(08-12-2019, 02:50 PM)timeconsumer Wrote:Removing the position entirely has been on the table many times. It was even on the table way back when we did the OL bot implementation back before season 4. The reason why is that we could never really gain any consensus among GMs and HOs about it to pass a vote. Democracy is like that sometimes.

Y'all got what, 10ish OL in this draft right now? Here's my proposal: Stay Active. You'll be better in the DSFL no matter what cause DSFL OL are garbage. If y'all can earn so much as 350 TPE you're already good enough to start in the NSFL because you provide a very nice boost over the 350 TPE tier OL bots.

But as it stands trying to require teams all carry one OL when there are 10 teams and 10 OL to choose from when we all know the odds of any player at any position staying active even to the NSFL draft are about 50% is something that will never pass.

If we get to the point where we see a sustained supply of player OL then we have a chance to find a way to help its growth.

(08-12-2019, 01:37 PM)caltroit_red_flames Wrote:There is talk of upgrading the sim at some point because of the issue with keys not being sold anymore right? I wonder if things could be changed up a little during the migration.

In any case I agree, you guys have done a great job with what you've been given.

Wait, I mean GIVE US A FAIR RUB

(08-12-2019, 01:41 PM)caltroit_red_flames Wrote:I wish all GMs knew that, hopefully this class changes some views on this.

(08-12-2019, 04:31 PM)Quigonginger Wrote:Now we're talking. If we stay active, grow our numbers, AND get some broader popular support, you do think my proposal, phased-in slowly (over 2-3 seasons, players retiring/remaking know that it's coming and GMs can prepare) is reasonable? Say 5 stick to it and get big, a couple switch over (or a couple more switch in than out) from another position due to having a virtually guaranteed NSFL spot from somewhere more competitive. Most teams would have solid options at that point, a few would need to reach.

If our discord dies and everyone goes inactive then yes i'm 100% wrong. I can admit that. But dangle a carrot for a few seasons and I would bet well over half the teams would have at least a serviceable option, easily. We'd have new rivalries with DL and OL too.

(08-12-2019, 04:35 PM)BWIII Wrote:almost all GMs (at least in NSFL) do know that, this class doesn't change view on it

(08-12-2019, 04:34 PM)BWIII Wrote:No there is no key issue as we have our ways.  The only way we would be changing enginges/games is if DDSPF actually put in the upgrades/whatever ADwyer was talking with one of the devs about..........but early reviews are pointing towards none of it being in so looks like there will be no upgrade for the forseeable future

(08-12-2019, 02:44 PM)caltroit_red_flames Wrote:

NSFL GM

(08-12-2019, 02:31 PM)Quigonginger Wrote:Now we're talking. If we stay active, grow our numbers, AND get some broader popular support, you do think my proposal, phased-in slowly (over 2-3 seasons, players retiring/remaking know that it's coming and GMs can prepare) is reasonable? Say 5 stick to it and get big, a couple switch over (or a couple more switch in than out) from another position due to having a virtually guaranteed NSFL spot from somewhere more competitive. Most teams would have solid options at that point, a few would need to reach.

If our discord dies and everyone goes inactive then yes i'm 100% wrong. I can admit that. But dangle a carrot for a few seasons and I would bet well over half the teams would have at least a serviceable option, easily. We'd have new rivalries with DL and OL too.

(08-12-2019, 03:41 PM)caltroit_red_flames Wrote:I feel like we already have some OL/DL rivalries tbh and the first game hasn't even been played

(08-12-2019, 03:49 PM)BWIII Wrote:I'd say it might be possible in the future, but we're seasons away from even starting that kind of phase in.  The problem you're facing with such a rule would be we have no sustained success of active user OL, so for me to see such a rule passing we'd have to see a sustained flow of incoming user OL, because we need 10 active user OL to even meet that 1st phase in year requirement.  Then we'd need to be able to confidently replace the 1 user OL with another active, I don't think GMs would agree to a rule that pigeonholes them into having to retire/recreate as an OL to meet said minimum.