Warrior General Games

Originally posted by FairForever
Okay, I'm going to bite my tongue and avoid this thread hereon in... you guys really don't get it.

I'll say it once again. It's not a game intended to mimic a real-life professional caliber sports league. It's a game. You're supposed to have fun.

so a team gutted in the usa pro isnt now ruining the fun for the people in SA? when the influx of all those higher players came charging in to change everything they were doing?

Originally posted by bossmania
Let me repeat myself.

Does anyone have a problem with a rule like:

"Do not act in a manner that NO real-life football GM would act."

If you have a problem, explain.

If not, there's no reason for not putting in a rule along those lines. Unless the people making the rules don't want to abide by them...

Problem: I don't think Bort or DD really knew everything that could possibly happen, and put it more of a guideline then a 'rule'. Rules are subject to change based on the evolution of the game. Please remember this is a game, this isn't the NFL.

Originally posted by texasdanger

I think there are definitely some imperatives that should be enforced:

1. Players not owned by the team owner should definitely be treated as assets to the team and transferred to the new owner

2. If a team owner wants to move his players from his team and sell the team, then allow it, but not until the new owner comes on board... and the new owner has to agree on the compensation for HIS team's loss



I think those two rules alone if implemented would solve most of the problems.

Originally posted by Whatsdafus



UM... Im replying to what he replyed to me... so you re read the post


It was seven pages ago, and he's no longer posting in these forums. Thus imminently useless.

Man, some sketchy stuff going on.

Originally posted by RollTide
Man, some sketchy stuff going on.

No, no there isn't.

An owner got tired of running his team and released all the players. It isn't sketchy at all. They weren't a good team before and they aren't now.

Certain individuals mistook it for the Chicken Little convention. Which is next week, in Eastern Europe BBB #445. So if you all could just take it there, thanks.

Originally posted by Asheme
Originally posted by RollTide

Man, some sketchy stuff going on.

No, no there isn't.

An owner got tired of running his team and released all the players. It isn't sketchy at all. They weren't a good team before and they aren't now.

Certain individuals mistook it for the Chicken Little convention. Which is next week, in Eastern Europe BBB #445. So if you all could just take it there, thanks.

I think some thought it was another "merger" type move where a bunch o the best players are moved to another team, boosting it, while gutting the original team. I would be nice if their were measures in place to prevent people from jumping ship on the game right in the middle of a season bus there are not. As long as all the players were released that's about as close to fair as you can get under the current system.

Originally posted by purehatred
Originally posted by texasdanger


I think there are definitely some imperatives that should be enforced:

1. Players not owned by the team owner should definitely be treated as assets to the team and transferred to the new owner

2. If a team owner wants to move his players from his team and sell the team, then allow it, but not until the new owner comes on board... and the new owner has to agree on the compensation for HIS team's loss



I think those two rules alone if implemented would solve most of the problems.

Agreed. I think these two rules would be great and would solve a lot of problems, but you can clearly see that not ONE of the alpha testers or mods have bothered to even comment on them. The fact is they agree with the gutting practice and they don't want to be bothered about stopping it. Instead, they just want to debate about how stupid and silly we all are for wanting to put rules and structure around how the game is played.

Let's hear substantive objections to these two rules from the mods (that means you, Serenity, and others...) and from the alpha guys. How are these two rules a bad idea?

The only other adjustment that I see could alleviate the problems was suggested by someone else in another thread (possibly ChooChoo..not sure)..

Limit the number of releases per day.

That way if an owner wants to give up interest of the team, he either has to maintain control long enough to get his guys on the open market OR he gives up control and deals ith the new owner.

According to Bort, they are thinking of implementing a roster minimum which should help alleviate the problem somewhat.

Originally posted by Bort
- All teams will have to maintain a minimum roster of 40 players. You will not be able to cut players to get under that number. If, for whatever reason, you have under 40 players at the end of the day (expiring contracts, etc), random CPUs will be added to the team. This helps new owners to be ensured a team with enough players on it, and helps out with inactive teams as well.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=238124

The only modification I would like for this idea is to make the CPU player be the same level as the recently departed human player instead of it being random.

Originally posted by Whatsdafus
to be honest the term alpha tester should be rid of, its a joke, they do nothing more then beta or the rest...

Owners, mods and the rest of us.

one good statement in your long post. I don't know why we keep the term exept that it notifies that alpha players have a 5 day head start on their players. Active users have more knowledge than others no matter when you joined. the style of play is different than it was in the alpha season, and there is no more build insight advantage because builds are in uncharted terratories and 5 days means nothing at this point.

Now as for your attack on Serenity, you sound like the elitist now. Is no one entitled to have an opinion different than yours about a game without being a moron? Are you sure your opinion is the majority of what the users feel? Or is a vocal minority complaining and the rest afraid to agree with serenity or have no passion on the issue because they just want to play? Are FA going to other leagues, making teams better, really a bad thing for a game?

This is a matter of opinion. When people think their opinion and logic is the only correct answer, that makes them an elitist, no matter what label or trophey they have.

Originally posted by hud
Are FA going to other leagues, making teams better, really a bad thing for a game?



True free agents whose contracts expired, no... that's fine. FAs who were released en masse from their contracts by their prior team owner (this is called gutting...), yes, that's bad. It leaves empty shells of teams behind. It upsets the balance of power in other leagues when 10 dominant players all join one team that was inferior and now is all of a sudden better than the season powerhouses who earned their victories. And in the league where the team was gutted, a cupcake game remains for any team lucky enough to play them.

Hey Hud, why don't you answer the questions I posted? Tell me why those two rules I posted would be a bad idea?

They sound okay to me... but how to you make it part of the program instead of stated rules that no one ever sees? you want to stop things like this, it needs to be in the program.

but that is my opinion.

Originally posted by hud
They sound okay to me... but how to you make it part of the program instead of stated rules that no one ever sees? you want to stop things like this, it needs to be in the program.

but that is my opinion.

Agreed - that is my position as well. Make the rules enforced by the program.

Originally posted by bolstersam
Originally posted by Serenity

Would someone like to explain to me why the owner should let his players be at the whim of a new owner?

who says it better? Nobody

Kiss ass much?