Warrior General Games

Originally posted by thehazyone
Sorry about that.

Good luck stopping Big Shirley, she's almost Csonka like.

We beat them once, we'll pray to the GLB Gods to beat them again!

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by Clinton Esquire


Wow, being such an expert I'd figure you'd find a way to stop it.

I could stop it a lot better with a lot more depth! But I chose not to do that cause winning at any cost is not my primary objective, I like giving my guys a lot of play time because it's more fun and interesting that way.

So the players on your team would rather get 50+ plays than win a USAPL trophy? Seriously?

Or do the players on your team want to win a USAPL trophy but you don't want to do what it takes to even the playing field?

I've heard you spout this tripe enough times. I'd like to nail down what the hell you are talking about.

Our team is full of all character guys. There is not one player on my team that requires more than the minimum number of plays needed for experience, and EVERY single player has given me their personal confirmation that I can do whatever I want to do without them having any gripes so long as they get minimum plays for experience.

I couldn't ask for a better crew of team guys than what I have, it blows my mind how selfless these people are. I am extremely proud of every single person that is associated with my team.

In terms of not trying to even the playing field....well yes to some extent that is the case because I could easily add 10-20 more players to my roster and not have anybody angry with me to the point that they would desert due to lack of playing time, but I don't want to run my team with excessive depth, because to me that is not fun. I don't want to have an automatic edge on entire team based energies just cause I can play with 60 guys to somebody else's 50. Perhaps we will see a shift in the future of a lot more USA Pro teams loading up on massive depth, maybe one day I will have no choice but to go to 60 or 70 players just to still have some remote chance of competing. There are tradeoffs to increasing your statistical chances of winning against playing the game in what I consider to be a fun way.

And despite how selfless my players are, I find it enriching to try and reward them with ample play time because that makes me feel good about myself, by trying to give them more than they ask for. That's just how I choose to approach the game.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Our team is full of all character guys. There is not one player on my team that requires more than the minimum number of plays needed for experience, and EVERY single player has given me their personal confirmation that I can do whatever I want to do without them having any gripes so long as they get minimum plays for experience.

I couldn't ask for a better crew of team guys than what I have, it blows my mind how selfless these people are. I am extremely proud of every single person that is associated with my team.

In terms of not trying to even the playing field....well yes to some extent that is the case because I could easily add 10-20 more players to my roster and not have anybody angry with me to the point that they would desert due to lack of playing time, but I don't want to run my team with excessive depth, because to me that is not fun. I don't want to have an automatic edge on entire team based energies just cause I can play with 60 guys to somebody else's 50. And despite how selfless my players are, I find it enriching to try and reward them with ample play time because that makes me feel good about myself, by trying to give them more than they ask for. That's just how I choose to approach the game.

Got it ... FOR YOU playing time is more important than winning - interesting perspective. Are you absolutely certain the guys on your team share your point of view?

wouldn't it just make sense to have an NFL'ish roster size limit?

No,it's not about playing time, it's about what I consider a realistic football team. To me it's not like football as much if you have 60 to 70 players as opposed to 50. Play time is just a byproduct of keeping the game more real than less real imo.

And I can't speak for every person on the team with a blanket statement on an open ended question like that, the VAST majority of my players say go ahead and add more depth, I DON'T MIND, if that's what you need to do to help us win, that's fine with me. That's what they all say. But I'm not going to do that and go to a huge depth because that's less real to me. If they want to win a trophy at any costs, then there are definitely other teams that don't care about massive depth that they could join and increase their chances perhaps. They have the freedom to choose wherever they want to play, and some of them believe in the cause that we are playing for over here and want to win with the way that I run the team and believe that we CAN win it all. So for now, they have all chosen to be here. Whether they choose to stay here for longer or forever is up to each individual to decide for themselves. If they get bored with the way I run things then that's understandable, but for now, most of us are enjoying the team that we have built and worked very hard for.

Originally posted by Tijuana Glove
wouldn't it just make sense to have an NFL'ish roster size limit?

Perhaps, but not everybody agrees that a roster limit should be imposed, some prefer to set their own team rules. It's Bort's game, and Bort prefers more freedom of choice for owners to decide how they want to play the game. I would prefer a max roster size limit myself, I think that would be better for the game and keep things more interesting.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by Tijuana Glove

wouldn't it just make sense to have an NFL'ish roster size limit?

Perhaps, but not everybody agrees that a roster limit should be imposed, some prefer to set their own team rules. It's Bort's game, and Bort prefers more freedom of choice for owners to decide how they want to play the game. I would prefer a max roster size limit myself, I think that would be better for the game and keep things more interesting.

it would take away this issue. owners wouldn't have to choose between giving players a lot of PT and competing for a title. seems like a no brainer imo

TSE. I appreciate what you are trying to do for your community. The Detroit area must be hit hard by what is going on with the economy. If you keep spouting this stuff, Obama is going to have to provide funds to double the employees on the city payroll just so they can shovel out all the bullshit.

http://www.hybridcars.com/files/imagecache/article_lead_image/files/graphics/south-park-smug-313.gif

Thaaaaaaaaaanks

Originally posted by The Duff Man
TSE. I appreciate what you are trying to do for your community. The Detroit area must be hit hard by what is going on with the economy. If you keep spouting this stuff, Obama is going to have to provide funds to double the employees on the city payroll just so they can shovel out all the bullshit.



Huh? I don't get it.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by Tijuana Glove

wouldn't it just make sense to have an NFL'ish roster size limit?

Perhaps, but not everybody agrees that a roster limit should be imposed, some prefer to set their own team rules. It's Bort's game, and Bort prefers more freedom of choice for owners to decide how they want to play the game. I would prefer a max roster size limit myself, I think that would be better for the game and keep things more interesting.

Taking the moral high road in dotball is silly. If your team is SOOO good that you can impose internal handicaps, that's cool. If not, I think an owner's #1 obligation is to fielding the most competitive team possible. They owe that much to the guys on the team.

The :"moral high road"?

How is a "moral high road" ever silly anyhow?

Plus I didn't say I was taking a "moral high road", I am taking the "more fun" road. You play your game the way you want to play, and let me play the game I want to play.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
The :"moral high road"?

How is a "moral high road" ever silly anyhow?

Plus I didn't say I was taking a "moral high road", I am taking the "more fun" road. You play your game the way you want to play, and let me play the game I want to play.

I finally understand your perspective. You believe that placing your team at a known competitive disadvantage is "more fun". Kudos.

Rest assured, I am more than willing to let any owner in USAPL play the game their way -- particularly when they are deliberately handicapping themselves.

I think you failed to understand just about everything I said above. LOL