Put it to vote, Bort! Let the people speak.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > How long does it take to to level a player to the max?
dahman32
offline
offline
Originally posted by High_Roller74
Put it to vote, Bort! Let the people speak.
If this all it took to get suggestions up for a vote
Put it to vote, Bort! Let the people speak.
If this all it took to get suggestions up for a vote
HighRoller74
offline
offline
Originally posted by dahman32
If this all it took to get suggestions up for a vote
I know, I know. Then the game would be all sorts of jacked up.
If this all it took to get suggestions up for a vote
I know, I know. Then the game would be all sorts of jacked up.
Robbnva
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catch22
not going to lock it but I can guarantee this is NGTH. Hate to disappoint.
Can I ask why?
I was a huge fan of the building process, but now not so much. Why not at least do a 2 question poll to see how many people are interested. I don't see the downside to faster development really.
not going to lock it but I can guarantee this is NGTH. Hate to disappoint.
Can I ask why?
I was a huge fan of the building process, but now not so much. Why not at least do a 2 question poll to see how many people are interested. I don't see the downside to faster development really.
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by Robbnva
Can I ask why?
I was a huge fan of the building process, but now not so much. Why not at least do a 2 question poll to see how many people are interested. I don't see the downside to faster development really.
It is quite a lot of work to make a change of that magnitude to be honest. If you don't make the numbers work out pretty precisely the you have to work a before x date and an after x date. Then you have to find a way to at least make them similar if the dots of different time frames will ever compete with each other. Looking into this change is one of the few things I don't fault GLB for. Now why they didn't cut down on time from the beginning more when they accelerated the process already I might fault them for lack of foresight, but there is nothing new there. From this point though, it is far too much effort for far too little gain to make another change of this magnitude.
Can I ask why?
I was a huge fan of the building process, but now not so much. Why not at least do a 2 question poll to see how many people are interested. I don't see the downside to faster development really.
It is quite a lot of work to make a change of that magnitude to be honest. If you don't make the numbers work out pretty precisely the you have to work a before x date and an after x date. Then you have to find a way to at least make them similar if the dots of different time frames will ever compete with each other. Looking into this change is one of the few things I don't fault GLB for. Now why they didn't cut down on time from the beginning more when they accelerated the process already I might fault them for lack of foresight, but there is nothing new there. From this point though, it is far too much effort for far too little gain to make another change of this magnitude.
dahman32
offline
offline
Originally posted by Robbnva
Can I ask why?
I was a huge fan of the building process, but now not so much. Why not at least do a 2 question poll to see how many people are interested. I don't see the downside to faster development really.
Doubt a popular vote would do much... many have just stop building as many dots and eventually stopped altogether.
Not sure if their reasons were the same, but can see how it can be a discouragement.
Rage Kinard
http://goallineblitz.com/game/home.pl?user_id=47620
Can I ask why?
I was a huge fan of the building process, but now not so much. Why not at least do a 2 question poll to see how many people are interested. I don't see the downside to faster development really.
Doubt a popular vote would do much... many have just stop building as many dots and eventually stopped altogether.
Not sure if their reasons were the same, but can see how it can be a discouragement.
Rage Kinard
http://goallineblitz.com/game/home.pl?user_id=47620
Robbnva
offline
offline
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
It is quite a lot of work to make a change of that magnitude to be honest. If you don't make the numbers work out pretty precisely the you have to work a before x date and an after x date. Then you have to find a way to at least make them similar if the dots of different time frames will ever compete with each other. Looking into this change is one of the few things I don't fault GLB for. Now why they didn't cut down on time from the beginning more when they accelerated the process already I might fault them for lack of foresight, but there is nothing new there. From this point though, it is far too much effort for far too little gain to make another change of this magnitude.
but they have already made the change once
It is quite a lot of work to make a change of that magnitude to be honest. If you don't make the numbers work out pretty precisely the you have to work a before x date and an after x date. Then you have to find a way to at least make them similar if the dots of different time frames will ever compete with each other. Looking into this change is one of the few things I don't fault GLB for. Now why they didn't cut down on time from the beginning more when they accelerated the process already I might fault them for lack of foresight, but there is nothing new there. From this point though, it is far too much effort for far too little gain to make another change of this magnitude.
but they have already made the change once
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by Robbnva
but they have already made the change once
What does that have to do with right now and making another change? It doesn't change the amount of work that would have to be put forth moving forward.
but they have already made the change once
What does that have to do with right now and making another change? It doesn't change the amount of work that would have to be put forth moving forward.
Robbnva
offline
offline
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
What does that have to do with right now and making another change? It doesn't change the amount of work that would have to be put forth moving forward.
small price to pay to revive a dying game imo
What does that have to do with right now and making another change? It doesn't change the amount of work that would have to be put forth moving forward.
small price to pay to revive a dying game imo
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by Robbnva
small price to pay to revive a dying game imo
They said that before, but what sort of influx did they see from the change before? I would venture to say that there really wasn't that much of a change based on that variable.
small price to pay to revive a dying game imo
They said that before, but what sort of influx did they see from the change before? I would venture to say that there really wasn't that much of a change based on that variable.
Timetoshine-Metta
offline
offline
also the popular vote would have about 6 answers for yes and one for no...so it looks like no wins anyway
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
They said that before, but what sort of influx did they see from the change before? I would venture to say that there really wasn't that much of a change based on that variable.
there was definitely a revival/renewed interest for a time after the accelerated development was rolled out. Now it's luster has faded and it's difficult to have an entire team maintain interest when building takes a year and most don't care about the low level accomplishments along the way because they've done it many times before and because they are focused on end builds being good. God forbid you make a mistake in building, then you've wasted an entire year on a dot.
If the time were cut in half, just how hard is the math? You are doubling training points, boosts allowed per season, and daily and game xp. The only trick would be modifying current dots to sync up with the changes, and even then simply doubling everything isn't going to be as time consuming as a more complex change would be. plus, they've done it once before so they know some of the bumps along the road to be wary of. If they listened to this repeated request and started working on it now, they could roll it out not next season, but the season after to get everyone prepared, plenty of time to work with then, and then you'll get a bunch of new teams and dots created for it, meaning more flex purchased too.
Either keep the days before decline the same too and give more time at the top, or reduce it by 2-3 seasons.
Really though I am starting to lean towards the camp that says let it be instantaneous. Flex cost would be upfront, OR you could have a certain amount of flex due every season until it is paid off, and if you don't have the flex your dot is auto-retired. Then set up the teams in various regional conferences and the top ones make the tournament which is held like NCAA basketball. You'd have a 6 game playoff postseason instead of the current 4, which isn't bad or too much. Just have the conferences be 14 teams or even 12 and a couple games are played against other conferences for rivalries.
If the top 4 from each conference go the tourney, and you have 64 make it, then you would have 16 conferences, and with 14 teams in each you get 224 teams, or with 12 you get 192. You can do this with casual as well. The teams that don't make the tourney can go into an NIT tourney, so the next 4 down would all make it.
You would have less teams overall then all of GLB currently has, but all of GLB currently has a lot of CPU and shit teams. Just have the bottom 2-3 teams in each conference face a forced retirement so new teams can come in.
OR, for more teams, have 1 extra round for the tourney, so 128 teams initially make it. 10 game regular season so 10 teams per conference, 1 game is vs. another conference like it is right now. Out of 10 teams, top 4 make it to tourney. That gives you 32 conferences and 320 teams. The next 4 in the conference would all make NIT, and the bottom 2 would be auto-retired to allow new teams to come in still, meaning each season you'd get 64 new teams, plenty for turnaround and new team demands.
Then you get all the fun of bracketology and a league survivor game with the bracket, like you have with march madness. GLB has a lot of agents and teams, so it would be good if conferences and playoffs were set up more like a college system anyways. Plus, this would accommodate instant builds.
You could even keep the current build method in its own league, like we have with casual currently, for those who like the slower method.
Just make sure to have trophies for sweet 16, final four, conference champion, etc. and still keep regular season trophies.
Just a thought. But with instant builds I think you would generate a lot more interest in the game because of instant results. The important thing would be to make the person use a VPB so they still have to do the whole building process and know what they are doing/develop build plans.
They said that before, but what sort of influx did they see from the change before? I would venture to say that there really wasn't that much of a change based on that variable.
there was definitely a revival/renewed interest for a time after the accelerated development was rolled out. Now it's luster has faded and it's difficult to have an entire team maintain interest when building takes a year and most don't care about the low level accomplishments along the way because they've done it many times before and because they are focused on end builds being good. God forbid you make a mistake in building, then you've wasted an entire year on a dot.
If the time were cut in half, just how hard is the math? You are doubling training points, boosts allowed per season, and daily and game xp. The only trick would be modifying current dots to sync up with the changes, and even then simply doubling everything isn't going to be as time consuming as a more complex change would be. plus, they've done it once before so they know some of the bumps along the road to be wary of. If they listened to this repeated request and started working on it now, they could roll it out not next season, but the season after to get everyone prepared, plenty of time to work with then, and then you'll get a bunch of new teams and dots created for it, meaning more flex purchased too.
Either keep the days before decline the same too and give more time at the top, or reduce it by 2-3 seasons.
Really though I am starting to lean towards the camp that says let it be instantaneous. Flex cost would be upfront, OR you could have a certain amount of flex due every season until it is paid off, and if you don't have the flex your dot is auto-retired. Then set up the teams in various regional conferences and the top ones make the tournament which is held like NCAA basketball. You'd have a 6 game playoff postseason instead of the current 4, which isn't bad or too much. Just have the conferences be 14 teams or even 12 and a couple games are played against other conferences for rivalries.
If the top 4 from each conference go the tourney, and you have 64 make it, then you would have 16 conferences, and with 14 teams in each you get 224 teams, or with 12 you get 192. You can do this with casual as well. The teams that don't make the tourney can go into an NIT tourney, so the next 4 down would all make it.
You would have less teams overall then all of GLB currently has, but all of GLB currently has a lot of CPU and shit teams. Just have the bottom 2-3 teams in each conference face a forced retirement so new teams can come in.
OR, for more teams, have 1 extra round for the tourney, so 128 teams initially make it. 10 game regular season so 10 teams per conference, 1 game is vs. another conference like it is right now. Out of 10 teams, top 4 make it to tourney. That gives you 32 conferences and 320 teams. The next 4 in the conference would all make NIT, and the bottom 2 would be auto-retired to allow new teams to come in still, meaning each season you'd get 64 new teams, plenty for turnaround and new team demands.
Then you get all the fun of bracketology and a league survivor game with the bracket, like you have with march madness. GLB has a lot of agents and teams, so it would be good if conferences and playoffs were set up more like a college system anyways. Plus, this would accommodate instant builds.
You could even keep the current build method in its own league, like we have with casual currently, for those who like the slower method.
Just make sure to have trophies for sweet 16, final four, conference champion, etc. and still keep regular season trophies.
Just a thought. But with instant builds I think you would generate a lot more interest in the game because of instant results. The important thing would be to make the person use a VPB so they still have to do the whole building process and know what they are doing/develop build plans.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
