Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I'm gonna disagree here for this reason. As it is now, should you suddenly find you need to retire/recycle a dot BEFORE it is finished, you get back 70% of the flex you put into it. If you made it your way then if you had the exact same issue, you would lose (theoretically) more flex value. Example; Paid for dot. Reached level 79... then decline. Full value for flex spent. OR... Paid for dot. Reached level 18. Team sold. Couldn't find new team. Retired early to build new dots. Very little value for flex spent.

70% works fine as it is. IMHO.

Call me stupid Theo but maybe I just am not understanding why you disagree.Wise is saying to drop off the 70% return on when you retire a dot so it would make a dot less expensive to build right off the bat.
Say you build a 100 flex dot then when it comes time to retire whether it hits level 79 or not you get 70% flex back
so cost of dot 100 flex pts for each boost x30 boosts = 3000 flex pts
so now say they do away with the 70% return on flex but just lower the cost.
new cost of dot without 70% return 30 flex points each boost x 30=900 flex points
If the 70% return was taken off from the start you would of never paid for it.
Am I reading your post correctly?

Can we all at least agree that 60% of the time it works every time?

https://youtu.be/5ccp-lEmoAE

Originally posted by Bluesman
Call me stupid Theo but maybe I just am not understanding why you disagree.Wise is saying to drop off the 70% return on when you retire a dot so it would make a dot less expensive to build right off the bat.
Say you build a 100 flex dot then when it comes time to retire whether it hits level 79 or not you get 70% flex back
so cost of dot 100 flex pts for each boost x30 boosts = 3000 flex pts
so now say they do away with the 70% return on flex but just lower the cost.
new cost of dot without 70% return 30 flex points each boost x 30=900 flex points
If the 70% return was taken off from the start you would of never paid for it.
Am I reading your post correctly?

But if you retired/recycled early then it wouldn't be 70% then... would it.

So... think of it like this;
You pay for your cell phone. Some make you sign long term contracts... some don't.
The way we do dots is like Consumer Celluar. We pay as we go along and, bonus, when we 'cancel' our service, we get 70% of all we invested back!
The way Wise wants to do it is like AT&T. Buy a 'contract' for the FULL EXPECTED life of a dot. If you KEEP the dot for the duration of the contract, you get FULL VALUE for what you paid... so you actually get the same 70% in the end. BUT... if for ANY REASON... you cancel the contract early... you get NO refund... which means you paid for a long term contract but only got one (or more) season out of it. Expensive that way. No 70% return on investment.
TBPH, most people keep their dots from beginning to end... if they can help it. But some... faced with sticking them on CPU or D-League teams, simply recycle. I don't... but I have when it was a Free Dot (which doesn't apply in this case).
I'm not against Wise's IDEA... but against the way he's wanting it done. Now... if we can still get FULL VALUE returned... no matter when we recycle a dot... then I'm down for it.

Originally posted by blackrock
Is the obvious answer to just double training points and XP?

Four seasons to Plateau instead of seven. Increase to six boosts per season (and cut the price in half to keep costs the same!). New accelerated dots would be a bit better - equivalent to an extra season under the current system. Max level would be 80 something I guess?

I'm sure there are some minor things that would need tweaking but this seems like a straightforward fix that would speed up builds while keeping the general build process.

This is certainly the most straightforward and "painless" method if everyone is truly in love with the player building for the most part as is, since all your math still works out just twice as fast (or 2.7x or whatever) and interfaces would still work the same as you are used to.

The main thing I want to accomplish with this update is shortening the overall length of time it takes to reach the veteran part of the player's career. The middle ranks of leagues are clearly not so fun or take too long to slog through, since that's where teams start to drop off and reset or quit.

There would be some things to figure out with this method, of course, such as new age caps for the various things like plateau or when you get veteran points, the amount of training points you can bank, etc.

This is certainly also the time to discuss pricing structure, if we wanted to reduce the upfront cost and have less refund %. GLB2 for instance gives you 30% back but costs about a third of GLB1 and it works ok I think.

Originally posted by blackrock
Is the obvious answer to just double training points and XP?

Four seasons to Plateau instead of seven. Increase to six boosts per season (and cut the price in half to keep costs the same!). New accelerated dots would be a bit better - equivalent to an extra season under the current system. Max level would be 80 something I guess?

I'm sure there are some minor things that would need tweaking but this seems like a straightforward fix that would speed up builds while keeping the general build process.

This would seem to be the best option if workable....retain the building side of dot creation but just speed up the aging process.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
But if you retired/recycled early then it wouldn't be 70% then... would it.

So... think of it like this;
You pay for your cell phone. Some make you sign long term contracts... some don't.
The way we do dots is like Consumer Celluar. We pay as we go along and, bonus, when we 'cancel' our service, we get 70% of all we invested back!
The way Wise wants to do it is like AT&T. Buy a 'contract' for the FULL EXPECTED life of a dot. If you KEEP the dot for the duration of the contract, you get FULL VALUE for what you paid... so you actually get the same 70% in the end. BUT... if for ANY REASON... you cancel the contract early... you get NO refund... which means you paid for a long term contract but only got one (or more) season out of it. Expensive that way. No 70% return on investment.
TBPH, most people keep their dots from beginning to end... if they can help it. But some... faced with sticking them on CPU or D-League teams, simply recycle. I don't... but I have when it was a Free Dot (which doesn't apply in this case).
I'm not against Wise's IDEA... but against the way he's wanting it done. Now... if we can still get FULL VALUE returned... no matter when we recycle a dot... then I'm down for it.

Ok I get what you are saying, I just wasn't thinking that way as what wise posted. I was thinking you just pay for the dot as you go along . For example you create a dot cost certain amount of flex, boost first season pay for the boosts and so on each season. That way you only pay for the dot as long as you keep it. Would be unfair for those that don't keep the dot full cycle to pay for everything up front.

Originally posted by blackrock
Is the obvious answer to just double training points and XP?

Four seasons to Plateau instead of seven. Increase to six boosts per season (and cut the price in half to keep costs the same!). New accelerated dots would be a bit better - equivalent to an extra season under the current system. Max level would be 80 something I guess?

I'm sure there are some minor things that would need tweaking but this seems like a straightforward fix that would speed up builds while keeping the general build process.

Originally posted by Bort
This is certainly the most straightforward and "painless" method if everyone is truly in love with the player building for the most part as is, since all your math still works out just twice as fast (or 2.7x or whatever) and interfaces would still work the same as you are used to.

The main thing I want to accomplish with this update is shortening the overall length of time it takes to reach the veteran part of the player's career. The middle ranks of leagues are clearly not so fun or take too long to slog through, since that's where teams start to drop off and reset or quit.

There would be some things to figure out with this method, of course, such as new age caps for the various things like plateau or when you get veteran points, the amount of training points you can bank, etc.

If this is painless method to shorten the season it could be the best option for you to do. Myself I would like to see only 3 seasons of building to plateau instead of 4 though.

I like the idea of using a vbp to build a dot also though.

Fwiw Theo, Blue is correct that the only thing I mentioned in this thread (which isn't really detailing player pricing structure) was that the user base clearly benefits from a 0% refund with a 70% reduction to upfront dot build/boost cost.

While I appreciate you, the rest of your posts assumes things I didn't mean.

Though if the vpb method is hypothetically used, it'll be important for a portion of total dot cost to be "up front" rather than within boosts. I don't think people building dots they plan to give up on and retire before plateau (especially if we had a 3 season build cycle) should be a real consideration to anything or anyone.

Originally posted by Bort
This is certainly the most straightforward and "painless" method if everyone is truly in love with the player building for the most part as is, since all your math still works out just twice as fast (or 2.7x or whatever) and interfaces would still work the same as you are used to.

The main thing I want to accomplish with this update is shortening the overall length of time it takes to reach the veteran part of the player's career. The middle ranks of leagues are clearly not so fun or take too long to slog through, since that's where teams start to drop off and reset or quit.

There would be some things to figure out with this method, of course, such as new age caps for the various things like plateau or when you get veteran points, the amount of training points you can bank, etc.
This provides the continued variety in builds (everyone likes to say everyone builds the same but there is certainly a discrepancy out there) and shortens the time to plateau. +1. The life cycle of a dot is shorter but the plateau seasons stay the same, which is what most care about anyway. And I don't know this but it seems like it would be possible/easy to implement players built in s99 into the system.

Originally posted by drewd21
This would seem to be the best option if workable....retain the building side of dot creation but just speed up the aging process.


+1

Originally posted by drewd21
This would seem to be the best option if workable....retain the building side of dot creation but just speed up the aging process.


The absolute best of both worlds. And I think it would be widely accepted by the user base, which accounts for something as well.

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Fwiw Theo, Blue is correct that the only thing I mentioned in this thread (which isn't really detailing player pricing structure) was that the user base clearly benefits from a 0% refund with a 70% reduction to upfront dot build/boost cost.

While I appreciate you, the rest of your posts assumes things I didn't mean.

Though if the vpb method is hypothetically used, it'll be important for a portion of total dot cost to be "up front" rather than within boosts. I don't think people building dots they plan to give up on and retire before plateau (especially if we had a 3 season build cycle) should be a real consideration to anything or anyone.


Ah. Sorry Just the way it (your post) read to me. Bort's reply here...

Originally posted by Bort
This is certainly also the time to discuss pricing structure, if we wanted to reduce the upfront cost and have less refund %. GLB2 for instance gives you 30% back but costs about a third of GLB1 and it works ok I think.

... isn't too bad and I think, if I get what you're saying, is in line with your post? If so then, yeah. I could go along with something like that.
One thing to consider though, before we get all 'lets change things' happy, is what changes that have already made. If I'm correct with my old brain, Bort mentioned a longer plateau for players? If true then that also should factor into any price/cost changes as it effects the mentality of the dot builder. Recycling players is how the game kept going for all these years. Maybe lowering the cost but reducing the (flex) return has unintended consequences? Again... we seem to be in a rush to change everything. I'm simply saying maybe taking a breath, watching a season, fixing bugs and THINKING long about big changes is the "Wise" approach. (see what I did there?) I mean, I'm not against change... just against change simply for the sake of change. Change should be positive... not sideways or down.

Originally posted by Bort
This is certainly also the time to discuss pricing structure, if we wanted to reduce the upfront cost and have less refund %. GLB2 for instance gives you 30% back but costs about a third of GLB1 and it works ok I think.


current dots 100, 200 and 300 with 70% return
future dots 50, 100, 150 with 30% return

id like to see that happen.


id also like to see the build process shortened.

more like freshman league, junior varsity league, varsity league and college as the build up to plateau.
then once fully developed plateau dots fill semi pro and pro leagues.

If it isn't (completely) broke, don't fix it. I think shortening the amount of time from the beginning to PROS as Bort talked about above really makes a ton of sense. Easy to roll out with minimal issues emerging which would be a win.

COST CHANGES THAT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE

1. Only two price points for DOTS (50 for tier 1 and 100 for tier 2). Elimination of the third tier altogether. Perhaps a 20% refund when dots are retired to reward some loyalty.
2. Lowering the cost of creating dots will ultimately result in more DOTS and more teams IMO
3. Slightly lower the cost of ownership to keep more teams floating around.

KICKERS, PUNTERS, OL, DL 50 points
ALL OTHER DOTS 100 points


As far as ownership, maybe trim 25% off the initial and yearly cost.

To make the game really thrive, we need to fill up the leagues in every tier of play.

Whatever happens, I am on board. Nice to see some life breathed into this game that came out back in the days of Commodore 64