Warrior General Games

Originally posted by tpaterniti
Getting rid of ALGs will make the game very boring. I think people dramatically underestimate how boring building will be if it makes no difference how you build.


So you remove ALGs, it doesn't really prevent unbalanced builds even at low levels, and it destroys the most fun thing about the game for many people, which is the strategy of player building. To me this is why it is a bad idea all around. I really wish I could just put the idea out of its misery.

Isnt it the same thing with ALG's? People know how and when to build. The good people anyway. If you took away ALG's it would also make it easier for the new user to play.

Im asking this as a question. fyi

Originally posted by greengoose
Career bonuses are simply more assets that you can plan your players build around - i.e. cut off Confidence a little bit earlier because I can count on those bonuses making up the gap. It's not as simple and innocent as "just give them a couple points of Confidence". Combined with the reality that the better teams with the better coordinators are the ones most likely to reach these Milestones (both in their entirety and in the speed in which they reach them) and what are we really accomplishing in the end here?

I can't see any kind of career long bonuses that add points to a players build being viable.

We are rewarding players that do well. The game is about winning. Doing well, is not an exploit.

Rich get richer, whats the point exactly?

Originally posted by greengoose
Rich get richer, whats the point exactly?

Have fun with your dot from day1, instead of day 280.

Seriously, all I'd be doing is asking the coordinators when do you expect my guy to hit his milestones, because I'm certainly not going lone-wolf and setting my CB to Aggressive because I only need 2 more picks to hit a milestone. Once I sign with a team, the coordinator has 100% control over how he's used - the agent is just along for the ride.

Originally posted by greengoose
Seriously, all I'd be doing is asking the coordinators when do you expect my guy to hit his milestones, because I'm certainly not going lone-wolf and setting my CB to Aggressive because I only need 2 more picks to hit a milestone. Once I sign with a team, the coordinator has 100% control over how he's used - the agent is just along for the ride.

So what you are saying is that your have absolutely no interest in seeing how your dots perform? But then all of a sudden all you would do would be to check up on when your dot would hit milestones? This is mostly for fun, just like awards, but a little bit more specific and not only going to the top 3 performers during the full season. The build impact of what I am suggesting is minimal (but would be good to have in there still since it would add realism to the game).

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter - I don't control anything my dots do - the coordinator does. This would have been a really good suggestion in Season 1-3, when dots just did shit - there was no hand of god controlling their actions. You got 50+ TFL's as a DT you were a badass - plain and simple and recognition for that would mean something. I get a DT with 50+ TFL's now it's pretty much because I got a real good DC who knows how to orchestrate mismatches - or has simply found the exploit de jour that season.

Sad but true.

Originally posted by greengoose
What I'm saying is it doesn't matter - I don't control anything my dots do - the coordinator does. This would have been a really good suggestion in Season 1-3, when dots just did shit - there was no hand of god controlling their actions. You got 50+ TFL's as a DT you were a badass - plain and simple and recognition for that would mean something. I get a DT with 50+ TFL's now it's pretty much because I got a real good DC who knows how to orchestrate mismatches - or has simply found the exploit de jour that season.

Sad but true.

It has gone in that direction, but its not as bad as you suggest. Still big build differences out there that translates to the dotfield.

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.



People will still bump main att first because to max training gain......
Take out ALG really do nothing to change build strategy......

Originally posted by cavalier
That would kill the few independent successful teams, for instance Alpine, that are mostly build through recruiting.

That isn't true at all. It would just change how you play the game. Instead of the same teams being in the WL for 15+ seasons, you would have to reset as a team and start from level 1 if you want those bonuses. It wouldn't be any different for network teams, so you wouldn't be at any disadvantage to them by recruiting. It would help those teams that stick together from the minor's to pro's and then trying to get to the world league.

Same teams will continue to stay in the WL, because coordinator skill far outweighs any bonus you could possibly give. GLB is chess, and the grandmaster coordinators will gravitate to the top league and stay there till they get tired of it.

Originally posted by Golan
That isn't true at all. It would just change how you play the game. Instead of the same teams being in the WL for 15+ seasons, you would have to reset as a team and start from level 1 if you want those bonuses. It wouldn't be any different for network teams, so you wouldn't be at any disadvantage to them by recruiting. It would help those teams that stick together from the minor's to pro's and then trying to get to the world league.

In my opinion that is the coward way of playing the game. Its much much easier than being competitive every season. I think that is even worse than networks

Pretty interesting stuff cavalier. I'd like to see fame of a team play a small role in boosting a free agent that signed with the team.

I know this would really contribute to the network bonus riot we alreay have in this thread, but in RL, a player is super stoked to play for the Yankees. It either makes or breaks their career.

In GLB, people are like "Hells yes! I got a WL dot on HHWC," or whatever.

I suppose I would accomplish integrating the team confidence/fame factor into the dot's confidence points by resetting it so that the team only got those points starting at the s31 rookie level. This would prevent the WL networks from getting all the team fame points and then also encourage the better coordinators to care about low levels since they should get back to WL anyway with those teams.

Secondly, I'd add some sort of invisible "pressure roll." Take what happened to AJ Burnett as an example. He was a top 20 or so free agent, signed with the Yankees, then sucked. So with this pressure roll, you would have a boost to confidence for signing with a top team, but an increased possibility of the team fame having a negative impact. This would again create a risk factor for the best teams that isn't in the game right now.

I suck at equations but something like:

Dot has 50 confidence, signs with average team: 50 confidence, 0 risk factor
Dit has 50 confidence, signs with 100 fame team, get 20 confidence boost but a .25% risk factor to lose 20 confidence.

This could of course increase or decrease based on dot performance, or team performance. i.e. dot hits WL, hits all WL targets for confidence for position, team is winning, risk factor drops to nil.


Anyway, great suggestion. I read it last night and was really trying to sort out how to add a team fame factor to it for when free agents moved. In reality, a CPU team could be bough in this system, loaded up with top confidence FAs, and win. I don't think that's as realistic as some sort of team fame factor that would treat a newly purchased team as some sort of an expansion franchise...etc.

+1. Nice concept.

Originally posted by Ezra~cult~
Pretty interesting stuff cavalier. I'd like to see fame of a team play a small role in boosting a free agent that signed with the team.

I know this would really contribute to the network bonus riot we alreay have in this thread, but in RL, a player is super stoked to play for the Yankees. It either makes or breaks their career.

In GLB, people are like "Hells yes! I got a WL dot on HHWC," or whatever.

I suppose I would accomplish integrating the team confidence/fame factor into the dot's confidence points by resetting it so that the team only got those points starting at the s31 rookie level. This would prevent the WL networks from getting all the team fame points and then also encourage the better coordinators to care about low levels since they should get back to WL anyway with those teams.

Secondly, I'd add some sort of invisible "pressure roll." Take what happened to AJ Burnett as an example. He was a top 20 or so free agent, signed with the Yankees, then sucked. So with this pressure roll, you would have a boost to confidence for signing with a top team, but an increased possibility of the team fame having a negative impact. This would again create a risk factor for the best teams that isn't in the game right now.

I such a equations but something like:

Dot has 50 confidence, signs with average eteam: 50 confidence, 0 risk factor
Dit has 50 confidence, signs with 100 fame team, get 20 confidence boost but a .25% risk factor to lose 20 confidence.

This could of course increase or decrease based on dot performance, or team performance. i.e. dot hits WL, hits all WL targets for confidence for position, team is winning, risk factor drops to nil.


Anyway, great suggestion. I read it last night and was really trying to sort out how to add a team fame factor to it for when free agents moved. In reality, a CPU team could be bough in this system, loaded up with top confidence FAs, and win. I don't think that's as realistic as some sort of team fame factor that would treat a newly purchased team as some sort of an expansion franchise...etc.

+1. Nice concept.

+1