User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Just spent $38 for flex
Page:
 
Moretti
offline
Link
 
I think it would be fun to run a team with cpu players with set attributes that you can view. Before the season starts you get to draft a new team, like how a fantasy football team works, that way you dont have to worry as much about individual users and their players allocated to the team.

To me that would be interesting for a number of factors but it would make trading relevant and allow more teams to be competitive purely from the coordinating side of it.

Regarding flex cost I have been sitting on a large pile for a years now with little way to burn it all off without fear of having to purchase more between the return. I think from the consumer standpoint this was a horrible currency as the gave up on the game before I could get the return I intended. GLB2 is so far from what GLB1 is, regardless of perceived improvement or not, Im not sure why that was considered acceptable to stop development on smaller items that would improvement game enjoyability here. WGG has identified there is no knock out punch to improve GLB back to its heyday so all development was ceased instead of continuing to improve the product regardless of its overall effect.

 
Catullus16
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Yellow... hate to shoot down your idea but there's a big problem with you proposal from it's current point of view.
#1, flex costs are across board... meaning you purchase flex for ALL WG products not just this one. So changing the flex costs would hit not only here but all other GLB products as well.
#2, number 1 is important because that leaves only changing the COSTS here (for everything from dot purchase to equipment and boost costs). If WG went down this road, then they'd be creating a cheaper game here than in GLB2... which is their primary product now (sad, but true).


easy solution: cut flex costs in half for player creation/boosting/CE but only refund 50% after retirement

so normally you'd spend 10400 for a full glamour player and get 7370 back, which means that player cost you 3030
but now you could get two such players for the same investment and get 5350 back, which means each player cost you 2525 each

in other words, cheaper players overall even though glb is capturing more of the spent flex (5350>3030). also, an expanded talent pool should push team purchases, which would remain at full price.

thoughts?
 
Moretti
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Catullus16
easy solution: cut flex costs in half for player creation/boosting/CE but only refund 50% after retirement

so normally you'd spend 10400 for a full glamour player and get 7370 back, which means that player cost you 3030
but now you could get two such players for the same investment and get 5350 back, which means each player cost you 2525 each

in other words, cheaper players overall even though glb is capturing more of the spent flex (5350>3030). also, an expanded talent pool should push team purchases, which would remain at full price.

thoughts?


you could remove the flex refund all together and scale the initial cost down as well and that would probably be preferred....at the very least those of us with remaining flex could try and burn through it on a game we at least have enjoyed at one point....

i get they probably want to funnel users to other games to increase the activity relatively, but thats not what I bought flex for.

of course this is all just academic...they are not changing anything here..
 
Greywolfmeb
offline
Link
 
Omg? A whole 38 dollars? How will your family eat today?
 
Catullus16
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Moretti
you could remove the flex refund all together and scale the initial cost down as well and that would probably be preferred....


sure, although then once that flex is gone would you just leave?

avoiding that was most of the point behind the refund system in the first place.
 
SteveMax58
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Catullus16
sure, although then once that flex is gone would you just leave?

avoiding that was most of the point behind the refund system in the first place.


That's why creation and boosting should be about 25% of what it is now.

They don't have ads on this site, so there is no benefit to having people hang around who aren't spending money. Other than some wishful thinking that if somebody hangs around long enough and recycles enough flex....maybe, just maybe they will need to spend $38 like Yello and pay for the last few boosts.

I've said it before....GLB is more interesting when you have more dots. The cheaper you make them, the more people will make. The more they make, the more interest they have and the more competitive leagues will be.
 
5STAR
offline
Link
 
What is wrong with the economy?
 
Mike Martz
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Greywolfmeb
Omg? A whole 38 dollars? How will your family eat today?


Is that question to Yello or Bort?
 
Theo Wizzago
Coyote
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by yello1
Point one is well made.

I guess point two would be a question of how well GLB2 is working for them, and how likely a cross over would be.

I suspect the latter is not so much.

Because in point of fact GLB1 is already cheaper than GLB2.

The lack of flex refund alone makes it so.


Originally posted by Catullus16
easy solution: cut flex costs in half for player creation/boosting/CE but only refund 50% after retirement

so normally you'd spend 10400 for a full glamour player and get 7370 back, which means that player cost you 3030
but now you could get two such players for the same investment and get 5350 back, which means each player cost you 2525 each

in other words, cheaper players overall even though glb is capturing more of the spent flex (5350>3030). also, an expanded talent pool should push team purchases, which would remain at full price.

thoughts?


Thoughts are simple. As posted before, WG's baby... #1 love and only thing in their sights is GLB2 (and future games). I don't think they even have much interest in MB anymore. I'm willing to bet that MB is a finished product that they'll support just as they do here... minimally... until it loses enough players that it's no longer financial feasible to keep it going. WG will not (and... although it pains me to say it... I agree with the business decision) make this game CHEAPER than GLB2 in any way. It would be rather stupid to have an old game now compete (and quite possibly win) for users away from their flagship game. As long as there are enough people here playing, GBL original will keep going... no changes or much of anything but occasional fixes to issues and bugs. If we get a few things in the suggestion box implemented, then we should hold a damned party but also realize it happened because it helps BOTH games and not just this one.

I do believe there is validation to simply purchasing a 'membership' package rather than the piecemeal setup they now have. I've played on a few other online games that used that approach and found it highly effective. You could purchase various 'packages' (Gold, Silver, Platinum, ect, ect.) that lasted a year for a set amount. Each level gave you certain perks and abilities within the game. (such as league ownership or team ownership or special scouting tools ect, ect, ect...). Discounts for purchasing multiple years also were available. Also, you could STILL purchase special 'points' (like we call Flex here) that let you do specific things within the game structure. Having a PLATINUM membership covered all that so you didn't have to purchase 'points'.. but cost more than a Gold or Silver (or other)... so if you purchased less than Platinum then being able to purchase 'points' allowed you access to those areas. Of course it was far more efficient to purchase the higher level packages... and the longer memberships... but not everyone can afford caviar. You could even play for free... but it would be highly restrictive (what leagues you could play... what information you could access... how much you could do and how much you could get involved with like team ownership). I'm sure it could be done here as well but then it becomes hard to implement without pissing off (or on) those of us that have paid the old way for so long.

 
5STAR
offline
Link
 
Holy shit put down the keyboard.

Cliff notes?
 
Link
 
Originally posted by 5STAR
Holy shit put down the keyboard.

Cliff notes?


He stated that the powers that be realize that NONE of the 3 games by themselves are stand-alone profit centers, and that they need to offer a "Membership" plan instead of pay-for-skill-points (which is more or less the current model). The "membership" model could still be TIERED, so that certain plans gave you only limited things and the higher level memberships gave you LOTS of things.
 
Sonic
offline
Link
 
I'm waiting for the Minecraft version of GLB payment to come out...
 
Catullus16
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by SteveMax58
That's why creation and boosting should be about 25% of what it is now.

They don't have ads on this site, so there is no benefit to having people hang around who aren't spending money. Other than some wishful thinking that if somebody hangs around long enough and recycles enough flex....maybe, just maybe they will need to spend $38 like Yello and pay for the last few boosts.

I've said it before....GLB is more interesting when you have more dots. The cheaper you make them, the more people will make. The more they make, the more interest they have and the more competitive leagues will be.


sure, i only said 50% to be conservative. someone skilled at financial projections and integer programming could tell you exactly where the discount should be. one thing to consider, though, is that computational cycles are very very cheap nowadays. assuming bort moved his architecture and did some optimization work, it shouldn't cost that much to run glb1 -- and the ratio of fixed costs to variable costs should be quite favorable.

so in terms of revenue extraction, the focus should be on increasing transaction size and transaction rate, but first you need transactions. meaning -- what is the configuration of pricing that will get glb1 players to open their wallets again, and then later open them more often and spend a little more each time? agreed that cheaper dots could snowball into a resurrection of activity, but there's also a point at which marginal demand hits zero and no one buys an additional dot no matter how cheap it is. would you spend your time managing a thousand dots? likely not. there is some sort of cap there.

at a minimum, i does seem time for warriorgeneral to experiment with discounts, even if just as temporary promotions. at this point, the challenge is to get people who haven't bought flex in years to whip out their paypal accounts again, even if just for the pop warner package.
 
TJ Spikes
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Catullus16
sure, i only said 50% to be conservative. someone skilled at financial projections and integer programming could tell you exactly where the discount should be. one thing to consider, though, is that computational cycles are very very cheap nowadays. assuming bort moved his architecture and did some optimization work, it shouldn't cost that much to run glb1 -- and the ratio of fixed costs to variable costs should be quite favorable.

so in terms of revenue extraction, the focus should be on increasing transaction size and transaction rate, but first you need transactions. meaning -- what is the configuration of pricing that will get glb1 players to open their wallets again, and then later open them more often and spend a little more each time? agreed that cheaper dots could snowball into a resurrection of activity, but there's also a point at which marginal demand hits zero and no one buys an additional dot no matter how cheap it is. would you spend your time managing a thousand dots? likely not. there is some sort of cap there.

at a minimum, i does seem time for warriorgeneral to experiment with discounts, even if just as temporary promotions. at this point, the challenge is to get people who haven't bought flex in years to whip out their paypal accounts again, even if just for the pop warner package.


They just did a premium account thing. Maybe they're still analyzing the data.
Realistically of the costs for players were cut in half, I'd probably make twice as many players. At the moment though, I have 0 and have no plans to buy any more flex until this game gets some kind of attention. I just took a 2 month break and got a lot of useful things done. I thought I was gone for good, but having a pile of unused flex hurts my soul a little too much it seems. Unfortunately I have 3 free players and no real desire or motivation to make more in the game's current state. ... It could take a while to burn this flex.

Edited by TJ Spikes on Apr 28, 2016 14:12:50
 
lexden11
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by TJ Spikes
They just did a premium account thing. Maybe they're still analyzing the data.
Realistically of the costs for players were cut in half, I'd probably make twice as many players. At the moment though, I have 0


You would make twice as many as 0.

I'm sure that will convince Bort to change his pricing structure.
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.