Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Dub J
Get rid of ALGs

I actually agree with this.

The ONLY way to make this game significant at the low levels is to stop punishing players for rounding their builds early to win. As long as there are ALG's and "cookie cutter builds" nothing below peaking will ever matter.

-1

1) This is exploitable by networks in general, and indeed to a massive extent by collaboration between teams which are playing each other. People wouldn't gameplan to win, but would gameplan to help the opposition QB throw for over 500 yards and 5 touchdowns, or whatever the milestone-du-jour was.

2) "Oh you haven't hit milestones X and Y by age Z, you have to sign him to the worst league possible or retire the dot.

Milestones or whatever are fine, but they shouldn't add more SP to a player's build. They have to remain irrelevant the way the game is set up.

Originally posted by TaySC
I actually agree with this.

The ONLY way to make this game significant at the low levels is to stop punishing players for rounding their builds early to win. As long as there are ALG's and "cookie cutter builds" nothing below peaking will ever matter.



If you change it so XP and VXP purely based on age instead of levels, you would make it easier and players can boost early and not worry about losing out.

Originally posted by cavalier
If you had bothered to read the suggestion and click the picture you would see that a significant part of this would be team performance.

I read the words "team performance", but it was not clear to me how much that played into it. I looked in the picture, but again, it is not readily obvious from that if team adds the same as individual, more or less. If team is not more than individual, then having team in there is not going to make a difference, since it is easier to stat pad then win, and we all know that folks take the easiest path to success.

My point remains that team must be significant (not just included) or this will create a less competitive environment.

Originally posted by mandyross
-1

1) This is exploitable by networks in general, and indeed to a massive extent by collaboration between teams which are playing each other. People wouldn't gameplan to win, but would gameplan to help the opposition QB throw for over 500 yards and 5 touchdowns, or whatever the milestone-du-jour was.

2) "Oh you haven't hit milestones X and Y by age Z, you have to sign him to the worst league possible or retire the dot.

Milestones or whatever are fine, but they shouldn't add more SP to a player's build. They have to remain irrelevant the way the game is set up.

Since achievements are for both sides of the ball, and also team based with records, etc playing a part. You would also lose something if you exploit it like that. Further, you would of course have to have strict policies in place to ban anyone that purposely exploits the system.

So you really would retire a dot because he has a confidence boost of 26 instead of 29 for instance? .

Originally posted by cavalier
Originally posted by mandyross

-1

1) This is exploitable by networks in general, and indeed to a massive extent by collaboration between teams which are playing each other. People wouldn't gameplan to win, but would gameplan to help the opposition QB throw for over 500 yards and 5 touchdowns, or whatever the milestone-du-jour was.

2) "Oh you haven't hit milestones X and Y by age Z, you have to sign him to the worst league possible or retire the dot.

Milestones or whatever are fine, but they shouldn't add more SP to a player's build. They have to remain irrelevant the way the game is set up.

Since achievements are for both sides of the ball, and also team based with records, etc playing a part. You would also lose something if you exploit it like that. Further, you would of course have to have strict policies in place to ban anyone that purposely exploits the system.

So you really would retire a dot because he has a confidence boost of 26 instead of 29 for instance? .

"Both sides of the ball" is clearly exploitable by networks, even if they have to sacrifice some dots to do it. And who on earth will have the time to police the hundreds of games that run on here daily and wade through the lists of accusations, enforce "scrict policies" and deal with all the appeals?

You ask if I would really would retire a dot because he has a confidence boost of 26 instead of 29. In answer, I would not be happy if someone else had free SPs for their build by gaming the system.

Your suggestion is a noble one but clearly incompatible with the game as it is today.

Originally posted by mandyross
"Both sides of the ball" is clearly exploitable by networks, even if they have to sacrifice some dots to do it. And who on earth will have the time to police the hundreds of games that run on here daily and wade through the lists of accusations, enforce "scrict policies" and deal with all the appeals?

You ask if I would really would retire a dot because he has a confidence boost of 26 instead of 29. In answer, I would not be happy if someone else had free SPs for their build by gaming the system.

Your suggestion is a noble one but clearly incompatible with the game as it is today.

Thanks for the input

It seems to me like every suggestion these days is met head on with the "it is exploitable by networks" comments.

No offense to those that are "independent", but if you feel a network is such a huge advantage, then why not join a network? Truth be told, not all networks (speaking of "The Combine") are feeder networks. Believe it or not, some are just a group of agents and teams that share some ideas and BS in the PF, but that really are not a part of some huge conspiracy to game the system.

/rant


Cavalier, I really do like this idea if it can somehow be done without making the top teams even more elite and the rest even more insignificant.

I am making this suggestion as an owner of a team without a network and I don't really see how it would help the network teams that much to be honest.

Originally posted by TaySC


No offense to those that are "independent", but if you feel a network is such a huge advantage, then why not join a network? Truth be told, not all networks (speaking of "The Combine") are feeder networks. Believe it or not, some are just a group of agents and teams that share some ideas and BS in the PF, but that really are not a part of some huge conspiracy to game the system.

/rant





because they are the worst part of this game and i will kill it with fire.

Originally posted by bhall43
because they are the worst part of this game and i will kill it with fire.

Unrealistic scores are But yeah, I agree, would have been much better without networks.

Originally posted by mandyross
"Both sides of the ball" is clearly exploitable by networks, even if they have to sacrifice some dots to do it. And who on earth will have the time to police the hundreds of games that run on here daily and wade through the lists of accusations, enforce "scrict policies" and deal with all the appeals?

You ask if I would really would retire a dot because he has a confidence boost of 26 instead of 29. In answer, I would not be happy if someone else had free SPs for their build by gaming the system.

Your suggestion is a noble one but clearly incompatible with the game as it is today.

in agreement with mandy... there would be some people who would find a way to exploit this, no matter how strictly it was put together. for example, some people created a dot rolling script so they could get 1 or 2 small training breakthroughs before Day 0. that would have a net gain of maybe 1 points in their end build. people do find ways to try to game the system and exploit loopholes.

but the notion of achievements is very laudable as a teaching tool for noobs, for making the early game more interesting and for making it more meaningful--there just needs to be a way to do it that won't be open to exploits

Originally posted by TaySC
I actually agree with this.

The ONLY way to make this game significant at the low levels is to stop punishing players for rounding their builds early to win. As long as there are ALG's and "cookie cutter builds" nothing below peaking will ever matter.



Agreeing with this.

Originally posted by fogie55
in agreement with mandy... there would be some people who would find a way to exploit this, no matter how strictly it was put together. for example, some people created a dot rolling script so they could get 1 or 2 small training breakthroughs before Day 0. that would have a net gain of maybe 1 points in their end build. people do find ways to try to game the system and exploit loopholes.

but the notion of achievements is very laudable as a teaching tool for noobs, for making the early game more interesting and for making it more meaningful--there just needs to be a way to do it that won't be open to exploits

So you really think people will spend hour after hour setting up strategies to exploit it and spend hundreds of dollars for a few points of confidence? Furthermore, risk being banned from the game permanently? We are talking about very little effect on the end build of a player here. Teams setting up a strategy to try to get endorsements today is much worse and have a bigger effect than this would ever have.

Still, the most important part of it is not the confidence part, but making the game fun from day 1. Actually logging in to see your dot reach a milestone and find some excitement before one full calendar year has gone by.