Warrior General Games

Originally posted by cjones

Kiss ass much?
^ Seriously.

This game is the sum of its parts...it's bigger than one owner or one guy with many characters. It's called conservation and it needs to exist on every scale. Also it's not like released characters receive any benefits... Their situations become uncertain, they may even lose a start as they waste away int he FA pool for a few days.

GLB needs to do everything it can to enforce a basic level of conservation/stability. I paid to play a game that will steadily improve, not one with a bunch of primadonnas trying to defend a broken mechanic and even worse--broken attitudes.

People need to do their best not to disturb the ecology of game. If you borrow something, do your best to put it back the way you found it. Conserve, conserve, conserve.

Originally posted by texasdanger
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?


Alright. I'll comment.

1. Players have no way to opt out right now. So they sign a contract with Owner A. He promises starting spots, and contract restructing. Owner A decides to seel his team to focus on real life. Owner B comes in, brings in his own players and holds older players hostage as backups. This is why players wish to be released if there is a change of ownership.

2. New Owner can be completly unreasonable with the "compensation". Say owner A removes a lvl 12 RB, a fairly common player. Owner might demand a lvl 12 WR at a similar salary. Lvl 12 WRs are much harder to find than RBs and demand is higher. So finding one at a similar salary will be hard. The most compensation Owner B should receive is recovered chemistry from the release of Owner A's players.

Originally posted by justafish2002
Originally posted by texasdanger

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?


Alright. I'll comment.

1. Players have no way to opt out right now. So they sign a contract with Owner A. He promises starting spots, and contract restructing. Owner A decides to seel his team to focus on real life. Owner B comes in, brings in his own players and holds older players hostage as backups. This is why players wish to be released if there is a change of ownership.

2. New Owner can be completly unreasonable with the "compensation". Say owner A removes a lvl 12 RB, a fairly common player. Owner might demand a lvl 12 WR at a similar salary. Lvl 12 WRs are much harder to find than RBs and demand is higher. So finding one at a similar salary will be hard. The most compensation Owner B should receive is recovered chemistry from the release of Owner A's players.

wow, thats so sad.
I mean to live thru that when you signed a 40 day contract with that TEAM. not with the owner... the team.
Either be traded or play out your contract

Originally posted by Whatsdafus
Originally posted by justafish2002

Originally posted by texasdanger


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?


Alright. I'll comment.

1. Players have no way to opt out right now. So they sign a contract with Owner A. He promises starting spots, and contract restructing. Owner A decides to seel his team to focus on real life. Owner B comes in, brings in his own players and holds older players hostage as backups. This is why players wish to be released if there is a change of ownership.

2. New Owner can be completly unreasonable with the "compensation". Say owner A removes a lvl 12 RB, a fairly common player. Owner might demand a lvl 12 WR at a similar salary. Lvl 12 WRs are much harder to find than RBs and demand is higher. So finding one at a similar salary will be hard. The most compensation Owner B should receive is recovered chemistry from the release of Owner A's players.

wow, thats so sad.
I mean to live thru that when you signed a 40 day contract with that TEAM. not with the owner... the team.
Either be traded or play out your contract

The players sign with the Team BECAUSE of a owner's promises. They asked to be released to protect their playing time and ability to upgrade equipment

Originally posted by justafish2002

The players sign with the Team BECAUSE of a owner's promises. They asked to be released to protect their playing time and ability to upgrade equipment
How does being cut directly protect their playing time and ability to buy equipment. Player contracts are team assets, and I fully expect a new owner to be the benefactor to those assets.

If you don't like commitment, sign a 1-year contract. If you can't handle 40 days of obligation, then I honestly don't know what to say.

Originally posted by Tobin


This game is the sum of its parts...it's bigger than one owner or one guy with many characters. It's called conservation and it needs to exist on every scale. Also it's not like released characters receive any benefits... Their situations become uncertain, they may even lose a start as they waste away int he FA pool for a few days.

GLB needs to do everything it can to enforce a basic level of conservation/stability. I paid to play a game that will steadily improve, not one with a bunch of primadonnas trying to defend a broken mechanic and even worse--broken attitudes.

People need to do their best not to disturb the ecology of game. If you borrow something, do your best to put it back the way you found it. Conserve, conserve, conserve.


Quoted for truth!

Originally posted by Tobin
Originally posted by cjones


Kiss ass much?
^ Seriously.

This game is the sum of its parts...it's bigger than one owner or one guy with many characters. It's called conservation and it needs to exist on every scale. Also it's not like released characters receive any benefits... Their situations become uncertain, they may even lose a start as they waste away int he FA pool for a few days.

GLB needs to do everything it can to enforce a basic level of conservation/stability. I paid to play a game that will steadily improve, not one with a bunch of primadonnas trying to defend a broken mechanic and even worse--broken attitudes.

People need to do their best not to disturb the ecology of game. If you borrow something, do your best to put it back the way you found it. Conserve, conserve, conserve.

So teams should be left with level 1-4 CPU's?
Because that's how they found it.

Sure would be nice to know where all those players went.

the only thing gutting rosters helps is new lv 1-4 humans to find teams 2-3 hours before their new team plays and get replaced by better players 2 days later after being told by owners that they will start for the SHIT team they signed on to help. Why help a team that is going to screw you over? Letting owners have their own players on their team is the ploblem. THIS SHOULD BE DISALLOWED!!!!!!!! That is the only way to stop the problems. If anyone can come up with an argueement PLEASE post it.

NONE OF A TEAMS PLAYERS SHOULD BE OWNED BY THE OWNER!!!!!!!!!!!!

or gms for that matter

also one team per user either own or gm. no reason to gut if all of these rules are used.

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



Yep, because we're psychic and know that the owner is planning on selling his team. We're supposed to read somebody's mind and say "you're going to sell your team soon! No cuts for you!"

It sounds like everybody just wants to disallow cutting players because an owner might someday sell a team and quit. Is that what you want? You get a team and have to stick with it forever because it might change the way the league looks? That might work if players were all CPU controlled and everyone was just a team owner. But this is a game with human owned players - they're more than just "team assets." Players have to be able to be moved around.

Bort, would you consider releasing players (FOR NO GAIN) like in the Firefox example is gutting?

Originally posted by justafish2002
Bort, would you consider releasing players (FOR NO GAIN) like in the Firefox example is gutting?

If all the players on the team asked to be released, and the team isn't left broke for the next owner, then I don't have a problem with it. Besides, even if I don't like it, what the hell am I supposed to do about it? The owner sold the team and quit. I can't exactly take away his team or whatever. I'm not going to punish the players who got cut, because that's ridiculous too.

The thing is that there are always people joining and leaving the game. There's nothing we can do about it. The team owner could have just gone inactive before quitting and left the team to rot. Is that better?

After I put in the min-40 update with CPU additions, it shouldn't be much of an issue, but I'm sure people will still complain and offer no feasible ideas for solutions other than vague rules that are hard to enforce. I'm sure somebody will reply to this post and say something like "this really disturbs me" etc, but I have to say: give me an actual solution that can be implemented, not a random complaint about how other people disappoint you.

There is always going to be good teams and bad teams. We can't force every single team to be competitive in every league. It's just the nature of the game.