@OP, it's hard to take your suggestions of parity seriously when you seem to be motivated by the fact that you have too many teams of your own.
Forum > Suggestions > Parity Stick, Hard Salary Caps and Steeply Ramped Salary Minimums Based Upon Effective Level
Originally posted by CaptainUniverse
@OP, it's hard to take your suggestions of parity seriously when you seem to be motivated by the fact that you have too many teams of your own.
Seem to be only because of your presumptions.
I make ideas about games. Its what I have done since games were played with dice, since the 1970s.
It has nothing to do with my own interests. It has to do with liking to improve games.
This game has the problem set forth in the OP. People post about it often. I was motivated to post this thread because of another persons thread about balance....not my teams. My teams are finished, 52 and 52 rosters with my own dots to fill the 6 openings if need be.
This has to do with GLB. Not me.
@OP, it's hard to take your suggestions of parity seriously when you seem to be motivated by the fact that you have too many teams of your own.
Seem to be only because of your presumptions.
I make ideas about games. Its what I have done since games were played with dice, since the 1970s.
It has nothing to do with my own interests. It has to do with liking to improve games.
This game has the problem set forth in the OP. People post about it often. I was motivated to post this thread because of another persons thread about balance....not my teams. My teams are finished, 52 and 52 rosters with my own dots to fill the 6 openings if need be.
This has to do with GLB. Not me.
Originally posted by JCJayhawk
So if what you are saying is true, what is the point of your original suggestion? Either you can't get enough dots to fill your teams, or the current dots on your teams aren't built well enough to compete. Otherwise why even bring up something like this?
I bring it up because GLB has this problem. ALL of GLB. Not just my teams.
Is all you people do think about yourselves and your own position? Is thinking about the betterment of a group as a whole such a fantasy concept to you?
The point is put forward a way GLB an avoid player attrition and shutting down due to the lack of balance and to improve player enjoyment.
Nothing more, nothing hidden between the lines or up my sleave.
So if what you are saying is true, what is the point of your original suggestion? Either you can't get enough dots to fill your teams, or the current dots on your teams aren't built well enough to compete. Otherwise why even bring up something like this?
I bring it up because GLB has this problem. ALL of GLB. Not just my teams.
Is all you people do think about yourselves and your own position? Is thinking about the betterment of a group as a whole such a fantasy concept to you?
The point is put forward a way GLB an avoid player attrition and shutting down due to the lack of balance and to improve player enjoyment.
Nothing more, nothing hidden between the lines or up my sleave.
Originally posted by Mike Rogers
You want to enforce controls to create Parity.
You use the NFL as an example of Parity working.
However the NFL does not actually help endorse the type of Parity you're talking about here, in a way that translates to GLBs league structure.
The NFL is one single league, GLB is not, so your comparison ends here.
Despite the Parity controls in place on individual teams, the NFL still has a very effective monopoly on the highest calibre atheletes, the player pool for any league outside of the NFL is certainly at a massive disadvantage compared to the finanaces available in the NFL.
As such many players prefer to be on NFL scout squads than join any other league format that exsists.
It is this monopoly on the talent pool that allows the NFL to implement their Parity controls as they do.
In GLB, enforced Parity caps like you suggest would not have the same effect as they do in the NFL.
If you actually thought about it, you would realise that the Parity caps your suggesting, would just increase the number of Network teams at the top levels, and stagnate team movement.
Okay I see your point. Not entirely invalid.
But the point remains. If you spread the top dots around the teams that those dots are spread around to and from will become more balanced as to each other.
Would there still be a WL with teams better than below, yes.
Would the WL teams be more balanced as to each other.
Yes.
Same same inside the various leagues down the line.
People do not like being on 0-16 teams and in this game those teams are everywhere.
This idea would help reduce that issue.
Not the perfect solution. Maybe not even a desirable one. But it is one way to help address the problem.
You want to enforce controls to create Parity.
You use the NFL as an example of Parity working.
However the NFL does not actually help endorse the type of Parity you're talking about here, in a way that translates to GLBs league structure.
The NFL is one single league, GLB is not, so your comparison ends here.
Despite the Parity controls in place on individual teams, the NFL still has a very effective monopoly on the highest calibre atheletes, the player pool for any league outside of the NFL is certainly at a massive disadvantage compared to the finanaces available in the NFL.
As such many players prefer to be on NFL scout squads than join any other league format that exsists.
It is this monopoly on the talent pool that allows the NFL to implement their Parity controls as they do.
In GLB, enforced Parity caps like you suggest would not have the same effect as they do in the NFL.
If you actually thought about it, you would realise that the Parity caps your suggesting, would just increase the number of Network teams at the top levels, and stagnate team movement.
Okay I see your point. Not entirely invalid.
But the point remains. If you spread the top dots around the teams that those dots are spread around to and from will become more balanced as to each other.
Would there still be a WL with teams better than below, yes.
Would the WL teams be more balanced as to each other.
Yes.
Same same inside the various leagues down the line.
People do not like being on 0-16 teams and in this game those teams are everywhere.
This idea would help reduce that issue.
Not the perfect solution. Maybe not even a desirable one. But it is one way to help address the problem.
Originally posted by yello1
I bring it up because GLB has this problem. ALL of GLB. Not just my teams.
Is all you people do think about yourselves and your own position? Is thinking about the betterment of a group as a whole such a fantasy concept to you?
The point is put forward a way GLB an avoid player attrition and shutting down due to the lack of balance and to improve player enjoyment.
Nothing more, nothing hidden between the lines or up my sleave.
Oh the Good Samaritan. Got it
I bring it up because GLB has this problem. ALL of GLB. Not just my teams.
Is all you people do think about yourselves and your own position? Is thinking about the betterment of a group as a whole such a fantasy concept to you?
The point is put forward a way GLB an avoid player attrition and shutting down due to the lack of balance and to improve player enjoyment.
Nothing more, nothing hidden between the lines or up my sleave.
Oh the Good Samaritan. Got it
I'd like someone to fix the parity situation in a way that allows my team to win WL. If that suggestion goes up, I'll definitely +1 it
Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by CaptainUniverse
@OP, it's hard to take your suggestions of parity seriously when you seem to be motivated by the fact that you have too many teams of your own.
Seem to be only because of your presumptions.
I make ideas about games. Its what I have done since games were played with dice, since the 1970s.
It has nothing to do with my own interests. It has to do with liking to improve games.
This game has the problem set forth in the OP. People post about it often. I was motivated to post this thread because of another persons thread about balance....not my teams. My teams are finished, 52 and 52 rosters with my own dots to fill the 6 openings if need be.
This has to do with GLB. Not me.
Aaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Originally posted by CaptainUniverse
@OP, it's hard to take your suggestions of parity seriously when you seem to be motivated by the fact that you have too many teams of your own.
Seem to be only because of your presumptions.
I make ideas about games. Its what I have done since games were played with dice, since the 1970s.
It has nothing to do with my own interests. It has to do with liking to improve games.
This game has the problem set forth in the OP. People post about it often. I was motivated to post this thread because of another persons thread about balance....not my teams. My teams are finished, 52 and 52 rosters with my own dots to fill the 6 openings if need be.
This has to do with GLB. Not me.
Aaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Edited by CaptainUniverse on Apr 11, 2012 15:36:58
Originally posted by pimpin_snoopy
i'm here for the party stick and the biblically-based astrophysics
Careful...it's a helluva stick
i'm here for the party stick and the biblically-based astrophysics
Careful...it's a helluva stick
Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by CaptainUniverse
@OP, it's hard to take your suggestions of parity seriously when you seem to be motivated by the fact that you have too many teams of your own.
Seem to be only because of your presumptions.
I make ideas about games. Its what I have done since games were played with dice, since the 1970s.
It has nothing to do with my own interests. It has to do with liking to improve games.
This game has the problem set forth in the OP. People post about it often. I was motivated to post this thread because of another persons thread about balance....not my teams. My teams are finished, 52 and 52 rosters with my own dots to fill the 6 openings if need be.
This has to do with GLB. Not me.
you have players in decline or heading there on your pro level rosters
do yourself a favor - consolidate your best onto one roster and concentrate on that and spend less time making suggestions to solve your problems
Originally posted by CaptainUniverse
@OP, it's hard to take your suggestions of parity seriously when you seem to be motivated by the fact that you have too many teams of your own.
Seem to be only because of your presumptions.
I make ideas about games. Its what I have done since games were played with dice, since the 1970s.
It has nothing to do with my own interests. It has to do with liking to improve games.
This game has the problem set forth in the OP. People post about it often. I was motivated to post this thread because of another persons thread about balance....not my teams. My teams are finished, 52 and 52 rosters with my own dots to fill the 6 openings if need be.
This has to do with GLB. Not me.
you have players in decline or heading there on your pro level rosters
do yourself a favor - consolidate your best onto one roster and concentrate on that and spend less time making suggestions to solve your problems
Edited by reddogrw on Apr 11, 2012 15:48:16
Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by CaptainUniverse
@OP, it's hard to take your suggestions of parity seriously when you seem to be motivated by the fact that you have too many teams of your own.
Seem to be only because of your presumptions.
I make ideas about games. Its what I have done since games were played with dice, since the 1970s.
It has nothing to do with my own interests. It has to do with liking to improve games.
This game has the problem set forth in the OP. People post about it often. I was motivated to post this thread because of another persons thread about balance....not my teams. My teams are finished, 52 and 52 rosters with my own dots to fill the 6 openings if need be.
This has to do with GLB. Not me.
The Bolded part is the issue...the people aren't postign about it...they are whining about it.
I run 3 2nd tier teams...we have always made playoffs and are lucky to win a Gold here and there...only made WL once...got smoked while we were there...and I have lost so many Pro League CC games I can't even fricken count anymore!!!
But at least I ain't running a 5th rate organization like Gman was! 
Yet I know the only way for me to be better than the opponent is to outbuild and outplan the opponent.
You put this in place and here is what you get...
1. Less people playing the game...because it is the "Friendships" that keep a LARGE majority of the agents here playing the game...not the stupid Gif Trophies.
2. You still have the same top 64 teams who are consistently at the top of the game and taking a large majority of the gold...not because of your "Parity" but because they work their butts off to get there and stay there!
So I guess if I just stare at the computer and log 4 years of this game I should receive as much success as the people who worked their asses off and worked their way up in this game?
Sounds like most under 30 americans nowadays...want it all handed to them and don't know how to work for everything they get. I suppose next you are gonna tell me using any kind of discipline on my children is a bad thing right...instead I should always pat them on the back and say you shouldn't do that or maybe you will get it right next time eh?
Here is one for you...what you are saying is it should be an NFL requirement for me be on the New York Giants Super Bowl Champions because they have too many good players and are over the effective level of the NFL...so they must take me on and sign me to an amount of money which is obviously worth more than I am...SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!!!
Originally posted by CaptainUniverse
@OP, it's hard to take your suggestions of parity seriously when you seem to be motivated by the fact that you have too many teams of your own.
Seem to be only because of your presumptions.
I make ideas about games. Its what I have done since games were played with dice, since the 1970s.
It has nothing to do with my own interests. It has to do with liking to improve games.
This game has the problem set forth in the OP. People post about it often. I was motivated to post this thread because of another persons thread about balance....not my teams. My teams are finished, 52 and 52 rosters with my own dots to fill the 6 openings if need be.
This has to do with GLB. Not me.
The Bolded part is the issue...the people aren't postign about it...they are whining about it.
I run 3 2nd tier teams...we have always made playoffs and are lucky to win a Gold here and there...only made WL once...got smoked while we were there...and I have lost so many Pro League CC games I can't even fricken count anymore!!!
But at least I ain't running a 5th rate organization like Gman was! Yet I know the only way for me to be better than the opponent is to outbuild and outplan the opponent.
You put this in place and here is what you get...
1. Less people playing the game...because it is the "Friendships" that keep a LARGE majority of the agents here playing the game...not the stupid Gif Trophies.
2. You still have the same top 64 teams who are consistently at the top of the game and taking a large majority of the gold...not because of your "Parity" but because they work their butts off to get there and stay there!
So I guess if I just stare at the computer and log 4 years of this game I should receive as much success as the people who worked their asses off and worked their way up in this game?
Sounds like most under 30 americans nowadays...want it all handed to them and don't know how to work for everything they get. I suppose next you are gonna tell me using any kind of discipline on my children is a bad thing right...instead I should always pat them on the back and say you shouldn't do that or maybe you will get it right next time eh?
Here is one for you...what you are saying is it should be an NFL requirement for me be on the New York Giants Super Bowl Champions because they have too many good players and are over the effective level of the NFL...so they must take me on and sign me to an amount of money which is obviously worth more than I am...SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!!!
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
