Warrior General Games

Franchise has been absolutely amazing! Thank you Bort & Co. for implementing the idea.

However, after dabbling with Franchises for 3 seasons now, I've realised that it's become more of a single-coach experience. Some relish the idea of having total control and Franchise is perfect for them.

Others, like me, find it very taxing to run both offense and defense, as well as dot build. Pre-Franchise era had collaborations where agents would chip in to an idea. Old QPR had me and Dolemyte working together with great success, I focused on Offense, and Dolemyte on D - we shared ideas on a speedy zone defense and it worked.

I plan on building a team with another agent, who for a long time had conversations about what we'd like to do. But if it's my team only, then where's his credit? Also, if we both decide to take care of one side of the ball, then there's less time taken on dot building (not my favourite part of the game, but I know I'm in the minority).

Perhaps Co-Ownership might bring some of that collaboration spark back?

Pricing doesn't have to be a straight-up 50% discount compared to a sole Franchise owner. Maybe 40% cheaper per Co-Owner?

You can still coach for a franchise just not build dots

I do agree splitting duties would be great as i suggested from the start

specifically this would split the cost and truly allow for more team up as one guy controls all dots on side of the ball. not against it.

Originally posted by dredgar
specifically this would split the cost and truly allow for more team up as one guy controls all dots on side of the ball. not against it.

yup, I don't think it should be allowed to be split more than 2 people. Off/Def

edit: otherwise bort is just making the game cheaper in general haha

Yeah franchises are downright amazing, but I will say there were a handful of agents that for the most part only really played this game if it was making players for my team specifically. (Ya577, Unique4, rbonjer, legojedi99, Treckl, ect) A Few agents had other interaction but being part of my teams was the majority of the game for them (Growing victory, KCook58, GhostDelta, suske 127, and others). These were not my alt accounts. These were real people that alone weren't necessarily the best coaches but would come together and make my teams pretty damn good.

Since I'd try to get everyone a coaching position on the team it created a real sense of investment for the agents involved. Nowadays you get a coaching invite and it's like "yeah whatever" but for these more casual players having the success of the team your players are on contribute to your coaching record was huge. Few of them had never been part of a "good" team, or even had a coaching record prior to joining. This is also why my player building knowledge is suspiciously bad for someone who's been playing for so long. I wasn't day to day building many of the players. Winning championships with my old teams was a crazy feeling because it meant I got to bring championship rings to players who individually otherwise wouldn't have gotten them. Myself included.

Very weird to see people who started the game 6 months ago in the discord trying to learn the entire ownership process. TyDavis315 made a post earlier this month about how his friend Sperrythekid was having struggles with the game. Had he been a year earlier Sperry probably would've been a good fit for one of my teams. Maybe I should go back to making teams the old fashioned way just so the more casual players have a home.

Originally posted by 4chanCitizen
Maybe I should go back to making teams the old fashioned way just so the more casual players have a home.

There is nothing stopping you from doing this. You can still build the old way.

Originally posted by Cybertron
There is nothing stopping you from doing this. You can still build the old way.

The concept I had in mind was allowing 2+ agents to collab on a Franchise, it's the old way but with greater flexibility. Co-Owners can cut players, redevelop players, have the boosts and not be disadvantaged all the way to Vet vs regular Franchise.

Perhaps Co-Ownership is the wrong term, as I had an epiphany and posted on a spur of the moment.

An alternative concept: The Franchise Owner system remains in place at the usual full price, but the Owner has the option to grant specific GMs to build Franchise players, etc to which GLB2 will charge 60% say of the full price for the privilege of creating dots.

I dunno the maths, but I'm sure someone's done the number crunching to work out how many players can be made with 60% of 3200FP. I'm sure it's not much over the route to Veteran.

Originally posted by Cybertron
There is nothing stopping you from doing this. You can still build the old way.
Money time and effort are not “nothing”. I’m very happy with the Franchise feature. It is the by far superior method for team building because you can do it so easily by yourself.

Originally posted by Mango Fandango
The concept I had in mind was allowing 2+ agents to collab on a Franchise, it's the old way but with greater flexibility. Co-Owners can cut players, redevelop players, have the boosts and not be disadvantaged all the way to Vet vs regular Franchise.

Perhaps Co-Ownership is the wrong term, as I had an epiphany and posted on a spur of the moment.

An alternative concept: The Franchise Owner system remains in place at the usual full price, but the Owner has the option to grant specific GMs to build Franchise players, etc to which GLB2 will charge 60% say of the full price for the privilege of creating dots.

I dunno the maths, but I'm sure someone's done the number crunching to work out how many players can be made with 60% of 3200FP. I'm sure it's not much over the route to Veteran.

Don't complicate it. Just grant GM player creation powers for the team. If an owner wants to pay for the team but grant player creation power to a GM and split coaching duties let them.

Originally posted by HayRow
If an owner wants to pay for the team but grant player creation power to a GM and split coaching duties let them.

Granting player creation power to a GM, who doesn't pay for the privilege of making potentially 15-20 players for free, sounds like a fantastic idea. Not sure that it would sit well with Bort, though.

Originally posted by Mango Fandango
Granting player creation power to a GM, who doesn't pay for the privilege of making potentially 15-20 players for free, sounds like a fantastic idea. Not sure that it would sit well with Bort, though.

Why not, that privilege is already paid for by the owner.