Warrior General Games

hear hear oop wiil make this idea make its worth and flavarable

Originally posted by unicorn99
hear hear oop wiil make this idea make its worth and flavarable

awesome word

thx ;P
i think it was applicable ;D

Originally posted by letchkins
keep OOPP. Its a strat.

It's not a strategy if you don't know what they are. It then just becomes a guessing game as to which positions you need to have playing where on the other side of the ball.

I have to imagine that most OOPs for opposite sides of the ball are relatively gigantic and would make the league nearly unplayable/unenjoyable to a decent degree.

Again, just because it makes the game harder doesn't make it more strategic or more enjoyable. Just harder.

since i saw my kicker do a decent job as a rb and cb i inagibe it will be playable just a ting for sone1 with a little willpower and endurance not a thing for a avarage joe cookie cutter

Originally posted by unicorn99
since i saw my kicker do a decent job as a rb and cb i inagibe it will be playable just a ting for sone1 with a little willpower and endurance not a thing for a avarage joe cookie cutter

/sigh. Another in the "harder = more fun" crowd....

Please explain to me why someone should be slower, less agile, or not be able to jump as high because they play one position vice another. Take into account that said player plays both positions equally because of a 15 man roster.

The fact that your SAs will only be worth a crap half of the time should be enough for the supporters of the OOPs. At least then you know what you're actually sacrificing to put a player of a certain position somewhere else.

I agree with bleedsOrange, The OOPP's make sense for the normal leauges, but I think would have a chance at making the Iron Man league(which we all want to see happen) unplayable.

There is no way bort would ever tell us the exact percentages, and harder doesn't mean you have to be smarter to play it, it just means harder, and possibly unplayable.

Originally posted by Sour
Originally posted by BleedsOrangeAndBlue

+1

Edit: I wanted to add that I think that there should be no OOP penalties for this one. That, or we should at least be told what they are.

Would make it too easy - keep the OOPPs to make building more cagey


Is cagey an adjective for bad?

Originally posted by pauldabamf
Originally posted by Sour

Originally posted by BleedsOrangeAndBlue


+1

Edit: I wanted to add that I think that there should be no OOP penalties for this one. That, or we should at least be told what they are.

Would make it too easy - keep the OOPPs to make building more cagey


Is cagey an adjective for bad?


Ho Ho Ho

Originally posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: ca·gey
Variant(s): also ca·gy \ˈkâ-jç\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): ca·gi·er; ca·gi·est
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: circa 1893
1: hesitant about committing oneself <officials are cagey about giving out details>
2 a: wary of being trapped or deceived : shrewd <a cagey consumer> b: marked by cleverness <a cagey reply>

cagey. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved May 26, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cagey


cautious and wary - requiring cunning and planning

Originally posted by pauldabamf
Originally posted by Sour

Originally posted by BleedsOrangeAndBlue


+1

Edit: I wanted to add that I think that there should be no OOP penalties for this one. That, or we should at least be told what they are.

Would make it too easy - keep the OOPPs to make building more cagey


Is cagey an adjective for bad?


I think you meant "synonym" not adjective. Epic fail, imo

Originally posted by haole
Originally posted by pauldabamf

Originally posted by Sour


Originally posted by BleedsOrangeAndBlue



+1

Edit: I wanted to add that I think that there should be no OOP penalties for this one. That, or we should at least be told what they are.

Would make it too easy - keep the OOPPs to make building more cagey


Is cagey an adjective for bad?


I think you meant "synonym" not adjective. Epic fail, imo

LOL

Bump for a good idea

Originally posted by letchkins
keep OOPP. Its a strat.

Not only that, but part of what we're selling is that the idea requires NOTHING of Bort...other than instituting a roster limit. That's a simple coding step that he could take when he sets up the league structure.

If we tack on other demands, the idea quickly becomes too easy to kick to the curb with the answer "Sorry, too much work--other ideas are more important than this one."

Ironman leagues should mimick "regular" leagues in every single function, with the exception of roster limit. Figuring out how to work within the "regular" coding while running an Ironman team would be part of the fun and the challenge of playing in such a league.

Is this going to be added or not......Come on bort....

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
Originally posted by letchkins

keep OOPP. Its a strat.

Not only that, but part of what we're selling is that the idea requires NOTHING of Bort...other than instituting a roster limit. That's a simple coding step that he could take when he sets up the league structure.

If we tack on other demands, the idea quickly becomes too easy to kick to the curb with the answer "Sorry, too much work--other ideas are more important than this one."

Ironman leagues should mimick "regular" leagues in every single function, with the exception of roster limit. Figuring out how to work within the "regular" coding while running an Ironman team would be part of the fun and the challenge of playing in such a league.

Reg AI would kill this league with exploits coming out the waazoo!