

Sometimes you have to take what you get and run with it. Totally rebuilding a dot is simply not, to my mind a needed part of the game.

And, for arguments sake, lets say you do allow this altered, permanently nerfed dot. When a better comes along, he will be replaced. And you have a very expensive dot that not many will want. Or worse, there are enough of that position to go around later on, and the players old position becomes the new need. Few in GLB could afford that flex hit, and those that can got that way by not being frivolous. So no, not needed or wanted.

The benefit is two fold.

One if its my dot, thats a big benefit.

Two if someone has a guard no one will sign, its not exactly easy for him to sell himself to teams looking for centers. But if he realizes his guard is not going to find a job but sees people begging for centers or OTs he can convert himself and show up on the marketplace where they are looking and get his dot a job.

Perfect solution no, but its better than having the agent retire his homeless dot.

Originally posted by Myd
I'm not fully comfortable with Bort's math skills. No offense to him but.. well.. no...


LOL bort would run circles around you in math, or I guess you are a pro at Vector Calculus?

you lose way to many stats if im reading this right. people would convert and pay big flex if you didn't lose stats. any position should be able to change into any position (you would have to pay the catch up flex) and stats should stay the same. seems to be ok I mean who would really want to change a QB with QB stats into an offensive linemen. they should be able to do it just wouldn't be affective

Originally posted by tpaterniti
LOL bort would run circles around you in math, or I guess you are a pro at Vector Calculus?

Multivectoral Mathematics and N Dimensional Matrixes I think was the name of the book. Boy I loathed that class.

Originally posted by yello1

Two if someone has a guard no one will sign, its not exactly easy for him to sell himself to teams looking for centers.

then that player is lucky not to be playing for an idiot owner. any owner with half a brain knows that a well built G can play great at C, as the OOP is almost nil.

Greatest suggestion ever

+1