Warrior General Games

Originally posted by dbm326

I could deal with 20. Maybe have the roster limit at 20 until the coding for 15 could be figured out?

This.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

Yes, and Bort given the clarification that we do NOT wish to impose upon his valuable and limited coding time--all we're asking for is a strict roster limit and he can leave the rest of the coding exactly as its already written. Those that choose to play and/or own teams in this new type of league will learn to adapt AROUND the code, making hard choices regarding:

* Which positions can substitute most easily for other positions while enduring the out-of-position penalties;
* How much to pour into "stamina" so as to be able to endure playing both sides of the ball
* Which position(s) to purposely NOT play on both sides of the ball (QB seems like a no-brainer, but who really knows).

MOVE BACK TO EPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE THE PEOPLE OF THE GLB SIM DEMAND IT!!!!!!!!!!

I'm game.

+1

Originally posted by supgreg
despite the fact that so many different people want less OOP.

doing this COMPLETELY defeats the entire purpose of ironman. if ironman were implemented with reduced OOP, then its not even worth play. the whole fun of ironman IS the OOP. the strategy of building a team with OOP would be incredibly fun. do you use offensive players on defense, or defensive players on offense? instead of 32 teams all trying to build the same cookie cutter build, you could literally have 32 unique team strategies.

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
Originally posted by supgreg

despite the fact that so many different people want less OOP.

doing this COMPLETELY defeats the entire purpose of ironman. if ironman were implemented with reduced OOP, then its not even worth play. the whole fun of ironman IS the OOP. the strategy of building a team with OOP would be incredibly fun. do you use offensive players on defense, or defensive players on offense? instead of 32 teams all trying to build the same cookie cutter build, you could literally have 32 unique team strategies.


Yep--the limited roster size would pose all sorts of challenges. Once you get past the "first wave" of thinking on the idea (Pro Set or I-Formation against a 4-3 or 3-4 defense), just imagine the choices you'd face in regard to how to use personel when you go with multiple wideouts or more gimicky defenses.

Originally posted by BlakeDawg
MOVE BACK TO EPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE THE PEOPLE OF THE GLB SIM DEMAND IT!!!!!!!!!!

It's already here http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3203271

Thus doesn't need to be in Epic anymore

Originally posted by Z54
It's already here http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3203271

Thus doesn't need to be in Epic anymore

where there is nothing detailing to iron man league.

Originally posted by BlakeDawg
where there is nothing detailing to iron man league.

wrong link sorry http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3203267

Can we all please focus on the idea instead of the thread being moved?

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
doing this COMPLETELY defeats the entire purpose of ironman. if ironman were implemented with reduced OOP, then its not even worth play. the whole fun of ironman IS the OOP. the strategy of building a team with OOP would be incredibly fun. do you use offensive players on defense, or defensive players on offense? instead of 32 teams all trying to build the same cookie cutter build, you could literally have 32 unique team strategies.

There is 65 pages of info in here, this point has probably been made, several times, just not anywhere I have seen it. This is probably the best argument for not changing the OOP. The only argument I had ever seen was that it would make it easier for Bert to implement, which, in my opinion, would be asking for problems. However, since there is some actual strategy that goes along with it, I can get behind not changing the OOP.

65 pages, and I'm finally on board.

Originally posted by supgreg
Originally posted by Guppy, Inc

doing this COMPLETELY defeats the entire purpose of ironman. if ironman were implemented with reduced OOP, then its not even worth play. the whole fun of ironman IS the OOP. the strategy of building a team with OOP would be incredibly fun. do you use offensive players on defense, or defensive players on offense? instead of 32 teams all trying to build the same cookie cutter build, you could literally have 32 unique team strategies.

There is 65 pages of info in here, this point has probably been made, several times, just not anywhere I have seen it. This is probably the best argument for not changing the OOP. The only argument I had ever seen was that it would make it easier for Bert to implement, which, in my opinion, would be asking for problems. However, since there is some actual strategy that goes along with it, I can get behind not changing the OOP.

65 pages, and I'm finally on board.



Thank you--we appreciate it.

Originally posted by Z54
wrong link sorry http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3203267

Not mentioned here either.

But anyway...
I know people are asking for the idea with the current minimum of 20 players. That would certainly be nice to get things up and running. However, assuming we'd still like the coding changes to be made to reduce the number to 15 eventually, that could cause some issues down the line. Basically I'm thinking that outs 160 players per league a few seasons down the line, and unless they're built right they wouldn't find new homes in any leagues.(IM or otherwise) This could be avoided easily if every team would self-impose a rule to keep 5 players off the depth charts. Ideally they'd be 100 flex cheapies that are never boosted for a full refund at retirement, but some could choose to SSB with them instead. Of course there will always be a team or two using any advantage to dominate, and they'd use all 20 spots fully. Which would force everyone else to follow suit to compete or get left behind.

So I see three options:
1) Hold off until there's time to fix the code to allow teams of 11-15 to sim games without filling in CPUs or reordering the depth chart.
2) Go with a 20 player limit outright and forget trying to have the code changed in the future.
3) Take 20 now, with the intention that it will be reduced to 15 at some point. Everyone would obviously be made aware of this fact, and thus should plan for it.

Originally posted by Linkzmax
Originally posted by Z54

wrong link sorry http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3203267

Not mentioned here either.

But anyway...
I know people are asking for the idea with the current minimum of 20 players. That would certainly be nice to get things up and running. However, assuming we'd still like the coding changes to be made to reduce the number to 15 eventually, that could cause some issues down the line. Basically I'm thinking that outs 160 players per league a few seasons down the line, and unless they're built right they wouldn't find new homes in any leagues.(IM or otherwise) This could be avoided easily if every team would self-impose a rule to keep 5 players off the depth charts. Ideally they'd be 100 flex cheapies that are never boosted for a full refund at retirement, but some could choose to SSB with them instead. Of course there will always be a team or two using any advantage to dominate, and they'd use all 20 spots fully. Which would force everyone else to follow suit to compete or get left behind.

So I see three options:
1) Hold off until there's time to fix the code to allow teams of 11-15 to sim games without filling in CPUs or reordering the depth chart.
2) Go with a 20 player limit outright and forget trying to have the code changed in the future.
3) Take 20 now, with the intention that it will be reduced to 15 at some point. Everyone would obviously be made aware of this fact, and thus should plan for it.

This is my thing, if not everyone is going to be satisfied with 20 players (which I think 20 actually ruins the idea of ironman) why even try it?

Also with so much left to do in the Main GLB sim, small additions here and there, and other things that need to be added..would Ironman be the correct choice?

#3 is just ASKING for people to bitch...so I'd nix that one.

#2 is going to partially ruin the Iron Man League, in my opinion

#1 is what Bort is currently doing, it's on hold until there is time to fix the code.

I wonder if you went through this thread and found the number of times I and others have posted "no sim changes, just roster limits" how many you'd get.

Originally posted by dmfa41
I wonder if you went through this thread and found the number of times I and others have posted "no sim changes, just roster limits" how many you'd get.

People are so ignorant these days..