Warrior General Games

Originally posted by masterpooh
I have plenty of FP's, I own my own players on my team and several others as well. But when my slowbuild lvl 28 Casual team is put in a max lvl 47 team, is this supposed to be parity?

Simple solution. Not spending another dime on this sight. When enough people see how this is creating an unstable, unbalanced and exclusionary model, then others will quit buying. When enough of us quit buying, then they will create a competitive solution.

Not allowing any player over max level would have been the correct solution. What they have now is a mess.

There wasn't supposed to be parity. The goal was to screw the non-boosters and slow builders. They did.

Originally posted by tpaterniti
Effective level is not better than age. Why does this horrible idea keep coming up? I have already shown in detail how sorting by current effective level would create the most exploitable league structure this game has ever seen, yes worse than non-boost teams and ssb teams. I showed how it was possible to get a level 68 player into an eff level capped 44 league who was way better than a normally built player at that cap. ?


You had an example that showed something virtually no one would be willing to do though, because it would mean having a boosting player built in an inefficient manner that plans to pwn lower leveled leagues 7 seasons down the road. It's one thing to wait patiently with a non-boosting player or to wait patiently as you boost while building for the highest levels of the game. It's something different to wait patiently while blowing your money to pwn a mid cap league several seasons down the road.

Originally posted by tpaterniti
Notice how I anticipated your reply and discredited it before you even posted it.

Actually, you didn't come close. All you did was show your own lack of critical thinking. Let's go through it step by step, shall we?

1) There is a lack of parity.
2) The effective level does not accurately show how good a player is, and in fact can be exploited to show quite the opposite.
3) Create a new metric that DOES show how good a player/team is.
4) Use that metric to define how teams are grouped together.

Why is that so complicated to you?

Originally posted by Rage Kinard

You had an example that showed something virtually no one would be willing to do though, because it would mean having a boosting player built in an inefficient manner that plans to pwn lower leveled leagues 7 seasons down the road. It's one thing to wait patiently with a non-boosting player or to wait patiently as you boost while building for the highest levels of the game. It's something different to wait patiently while blowing your money to pwn a mid cap league several seasons down the road.




He completely doesn't get it. He's in a position of power here.

That kind of sums up all the problems of the game in a nutshell.

The real solution would be a true "effective level" metric that worked. What they should do is shuffle all the leagues every night of the offseason. The day before the first game of the season, lock all the rosters. Hell, have every team SIM every other team in the league overnight, as well as several other teams from other leagues. Their success could define this "metric X". Move the worst ones to another league and the best ones to a better league, do it every night.

Sort by metric X, then by age.

If they want parity, that would work. It may or may not be perfect, but locking the rosters before the first regular season game would keep lots of people from gaming it, and it would be a lot better than the mess they have now.

0 cares. What matters is GLB can sell more flex ... oh wait

Originally posted by James Buchanan
Actually, you didn't come close. All you did was show your own lack of critical thinking. Let's go through it step by step, shall we?

1) There is a lack of parity.
2) The effective level does not accurately show how good a player is, and in fact can be exploited to show quite the opposite.
3) Create a new metric that DOES show how good a player/team is.
4) Use that metric to define how teams are grouped together.

Why is that so complicated to you?

This would have been correct, if they also penalised non-boosters for (1) their training advantage and (2) a bit more for not paying, so that boosting players at each level had an advantage over non-boosters. Then it would have worked out well.

day one of team sorting.

the crowd goes wild.

Originally posted by ryanshaw
This would have been correct, if they also penalised non-boosters for (1) their training advantage and (2) a bit more for not paying, so that boosting players at each level had an advantage over non-boosters. Then it would have worked out well.

I don't think that really matters so long as the boosters are competing against "equally leveled" non-boosters - that isn't to say level 40 boosters against level 40 non-boosters, but probably something like level 56 boosters against level 40 non-boosters.

The other option would be to group all the non-boosters together. This would have probably been the best solution, as you wouldn't have the non-boosters all quitting (who do pay flex for team ownership and player creation - look at my profile if you don't believe me) and the boosters wouldn't have had to lose to them at the lower levels.

Honestly, I think the owners of this game are panicking and don't know what to do to turn things around.

the sky is not falling

the bottom line will fall when people stop buying teams and playing. I don't spend tons on this game but I've been a team owner since S6 and I have a bunch of players that I've bought CE for. When I quit and 3 or 4 of my friends quit it will be felt no matter how little is spent.

Originally posted by James Buchanan
I don't think that really matters so long as the boosters are competing against "equally leveled" non-boosters - that isn't to say level 40 boosters against level 40 non-boosters, but probably something like level 56 boosters against level 40 non-boosters.

The other option would be to group all the non-boosters together. This would have probably been the best solution, as you wouldn't have the non-boosters all quitting (who do pay flex for team ownership and player creation - look at my profile if you don't believe me) and the boosters wouldn't have had to lose to them at the lower levels.

Honestly, I think the owners of this game are panicking and don't know what to do to turn things around.

Player A spends X dollars in flex. He gets to have 20 players he boost throughout their career in order to stay competitive.

Player B also spends X dollars in flex but gets to have 50 players that he doesn't have to boost and still be competitive throughout their career.

This is what you are asking for and don't see a problem with it?

Originally posted by tordman
Player A spends X dollars in flex. He gets to have 20 players he boost throughout their career in order to stay competitive.

Player B also spends X dollars in flex but gets to have 50 players that he doesn't have to boost and still be competitive throughout their career.

This is what you are asking for and don't see a problem with it?

Show me a team of player B that is competitive throughout their career?

Originally posted by tonylieu
Show me a team of player B that is competitive throughout their career?

There isn't and there shouldn't be. I'm just saying that it seems like this is what he is asking for.

What the base issue is and always has been was owners and agents manipulating the system by signing players to long term contracts, and when the teams moved up, the over-leveled players were allowed to stay on their squads. Therefore, (and I saw it happen) you could have a team in a Casual lvl 27 league with most, if not all of their players at lvl 30+, then jump on day 1 to 3 more levels. A few teams did this is season 17, however I was in a conference with a coupla other slow build teams with good chemistry and we all ended up doing rather well. In season 18, though, it cost all of us as we were moved up with these teams and were now several levels behind.

The solution to this disparity was a lot simpler than the mess they created. No team should have ANY players above the League level on day 1. AFTER day 1, you could boost, thereby guarenting the levels would be fairly close.

However, this solution was obviously too simple.