Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Hugestballs
I think this would be a great addition even if only for the fact that it would be adding a completely new style of player-building to the game that people haven't really begun to experience yet. Players would realistically have to be made specifically for this, but if we just start it off as like a single league and see how popular it is, I think it'd be pretty interesting..


Exactly!

Originally posted by The Avenger
The only "issue" i can see is Reg AI or Basic. With an unusual player build there could be alot of angry owners with "new" exploit type complaints if it went regular. We should be stressing the "build" factor the upmost, as is 90% of the way a Casual team is successful. No repeat plays ever in Casual, no all 5 WR sets or slam middles all game. No going for it on every 4th down, no 3000 yard rushing QB's, etc, etc.

Please, please consider this direction of tactical gameplanning when the future of a Ironman league may be set-up!

Cheers!

This is a good point.

I could go either way on it. If you go with regular AI, there could/would be large discrepensies in teams. Not only will it be hard enough to figure the best builds and other strategies(part of the challenge and I like it), but having potential AI exploits on top of that will make for some very lopsided games.

If we were to go with basic AI it would give everyone some time to figure out how to play in Iron Man without making it too drastically tough.

My vote would be a combo. Just how this glb started with just basic tactics so would the iron man league. Then after 3 seasons Advanced AI would be added in

Originally posted by pauldabamf
This is a good point.

I could go either way on it. If you go with regular AI, there could/would be large discrepensies in teams. Not only will it be hard enough to figure the best builds and other strategies(part of the challenge and I like it), but having potential AI exploits on top of that will make for some very lopsided games.

If we were to go with basic AI it would give everyone some time to figure out how to play in Iron Man without making it too drastically tough.

My vote would be a combo. Just how this glb started with just basic tactics so would the iron man league. Then after 3 seasons Advanced AI would be added in

I think that would be a good idea. Let people get a feel for how to build the players, then let the reins off the AI.

We've touched on this debate before, but try as I might, I don't really have an opinion on it.

Personally, I dislike the basic AI because it doesn't give me enough control of the game, but I also see the point about limiting exploits. Then again, building a team specifically to target a certain exploit is a dangerous proposition, because those exploits tend to be addressed one way or another -- either through AI adjustments by the other team or by Bort in his seasonal adjustments.

I've never played in a casual league limited to just the basic AI ... does it allow you to edit the playbooks? If so, then at least you're getting some kind of control.

But really, if it means getting an Iron Man League, I could care less whether it uses the advanced AIs or not. I would probably prefer the advanced AIs, but I wouldn't object if it was just basic.

Originally posted by haole
I've never played in a casual league limited to just the basic AI ... does it allow you to edit the playbooks?

No

Originally posted by BleedsOrangeAndBlue
Originally posted by haole

I've never played in a casual league limited to just the basic AI ... does it allow you to edit the playbooks?

No

Your right, no editting, its a completely fairest equal gameplan that everyone is on the same page with, no exploits, no repeat plays, no bitching!

This would do wonders for my League

Originally posted by The Avenger
Your right, no editting, its a completely fairest equal gameplan that everyone is on the same page with, no exploits, no repeat plays, no bitching!

I was just answering your question, not disagreeing with anything.

Thanks for the answer. I really didn't know.

But it doesn't really change anything ... I'd still prefer to have advanced tactics, but like I said, I wouldn't fight using just basic AI because I understand the argument that this would help limit exploits. I'm not sure how strong that argument is in an Iron Man League, and how many league-specific exploits would be available, but maybe it's best to start basic and see what we have before we worry about complicating things too much.

This really seems like the kind of decision that can make itself... I mean just to throw out a scenario here.

Step 1) Start off with an Iron Man League and a Casual Iron Man League.
Step 2) Open registration for people that want to buy a team.
Step 3) If a league doesn't fill up, don't create it.


Really, the nature of this idea requires that the only changes that need to be made on the system side of things are cosmetic: a league will need to be created and named Iron Man League, roster sizes will need to be cut in half for this league, and perhaps characters might need to be given some Iron Man designation (probably unnecessary, but really just as a way of keeping the player-demand estimates honest, if anything at all.)

I think the only thing left to happen at this point is to see if the powers that be are even interested in this concept. It's in epic and its been pretty heavily discussed, but the thread is still open. I'm new here, but do these things get ever get a yes/no or a maybe for that matter?

from time to time they do if its a no they get placed in the never going to happen section
if a yes they happen
but ofcourse there is the big grey area of stuf stil to be implemented due to 1 reason or the other

Originally posted by Hugestballs

Really, the nature of this idea requires that the only changes that need to be made on the system side of things are cosmetic: a league will need to be created and named Iron Man League, roster sizes will need to be cut in half for this league, and perhaps characters might need to be given some Iron Man designation (probably unnecessary, but really just as a way of keeping the player-demand estimates honest, if anything at all.)


Actually roster sizes would need to be cut down to 15, not cut in half. There is plenty of discussion in this thread why this would be the ideal roster size for upholding the spirit of Iron Man competition, so I won't rehash it here.

I agree the designation wouldn't really be necessary, but I could see it more for GLB administrative purposes simply to track interest in the league -- players created versus teams available. As long as we start out with caps in place that climb as the players advance, to prevent the league being invaded by non-Iron Man veterans looking for a cheap title, it should be apparent quickly which guys are Iron Man and which aren't.

As for getting any feedback on this idea from Bort or DD (or any other high level admins), we still haven't heard anything at all -- positive or negative. I'm assuming that's a good thing, but we have no way of knowing that it's even been read by anyone above mod level. I think this is a workable idea that has been refined through forum discussion, and if it has a fatal flaw that will prevent it from being implemented, nobody has been able to point it out yet.

If we're thinking about player deman estimatesd it would need to go a bit further to be accurate. Would have to have each player specify which position he is doubling up as.

I will make sure to bring this thread to Bort's attention in next couple of days. Should get a comment on it within the week.

(This is one of my faves )

Update:

Originally posted by Bort
15 would not work. The sim has a hard coded minimum of 20 players on a side because otherwise there can be issues with filling out a formation. If 20 works, however, and there is a lot of interest, I wouldn't be against the idea.

Can we all agree that a 20-player roster w/ no changes in the sim would be a fine idea ?