Originally posted by beenlurken
Originally posted by yello1
Posted on the score differences in other thread, no sense repeating here for most of that. But as to Oberon, I haven't had a dot on Oberon for a couple seasons, but from the forums its been my impression that Oberon is doing worse because of difficulty recruiting. If your dots are not built right, you are going to have a hard time winning. This I know, been there done that. If the good dots dont sign with you, its going to be a long season. That said, Oberons score differentials have narrowed even if their win loss has not. And thats what I have been talking about the whole time been - scoring thats sane, NFL-esque, and fun rather than cringe worthy 100 point beat downs et cetera. There are less of them now and a lot more close games. Across the board. I doubt everyone suddenly became closer together on their own.
As for the nationals being too large, you congratulate yourself on the end result of the deleterius effects upon the game of all the things lousy about the game that you defended before. Nat Pro is too large now, if it is, because people got sick of those 100+ blowouts and left before the changes. Also I think alot of folks demoted to rebuild with the major dot building changes too. I know in the networks I was listening in on several teams did that for that reason.
That said, I think there are enough dots to support the current Natty Pro, based upon how quickly the Grace and Word gathered players. The problem is the churning of teams. If a third or half the teams demote or restart or are sold then too many Reg Pro teams have to come up. Then you have 50 and 60 levels taking slots and getting whooped or owners flipping rosters and signing the right players but getting chem screwed. What needs to change is the team system somehow so there is less turnover.
Just stop and listen to yourself... you state and give reasons why oberon is doing worse and in the same breath you claim their score differentials are better (signs of improvement).... which is it moron? That said, show me where Oberon has much better score differentials... and I don't want you to post scores where they aren't blowing CPU teams like I know you would I want you to show me where their score differentials are better against the true competitors in zeta, like Sumatra, GCV, etc.
and 
to the rest
Oy vey dude READ
How could you possibly miss the statement in the post. Let me sum it up. Wins and Losses are not the same thing as score differences. I can lose 14 games by 10 points or 100 each. I still am losing 14 games, but the games are closer score wise.
Get it???????????????
I never ever was arguing that the wins and losses should change. I was always complaining about the idiotic 90, 100, 200 point games, the 70, 80 point blow outs etc.
Teams lose in the NFL, but they do not score 100 points. People will enjoy a 10 point loss, they won't even watch most of a 100 point loss. They will turn the game off and if it happens enough sell the team and go play Pong. Avoiding that was always the point. How many times do I have to say it before you hear it over your inner monologue ranting about crap I never said?
You can't be this dense. Can you? Read what I say, not what you think I am saying.
Or are you just a very talented troll? In some forums I'd expect it. Not here. Am I wrong? Are you just hosing my cage?
Originally posted by yello1
Posted on the score differences in other thread, no sense repeating here for most of that. But as to Oberon, I haven't had a dot on Oberon for a couple seasons, but from the forums its been my impression that Oberon is doing worse because of difficulty recruiting. If your dots are not built right, you are going to have a hard time winning. This I know, been there done that. If the good dots dont sign with you, its going to be a long season. That said, Oberons score differentials have narrowed even if their win loss has not. And thats what I have been talking about the whole time been - scoring thats sane, NFL-esque, and fun rather than cringe worthy 100 point beat downs et cetera. There are less of them now and a lot more close games. Across the board. I doubt everyone suddenly became closer together on their own.
As for the nationals being too large, you congratulate yourself on the end result of the deleterius effects upon the game of all the things lousy about the game that you defended before. Nat Pro is too large now, if it is, because people got sick of those 100+ blowouts and left before the changes. Also I think alot of folks demoted to rebuild with the major dot building changes too. I know in the networks I was listening in on several teams did that for that reason.
That said, I think there are enough dots to support the current Natty Pro, based upon how quickly the Grace and Word gathered players. The problem is the churning of teams. If a third or half the teams demote or restart or are sold then too many Reg Pro teams have to come up. Then you have 50 and 60 levels taking slots and getting whooped or owners flipping rosters and signing the right players but getting chem screwed. What needs to change is the team system somehow so there is less turnover.
Just stop and listen to yourself... you state and give reasons why oberon is doing worse and in the same breath you claim their score differentials are better (signs of improvement).... which is it moron? That said, show me where Oberon has much better score differentials... and I don't want you to post scores where they aren't blowing CPU teams like I know you would I want you to show me where their score differentials are better against the true competitors in zeta, like Sumatra, GCV, etc.
and to the restOy vey dude READ
How could you possibly miss the statement in the post. Let me sum it up. Wins and Losses are not the same thing as score differences. I can lose 14 games by 10 points or 100 each. I still am losing 14 games, but the games are closer score wise.
Get it???????????????
I never ever was arguing that the wins and losses should change. I was always complaining about the idiotic 90, 100, 200 point games, the 70, 80 point blow outs etc.
Teams lose in the NFL, but they do not score 100 points. People will enjoy a 10 point loss, they won't even watch most of a 100 point loss. They will turn the game off and if it happens enough sell the team and go play Pong. Avoiding that was always the point. How many times do I have to say it before you hear it over your inner monologue ranting about crap I never said?
You can't be this dense. Can you? Read what I say, not what you think I am saying.
Or are you just a very talented troll? In some forums I'd expect it. Not here. Am I wrong? Are you just hosing my cage?
