Warrior General Games

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by kadafitcd

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert


And yeah I have thought about that, and there are all kinds of answers for where those players would go, you could come up with all kinds of solutions for solving the mystery of where do the players go.

TSE Your vague answers to everyone questioning you pretty much proves that you have no clue wtf you are talking about. Just STFU and quit the game you fag. Mr. High Morals that basically robbed the game early to make a bunch of cash.

No thanks, I think I will stay. Just out of curiosity, which one offends you the most, the fact that I made over $1,000 to play this game while you had to pay out money, or the possibility that I might like to suck cock? Are you really that afraid of gay people?

WHAT DID HE SAY

Originally posted by coachviking

You sir didn't make a dime playing the game, you made money (I doubt it was a grand) by scamming ignorant Noobs.

Wrong on both counts. I love how people prove themselves to be idiots right in my face when I know the facts with 100% undisputed certainty and they still try to claim the converse. It just solidifies you further as an imbecile and a mental midget for challenging dead set facts that you have absolutely no insight on. LOL you are such a loser.

LOL and you think that our losses have to do with strategy deficiencies, that's funny too. It makes me feel good inside to see such a loser of a person like yourself be so wrong and foolish all the time with things that you don't understand. Thanks for proving my intellectual superiority over you yet again!

Originally posted by phthalatemagic
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

Originally posted by kadafitcd


Originally posted by The Strategy Expert



And yeah I have thought about that, and there are all kinds of answers for where those players would go, you could come up with all kinds of solutions for solving the mystery of where do the players go.

TSE Your vague answers to everyone questioning you pretty much proves that you have no clue wtf you are talking about. Just STFU and quit the game you fag. Mr. High Morals that basically robbed the game early to make a bunch of cash.

No thanks, I think I will stay. Just out of curiosity, which one offends you the most, the fact that I made over $1,000 to play this game while you had to pay out money, or the possibility that I might like to suck cock? Are you really that afraid of gay people?

WHAT DID HE SAY

Did you really just admit your gay? Thats why DDL is so bad, gays and girls dont know anything about football or dotball for that matter

Originally posted by Capaneus
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

Originally posted by Capaneus


Honestly, TSE, I have no idea why a 55 man roster is so much more terrible than a 40 man one. You'll have to spell it out for me: how does having a 55 man roster cap negatively impact the game?

What's the point in debating a roster limit? I'm not interested in debating the roster limit, that ship had sailed a long time ago, and Bort made his decision, it's a moot point now.

You don't get it: I honestly don't understand. Why is a 40 man roster far superior to a 55? I don't even know what your argument is I wasn't here for that, apparently.

You mean to tell me you can't think of the dynamics that would give one team an edge?

How about energy? Don't you think a 55 man roster has more energy than a 40 man roster? What about other VAs and such, like Motivational Speaker, don't you think that a 55 man complement is going to have more MS skills than a 40 man? And as you gain advantage by having a small percentage odds benefit with the energy numbers being higher in the in-game sim equations, that team at a disadvantage is going to see their morale creep down, as bad things correlate to other bad things within the mathematical formulas, and everything spirals out of control. Then when ONE game is lost that might not have been lost otheriwse, there is now an extra morale deduction to start the next game of which you have all of these disadvantages piling up and so on, and as the streaks continue, the negative debt piles up higher and higher.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by Capaneus

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert


Originally posted by Capaneus



Honestly, TSE, I have no idea why a 55 man roster is so much more terrible than a 40 man one. You'll have to spell it out for me: how does having a 55 man roster cap negatively impact the game?

What's the point in debating a roster limit? I'm not interested in debating the roster limit, that ship had sailed a long time ago, and Bort made his decision, it's a moot point now.

You don't get it: I honestly don't understand. Why is a 40 man roster far superior to a 55? I don't even know what your argument is I wasn't here for that, apparently.

You mean to tell me you can't think of the dynamics that would give one team an edge?

How about energy? Don't you think a 55 man roster has more energy than a 40 man roster? What about other VAs and such, like Motivational Speaker, don't you think that a 55 man complement is going to have more MS skills than a 40 man? And as you gain advantage by having a small percentage odds benefit with the energy numbers being higher in the in-game sim equations, that team at a disadvantage is going to see their morale creep down, as bad things correlate to other bad things within the mathematical formulas, and everything spirals out of control. Then when ONE game is lost that might not have been lost otheriwse, there is now an extra morale deduction to start the next game of which you have all of these disadvantages piling up and so on, and as the streaks continue, the negative debt piles up higher and higher.


Reading comprehension FAIL.

He wasn't debating the merits of a 55-man vs 40-man roster TSE. He was asking what YOU preferred about setting the limit at 40, as opposed to setting the limit at 55.

He is asking why you think a 40 man roster is a superior rule to a 55 man roster.

Edit: Damn you distractions!

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by coachviking


You sir didn't make a dime playing the game, you made money (I doubt it was a grand) by scamming ignorant Noobs.

Wrong on both counts. I love how people prove themselves to be idiots right in my face when I know the facts with 100% undisputed certainty and they still try to claim the converse. It just solidifies you further as an imbecile and a mental midget for challenging dead set facts that you have absolutely no insight on. LOL you are such a loser.

LOL and you think that our losses have to do with strategy deficiencies, that's funny too. It makes me feel good inside to see such a loser of a person like yourself be so wrong and foolish all the time with things that you don't understand. Thanks for proving my intellectual superiority over you yet again!

Yea because setting ICE Cold as your QB's favorite target and feeding him the ball 50 times a game is a GREAT TACTIC! The sim this seasons is the best ever. You just can't admit that your team is not as good anymore and you need something to blame it on.

Originally posted by CTap

Reading comprehension FAIL.

He wasn't debating the merits of a 55-man vs 40-man roster TSE. He was asking what YOU preferred about setting the limit at 40, as opposed to setting the limit at 55.

Yeah, I really don't understand what he's on about. Clearly, a team with 55 players is going to have an advantage over a team with 40, however minuscule that may be. Why I don't get is why setting rosters at 55 instead of 40 is bad for the game as a whole?

Oh my bad, because 55 is absolutely absurd!

Real football teams only have 45 men playing in a game, and that's a game where guys as mentioned before, don't even play a full share. In the GLB world where it is expected that players get a more equitable play time than in an NFL situation where some guys play 0 snaps in a game even when they are active just shows how we have a massive massive more number of players on a team than in an NFL game. Why would that make sense? How could you possibly think in your head that this makes it a better football game?

If anything, the logic would suggest to have less than the NFL roster, because injuries don't exist, and obviously GLB isn't designed to have a 5-10 man complement that just rot on the bunch and only play ST. So really we should start at 45 and work our way down because of those other dynamics. 45 is completely unnecessary to have.

And then by not having a roster limit (which 55 as the limit is essentially uncapped since it is so EXCESSIVELY ahead of a logical 40ish number) then you create FURTHER disparity for the teams that don't wish to play sillyball with the rest of you and then that makes it less of a good game IMO, because if you had 32 equitable teams all fighting it out, the game could get really exciting. Instead you have half the teams that are just decimated and never have a chance, then they eventually gut and create other problems, so the game itself is not competitive homogenously and the stats are screwy, and so on and so on. All of these variables get intertwined and spillover to the global GLB experience.

And I'm just writing fleeting thoughts here, you could write a 100 page book detailing all of the interactions and ramifications of one variable in a game as to how they affect others and how that changes the landscape of the entire game on so many levels, which is something easily conceived of if you would just bother to use your brain and think about it logically and comprehensively.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Oh my bad, because 55 is absolutely absurd!

Real football teams only have 45 men playing in a game, and that's a game where guys as mentioned before, don't even play a full share. In the GLB world where it is expected that players get a more equitable play time than in an NFL situation where some guys play 0 snaps in a game even when they are active just shows how we have a massive massive more number of players on a team than in an NFL game. Why would that make sense? How could you possibly think in your head that this makes it a better football game?

If anything, the logic would suggest to have less than the NFL roster, because injuries don't exist, and obviously GLB isn't designed to have a 5-10 man complement that just rot on the bunch and only play ST. So really we should start at 45 and work our way down because of those other dynamics. 45 is completely unnecessary to have.

And then by not having a roster limit (which 55 as the limit is essentially uncapped since it is so EXCESSIVELY ahead of a logical 40ish number) then you create FURTHER disparity for the teams that don't wish to play sillyball with the rest of you and then that makes it less of a good game IMO, because if you had 32 equitable teams all fighting it out, the game could get really exciting. Instead you have half the teams that are just decimated and never have a chance, then they eventually gut and create other problems, so the game itself is not competitive homogenously and the stats are screwy, and so on and so on. All of these variables get intertwined and spillover to the global GLB experience.

And I'm just writing fleeting thoughts here, you could write a 100 page book detailing all of the interactions and ramifications of one variable in a game as to how they affect others and how that changes the landscape of the entire game on so many levels, which is something easily conceived of if you would just bother to use your brain and think about it logically and comprehensively.

Im glad to see your still trying to use a thesaurus for words and you still spell them wrong.

Originally posted by Capaneus
Originally posted by CTap


Reading comprehension FAIL.

He wasn't debating the merits of a 55-man vs 40-man roster TSE. He was asking what YOU preferred about setting the limit at 40, as opposed to setting the limit at 55.

Yeah, I really don't understand what he's on about. Clearly, a team with 55 players is going to have an advantage over a team with 40, however minuscule that may be. Why I don't get is why setting rosters at 55 instead of 40 is bad for the game as a whole?

The problem is that a 55/40 is not MINISCULE. It is absolutely gigantic of a mathematical advantage. For those that can't see that I'm sorry, but you have to understand math, and science, and strategy, statistics and proportions, etc. etc. to figure out the big picture which ultimately leads to.....the next pass my QB throws, he's automatically penalized while YOUR player is not.

Every single pass i throw is penalized. Every catch attempt by my WRs is penalized. Every single blocking dice roll and all related dice rolls that my linemen vs your linemen is a penalty. It's a massive, massive intertwined mess. And then when I can't convert a first down that normally I might have converted if I wasn't penalized, then my defense, which will have ALL these penalties too, has the added penalty of worse filed position on top of that, and the resulting factoring of all of these events continue to spill over to others and so on and so on, and when you factor in the VA sideline bonuses and yadda yadda yadda, its impossible for us to have won the games we lost.

And then you guys are all missing bigger and bigger pictures, the problem is so far way beyond just the sim. Now I think the game is a piece of garbage, many of the players on the team agree, some go inactive, and many are going to retire, the GLB world would be better with lots more very experienced and enthusiastic players than to have less. These dynamics just dwindle the customers away, and the less money that is in the game theoretically should correlate to less work and or investment on the owner's part if we assume normal human behavior, and the subjective all-encompassing effects are a far different GLB world than one we could have had in an alternate reality where the game has a logical design that promotes fun and interest, rather than stupidity and disappointment. There is so much damage being done to so many games, players, agents, revenues, etc. from this negative feature of the game.

You can't have it both ways, a 55 man roster either brings POSITIVE baggage, or NEGATIVE baggage, it can't do both in terms of the reality of the universe is concerned. And I believe it is in the negative column with its effects, and way, way, way in the negative column further than most people have perceived.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

The problem is that a 55/40 is not MINISCULE.

If you'd have no problem finding another 15 dots (which, I agree, you wouldn't) to round out your roster, why not do it?

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by Capaneus

Originally posted by CTap



Reading comprehension FAIL.

He wasn't debating the merits of a 55-man vs 40-man roster TSE. He was asking what YOU preferred about setting the limit at 40, as opposed to setting the limit at 55.

Yeah, I really don't understand what he's on about. Clearly, a team with 55 players is going to have an advantage over a team with 40, however minuscule that may be. Why I don't get is why setting rosters at 55 instead of 40 is bad for the game as a whole?

The problem is that a 55/40 is not MINISCULE. It is absolutely gigantic of a mathematical advantage. For those that can't see that I'm sorry, but you have to understand math, and science, and strategy, statistics and proportions, etc. etc. to figure out the big picture which ultimately leads to.....the next pass my QB throws, he's automatically penalized while YOUR player is not.

Every single pass i throw is penalized. Every catch attempt by my WRs is penalized. Every single blocking dice roll and all related dice rolls that my linemen vs your linemen is a penalty. It's a massive, massive intertwined mess. And then when I can't convert a first down that normally I might have converted if I wasn't penalized, then my defense, which will have ALL these penalties too, has the added penalty of worse filed position on top of that, and the resulting factoring of all of these events continue to spill over to others and so on and so on, and when you factor in the VA sideline bonuses and yadda yadda yadda, its impossible for us to have won the games we lost.

Although according to CV, our losses are because I dont understand strategy and the game is too complex, lol.

please go on

Originally posted by Capaneus
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert


The problem is that a 55/40 is not MINISCULE.

If you'd have no problem finding another 15 dots (which, I agree, you wouldn't) to round out your roster, why not do it?

Cause the last thing in the world that I would want to do would be to conform to something that I feel is idiotic. I don't want to encourage that this stupid rule stay in effect further by participating in the silliness.

What I don't get is this...

You say you haven't stopped trying
And you are the Strategy Expert.

Wouldn't it be strategic to just recruit 15 more guys? I don't understand why you take such a huge stand against making your roster any bigger. It's like such a moral issue with you that you argue almost as heated as someone would argue for/against abortion lol. It's really not that big of a deal.

If all those penalties are being applied on every play, every roll, every player, why not just get more people? GLB isn't the NFL. You've been here for 10 seasons...I figured this out like season 2. It's never going to be the NFL. It's an arcade-like simulation of football.