Warrior General Games

Never made sense why it was switched before even when everyone was against it in the 1st place.
Save GLB

you're asking for a league that is based on level vs age... less money in that for GLB

I'm not saying I dislike your idea... I just can't see GLB going for it with their apparent mentality.

Originally posted by Ezra
you're asking for a league that is based on level vs age... less money in that for GLB

I'm not saying I dislike your idea... I just can't see GLB going for it with their apparent mentality.



I guess once they sold their soul to the devil...the devil didn't fulfill his end of the bargain....poof went the vets

One of the bigger "fundamental problems" a lot of people have with GLB1 is that in order to be competitive larger on in the game, you have to be ok with being mediocre at the lower levels.

So why would I want a change that would make this problem even worse? If I know that I have to boost to be effective later on, but boosting would make me worse than a non boosting team which will have much more time to multi-train that would make boosting kind of suck.

It's like the super slow built players all over again... I don't know if you remember, but I always hated playing a team of SSB guys.

The level caps switching to age I hated at first, but I think it's been one of the changes that was for the better of GLB


So I guess the question is... why are level based leagues better than age based leagues?

Originally posted by Team Nucleus
I guess once they sold their soul to the devil...the devil didn't fulfill his end of the bargain....poof went the vets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RUg-NkjY4 is safe for work

serious note, no one listens to the veterans here. and the veterans here have a little too much PTSD and don't get taken seriously enough.

I take that back.... people only listen to the veterans when they want build advice.

+100000000000000000

Getting rid of levels and the pyramid hurt this game immensely.

Originally posted by Chysil
why are level based leagues better than age based leagues?


this

Level-based leagues were horrendous.

No they weren't. They made non-boosters a viable option to fill in a few roster spots until about the mid-levels. After age based leagues were added CPUs became a better option than non-boosters. Please stop trying to pretend that ABLs didn't put the final nail in this game.

Originally posted by Dub J
+100000000000000000

Getting rid of levels and the pyramid hurt this game immensely.



There are still levels, they are just confined in a manner that doesn't allow one team of Dots of a much higher level to crush teams of lower levels.

return of the SSB teams...no thanx

Originally posted by Dr. E
There are still levels, they are just confined in a manner that doesn't allow one team of Dots of a much higher level to crush teams of lower levels.

This is a myth. The proverbial monster under the bed.

I brought several teams up through the minors and only ran into one non-boost team. They had a couple of good seasons until VAs showed up and then they were shit.

99.9% of the non-boosters were merely fill ins for teams that couldn't find enough dots to finish their roster. Pretty much all the non-boosters I signed were O-linemen.

All getting rid of level based leagues did was kill recruiting for the minors. Now if you lose a few dots on your way up you can only find replacements for some positions. Others (like Bl TE/FB and sometimes O-line) you are most likely going to have to do without or sign a CPU. Now there's no tolerance since you can only sign effective dots from a tiny creation window vs. having dots from a couple of different seasons. Anyone that doesn't realize this either has a core group that always created dots for their team or they are clueless.

It's funny how the people that cried about all those mythological non-boost teams dashing any hopes they had of winning gold every season still sucked after non-boosters were killed.

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
return of the SSB teams...no thanx

Non-boosters weren't even remotely as strong as SSBers.

Originally posted by Dub J
This is a myth. The proverbial monster under the bed.

I brought several teams up through the minors and only ran into one non-boost team. They had a couple of good seasons until VAs showed up and then they were shit.

99.9% of the non-boosters were merely fill ins for teams that couldn't find enough dots to finish their roster. Pretty much all the non-boosters I signed were O-linemen.

All getting rid of level based leagues did was kill recruiting for the minors. Now if you lose a few dots on your way up you can only find replacements for some positions. Others (like Bl TE/FB and sometimes O-line) you are most likely going to have to do without or sign a CPU. Now there's no tolerance since you can only sign effective dots from a tiny creation window vs. having dots from a couple of different seasons. Anyone that doesn't realize this either has a core group that always created dots for their team or they are clueless.

It's funny how the people that cried about all those mythological non-boost teams dashing any hopes they had of winning gold every season still sucked after non-boosters were killed.





I'm not talking the non boosting issue. Back in the day, pro was all about who had the most higher level dots.

Originally posted by Team Nucleus
Never made sense why it was switched before even when everyone was against it in the 1st place.
Save GLB

At least all of the nonboosters and SSBs were against it.

I'm really not for going back to the old way (level based)... but I'm also of a mind that going only age based also isn't right. There should be a way to incorporate both into figuring out how to keep the teams competitive while allowing for nonboosters and such to be a vital part of the game as well. So I vote -1 to the OP... but only because it doesn't really fix things right. The answer is to have a better system which uses everything smartly.