Warrior General Games

I have seen alot of people on the game post things that seem to point to a difference of opinion. as to what makes a agent or team a success on GLB.

Does being successful mean you as a agent have alot of MVP's? or that your players seem to always be on teams that win alot of games?

Does being a successful owner mean you have to win WL? or can it mean you have had success from rookie, pee wee, casual on up to WL?

Does being a successful coordinator only come from being a WL coordinator? or can it mean you have had success at the lower levels as well?

I know alot of the people on here feel that to be labeled as successful you have to be a WL regular. but is that the end all be all or are there other things that measure the success of a agent, team or coordinator? I am just wondering what the differences in opinion are and what different agents gauge as a success on the game.

Wouldn't success be subjective?

If two different agents are trying to get two different things, both can be successful in their goals and a failure in any other person's eyes (including each other).

If results are what drives you, then pro and WL should have the majority of the weight, but for a player-oriented agent, results are far from the main goal. Personally, my objective is to create players to fit a particular role and build them to do the best at that role, retire, repeat in a more efficient way, compare, etc. In my case, results don't really carry much weight, and victories are only there to place whatever team I'm in in a league that is competitive so that I can better judge the performance of my players.

Can't say much about owning or coordinating, though, never did either.

Being a success at GLB only means one thing, you have no life, and probably have no friends, you like the indoors way too much, not you personally, but you really need to be all GLB to all the time.

You know it when you see it. It's hard to define, and you'll see a lot of inconsistency between one person who is seen as "successful" and another person who is not seen that way.

Mainly comes down to success in World League though... usually repeated success in World League. For example, I've OC'ed one team up into WL, and I helped gameplan the offense for another WL team that one gold one season, but my accomplishments pale in comparison to people who have done far more than that. They're seen as "successful," and I'm not... nor do I consider myself to be, actually.

Same with Wiseman, who has promoted the Chicago Hedgehogs into World League a ridiculous number of times but who has gone one-and-done every single time. As such, the list of people who would call Wiseman "successful" is very short indeed.

It's a high standard. And it should be a high standard, quite frankly. Otherwise, it would be meaningless.

Originally posted by Novus
You know it when you see it. It's hard to define, and you'll see a lot of inconsistency between one person who is seen as "successful" and another person who is not seen that way.

Mainly comes down to success in World League though... usually repeated success in World League. For example, I've OC'ed one team up into WL, and I helped gameplan the offense for another WL team that one gold one season, but my accomplishments pale in comparison to people who have done far more than that. They're seen as "successful," and I'm not... nor do I consider myself to be, actually.

Same with Wiseman, who has promoted the Chicago Hedgehogs into World League a ridiculous number of times but who has gone one-and-done every single time. As such, the list of people who would call Wiseman "successful" is very short indeed.

It's a high standard. And it should be a high standard, quite frankly. Otherwise, it would be meaningless.

I can see this to a extent. but me personally I look at wise as being a really succesful agent on the game. he not only fields tough teams he builds great dots and tries to help other agents get better at the game. I see Bhall, JPJN94 and a few other top agents in my opinion that do the same. to me that makes them a success at the game. Yeah I feel winning WL is the top prize on GLB but that is because most of the top coordinators are there. I don't discredit any team winning a championship in any elite league though. because simply put it is tough to win the elite leagues at any level.

but that is just my opinion

Originally posted by hatchman
I can see this to a extent. but me personally I look at wise as being a really succesful agent on the game. he not only fields tough teams he builds great dots and tries to help other agents get better at the game.
WiSeIVIaN & Theo Wizzago do give other agents advice, but it's just usually wrong so I'm not sure how much credit someone deserves for that.

just making the field is a success for my dots

Who ever creates the most threads in GLB Main

Originally posted by coachingubigr
Who ever creates the most threads in GLB Main

well in that case I am probably in 2nd or 3rd place in GLB then. dang I feel so special now.

Originally posted by hatchman
I don't discredit any team winning a championship in any elite league though. because simply put it is tough to win the elite leagues at any level.

I don't think winning in Natty Pro means as much as it used to though. And that's coming from someone who's OC'd a team to Natty Pro gold. Maybe we were just in an easy league, but it wasn't as hard as I'd been expecting, and it left me woefully under-prepared for World League the next season. I still have PTSD from my one season trying to OC in WL. *twitch*

Of course, then there's Romo's definition... "You win GLB by having fun. Might as well try it." By that definition, I'm highly successful.

Doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone else, of course, but whatevs.

Successful is when your builds are fixed