I love this thread so much.
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by anarchia12
What worries me is my team down the road...
I make 1/2 of the team and my brother the other 1/2. We move the team up to some level with this iteration of our players and get to some cap (or wherever) down the road. We've built up the stadium, have some cash, and now it is time for us to retire our players due to player decline. Our choices are to take our new Level 1 players and:
A) Demote and lose everything, but fit the "system"
OR
B) Stay in place and sell no tickets eventually and lose a section of the stadium each season until we get up to the level we need to be and become competitive
It seems to me that this really puts a dent in this play style. I would think he would want to keep those who are spending $100 a month to boost 1/2 a team in the game. I don't know what we would do in this scenario. It wouldn't be our fault at that point since we didn't ask for these players to decline and be forced to retire, but we are being forced to make a decision with a negative impact either way because of the game rules.
It would absolutely be your fault at that point. The mistake that OWNER after owner makes in this thread is that they can't bring themselves to seperate the task of "agent" from "owner". Its fine that you created players--that's what "agents" do. But OWNERS are responsible for the well-being of the TEAM. If you can't bring yourself to plan for the future of the TEAM when you know in advance that decline is part of the game, you're failing as an OWNER no matter how good of an "agent" you are.
What worries me is my team down the road...
I make 1/2 of the team and my brother the other 1/2. We move the team up to some level with this iteration of our players and get to some cap (or wherever) down the road. We've built up the stadium, have some cash, and now it is time for us to retire our players due to player decline. Our choices are to take our new Level 1 players and:
A) Demote and lose everything, but fit the "system"
OR
B) Stay in place and sell no tickets eventually and lose a section of the stadium each season until we get up to the level we need to be and become competitive
It seems to me that this really puts a dent in this play style. I would think he would want to keep those who are spending $100 a month to boost 1/2 a team in the game. I don't know what we would do in this scenario. It wouldn't be our fault at that point since we didn't ask for these players to decline and be forced to retire, but we are being forced to make a decision with a negative impact either way because of the game rules.
It would absolutely be your fault at that point. The mistake that OWNER after owner makes in this thread is that they can't bring themselves to seperate the task of "agent" from "owner". Its fine that you created players--that's what "agents" do. But OWNERS are responsible for the well-being of the TEAM. If you can't bring yourself to plan for the future of the TEAM when you know in advance that decline is part of the game, you're failing as an OWNER no matter how good of an "agent" you are.
GranpaQB
offline
offline
Originally posted by anarchia12
What worries me is my team down the road...
I make 1/2 of the team and my brother the other 1/2. We move the team up to some level with this iteration of our players and get to some cap (or wherever) down the road. We've built up the stadium, have some cash, and now it is time for us to retire our players due to player decline. Our choices are to take our new Level 1 players and:
A) Demote and lose everything, but fit the "system"
OR
B) Stay in place and sell no tickets eventually and lose a section of the stadium each season until we get up to the level we need to be and become competitive
It seems to me that this really puts a dent in this play style. I would think he would want to keep those who are spending $100 a month to boost 1/2 a team in the game. I don't know what we would do in this scenario. It wouldn't be our fault at that point since we didn't ask for these players to decline and be forced to retire, but we are being forced to make a decision with a negative impact either way because of the game rules.
I just can't see the incentive to be an owner any more under the new system? You spend seasons building a stadium, you get promoted, and when your team starts to decline where do you go from there?
1) Demote and start over? Are you kidding me?
2) Stick around where you are and tank a few seasons, hopefully not losing too much of your stadium?
Why be a long term owner?
What worries me is my team down the road...
I make 1/2 of the team and my brother the other 1/2. We move the team up to some level with this iteration of our players and get to some cap (or wherever) down the road. We've built up the stadium, have some cash, and now it is time for us to retire our players due to player decline. Our choices are to take our new Level 1 players and:
A) Demote and lose everything, but fit the "system"
OR
B) Stay in place and sell no tickets eventually and lose a section of the stadium each season until we get up to the level we need to be and become competitive
It seems to me that this really puts a dent in this play style. I would think he would want to keep those who are spending $100 a month to boost 1/2 a team in the game. I don't know what we would do in this scenario. It wouldn't be our fault at that point since we didn't ask for these players to decline and be forced to retire, but we are being forced to make a decision with a negative impact either way because of the game rules.
I just can't see the incentive to be an owner any more under the new system? You spend seasons building a stadium, you get promoted, and when your team starts to decline where do you go from there?
1) Demote and start over? Are you kidding me?
2) Stick around where you are and tank a few seasons, hopefully not losing too much of your stadium?
Why be a long term owner?
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by GranpaQB
Originally posted by anarchia12
What worries me is my team down the road...
I make 1/2 of the team and my brother the other 1/2. We move the team up to some level with this iteration of our players and get to some cap (or wherever) down the road. We've built up the stadium, have some cash, and now it is time for us to retire our players due to player decline. Our choices are to take our new Level 1 players and:
A) Demote and lose everything, but fit the "system"
OR
B) Stay in place and sell no tickets eventually and lose a section of the stadium each season until we get up to the level we need to be and become competitive
It seems to me that this really puts a dent in this play style. I would think he would want to keep those who are spending $100 a month to boost 1/2 a team in the game. I don't know what we would do in this scenario. It wouldn't be our fault at that point since we didn't ask for these players to decline and be forced to retire, but we are being forced to make a decision with a negative impact either way because of the game rules.
I just can't see the incentive to be an owner any more under the new system? You spend seasons building a stadium, you get promoted, and when your team starts to decline where do you go from there?
1) Demote and start over? Are you kidding me?
2) Stick around where you are and tank a few seasons, hopefully not losing too much of your stadium?
Why be a long term owner?
If you've been told in advance that players decline and yet can't be bothered to figure out how to deal with that, I'd say you're not ready to be an owner.
Building players =/= being a team owner.
Originally posted by anarchia12
What worries me is my team down the road...
I make 1/2 of the team and my brother the other 1/2. We move the team up to some level with this iteration of our players and get to some cap (or wherever) down the road. We've built up the stadium, have some cash, and now it is time for us to retire our players due to player decline. Our choices are to take our new Level 1 players and:
A) Demote and lose everything, but fit the "system"
OR
B) Stay in place and sell no tickets eventually and lose a section of the stadium each season until we get up to the level we need to be and become competitive
It seems to me that this really puts a dent in this play style. I would think he would want to keep those who are spending $100 a month to boost 1/2 a team in the game. I don't know what we would do in this scenario. It wouldn't be our fault at that point since we didn't ask for these players to decline and be forced to retire, but we are being forced to make a decision with a negative impact either way because of the game rules.
I just can't see the incentive to be an owner any more under the new system? You spend seasons building a stadium, you get promoted, and when your team starts to decline where do you go from there?
1) Demote and start over? Are you kidding me?
2) Stick around where you are and tank a few seasons, hopefully not losing too much of your stadium?
Why be a long term owner?
If you've been told in advance that players decline and yet can't be bothered to figure out how to deal with that, I'd say you're not ready to be an owner.
Building players =/= being a team owner.
carumba10
offline
offline
Withholding judgement until I see what they are going to do with EQ. I will not pay my own cash to maximize my players to be told EQ isn't available because team doesn't have enough money.
Shayde
offline
offline
Honestly, if you can't keep what your hard work and flex went into building, I don't see any reason to spend another dime in Flex.
tonylieu
offline
offline
Originally posted by Shayde
Honestly, if you can't keep what your hard work and flex went into building, I don't see any reason to spend another dime in Flex.
that's a concept (common in MMO) that for some difficult to comprehend.
Honestly, if you can't keep what your hard work and flex went into building, I don't see any reason to spend another dime in Flex.
that's a concept (common in MMO) that for some difficult to comprehend.
pottsman
offline
offline
Originally posted by GranpaQB
I just can't see the incentive to be an owner any more under the new system? You spend seasons building a stadium, you get promoted, and when your team starts to decline where do you go from there?
1) Demote and start over? Are you kidding me?
2) Stick around where you are and tank a few seasons, hopefully not losing too much of your stadium?
3) Recruit a new team of players and then slowly replace them. Like real football team owners do. Like http://goallineblitz.com/game/league.pl?league_id=280 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=149 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/league.pl?league_id=280 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=208 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=1509 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=486 or any other season 1 team still in existence.
I just can't see the incentive to be an owner any more under the new system? You spend seasons building a stadium, you get promoted, and when your team starts to decline where do you go from there?
1) Demote and start over? Are you kidding me?
2) Stick around where you are and tank a few seasons, hopefully not losing too much of your stadium?
3) Recruit a new team of players and then slowly replace them. Like real football team owners do. Like http://goallineblitz.com/game/league.pl?league_id=280 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=149 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/league.pl?league_id=280 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=208 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=1509 or http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=486 or any other season 1 team still in existence.
anarchia12
offline
offline
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
If you've been told in advance that players decline and yet can't be bothered to figure out how to deal with that, I'd say you're not ready to be an owner.
Building players =/= being a team owner.
That may be, but now you are forcing me to play in a way that I may not want to. And this echoes with other people mentioning that what is the point long term of being a team owner. I've been allowed to play this way in the past and now I'm not?
And to be fair, maybe this isn't the game that I need to invest my time and money into. But, remember, if hundreds of people just like me who are spending a hundred or more dollars a month to play this way dry up and decide the same thing it affects everyone. Less money into the game means less money for bandwidth, server improvements, and the like. Less money into the game is never a good thing for the long term health and viability of the game, which will affect everyone who enjoys the game.
Be careful what you wish for...
Of course, I shouldn't be surprised with comments like this coming from someone who doesn't even OWN a team and only had 5 players. We aren't exactly the same type of GLB player with the same needs or concerns.
If you've been told in advance that players decline and yet can't be bothered to figure out how to deal with that, I'd say you're not ready to be an owner.
Building players =/= being a team owner.
That may be, but now you are forcing me to play in a way that I may not want to. And this echoes with other people mentioning that what is the point long term of being a team owner. I've been allowed to play this way in the past and now I'm not?
And to be fair, maybe this isn't the game that I need to invest my time and money into. But, remember, if hundreds of people just like me who are spending a hundred or more dollars a month to play this way dry up and decide the same thing it affects everyone. Less money into the game means less money for bandwidth, server improvements, and the like. Less money into the game is never a good thing for the long term health and viability of the game, which will affect everyone who enjoys the game.
Be careful what you wish for...
Of course, I shouldn't be surprised with comments like this coming from someone who doesn't even OWN a team and only had 5 players. We aren't exactly the same type of GLB player with the same needs or concerns.
Shayde
offline
offline
Originally posted by tonylieu
that's a concept (common in MMO) that for some difficult to comprehend.
Yeah, let's call it the Star Wars Galaxies method of MMO management.
that's a concept (common in MMO) that for some difficult to comprehend.
Yeah, let's call it the Star Wars Galaxies method of MMO management.
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by anarchia12
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
If you've been told in advance that players decline and yet can't be bothered to figure out how to deal with that, I'd say you're not ready to be an owner.
Building players =/= being a team owner.
That may be, but now you are forcing me to play in a way that I may not want to. And this echoes with other people mentioning that what is the point long term of being a team owner. I've been allowed to play this way in the past and now I'm not?
Minors Lv 34 #6 (Zeta Conference)
Record: 2-7-0 (12th place)
Likely Cap Next Season: Lv38
Cash: $101,472,884.00
Owned by anarchia12
Total Player Count: 55 (Avg Lv 7)
Avg Player Value: 227.62 (Effective Lv 7)
You could easily serve as the poster child for why these changes had to be made. You have no business in a level 34 league. Further, had you correctly dropped down to the appropriate league for your roster, you'd have no business having $101 million dollars and a fully completed stadium when competing against teams that don't have that.
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
If you've been told in advance that players decline and yet can't be bothered to figure out how to deal with that, I'd say you're not ready to be an owner.
Building players =/= being a team owner.
That may be, but now you are forcing me to play in a way that I may not want to. And this echoes with other people mentioning that what is the point long term of being a team owner. I've been allowed to play this way in the past and now I'm not?
Minors Lv 34 #6 (Zeta Conference)
Record: 2-7-0 (12th place)
Likely Cap Next Season: Lv38
Cash: $101,472,884.00
Owned by anarchia12
Total Player Count: 55 (Avg Lv 7)
Avg Player Value: 227.62 (Effective Lv 7)
You could easily serve as the poster child for why these changes had to be made. You have no business in a level 34 league. Further, had you correctly dropped down to the appropriate league for your roster, you'd have no business having $101 million dollars and a fully completed stadium when competing against teams that don't have that.
Edited by Larry Roadgrader on Feb 25, 2010 10:59:12
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by pottsman
3) Recruit a new team of players and then slowly replace them.
So the only way you get to play with your own players or with a group of friends is if you and they create multiple waves of players. It still makes no sense to punish people who just want to keep playing with the same group of people they've been playing with.
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
when competing against teams that don't have that.
Will you please just stop whining incessantly about this? Teams don't have equal resources. They never have and they never will. Most people can't compete with tautology's flex purchases or w_alloy's knowledge of builds. Compared to those things, a stadium advantage is ridiculously trivial. This whole crusade to make everyone equal is a fool's pursuit that can never be achieved, but is being used as an excuse to carry out otherwise nonsensical changes.
3) Recruit a new team of players and then slowly replace them.
So the only way you get to play with your own players or with a group of friends is if you and they create multiple waves of players. It still makes no sense to punish people who just want to keep playing with the same group of people they've been playing with.
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
when competing against teams that don't have that.
Will you please just stop whining incessantly about this? Teams don't have equal resources. They never have and they never will. Most people can't compete with tautology's flex purchases or w_alloy's knowledge of builds. Compared to those things, a stadium advantage is ridiculously trivial. This whole crusade to make everyone equal is a fool's pursuit that can never be achieved, but is being used as an excuse to carry out otherwise nonsensical changes.
Edited by jdbolick on Feb 25, 2010 11:01:28
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
So the only way you get to play with your own players or with a group of friends is if you and they create multiple waves of players. It still makes no sense to punish people who just want to keep playing with the same group of people they've been playing with.
Who's punishing anyone? You can play with that group of friends for as long as you like. You're just no longer allowed to hang onto cash and stadiums unless you and your group of friends can manage to stay competitive and resist the urge to "start over".
So the only way you get to play with your own players or with a group of friends is if you and they create multiple waves of players. It still makes no sense to punish people who just want to keep playing with the same group of people they've been playing with.
Who's punishing anyone? You can play with that group of friends for as long as you like. You're just no longer allowed to hang onto cash and stadiums unless you and your group of friends can manage to stay competitive and resist the urge to "start over".
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
when competing against teams that don't have that.
Will you please just stop whining incessantly about this? Teams don't have equal resources. They never have and they never will. Most people can't compete with tautology's flex purchases or w_alloy's knowledge of builds.
Knowledge is transferable, whether one "starts over" or remains competitive where they're at. But stadiums and cash are no longer transferable when one decides to "start over". There's nothing more to it than that.
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
when competing against teams that don't have that.
Will you please just stop whining incessantly about this? Teams don't have equal resources. They never have and they never will. Most people can't compete with tautology's flex purchases or w_alloy's knowledge of builds.
Knowledge is transferable, whether one "starts over" or remains competitive where they're at. But stadiums and cash are no longer transferable when one decides to "start over". There's nothing more to it than that.
Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by pottsman
3) Recruit a new team of players and then slowly replace them.
So the only way you get to play with your own players or with a group of friends is if you and they create multiple waves of players. It still makes no sense to punish people who just want to keep playing with the same group of people they've been playing with.
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
when competing against teams that don't have that.
Will you please just stop whining incessantly about this? Teams don't have equal resources. They never have and they never will. Most people can't compete with tautology's flex purchases or w_alloy's knowledge of builds. Compared to those things, a stadium advantage is ridiculously trivial. This whole crusade to make everyone equal is a fool's pursuit that can never be achieved, but is being used as an excuse to carry out otherwise nonsensical changes.
+1,000,000
I would trade my stadium and all it's cash for taut to fully fund all the players and alloy tell him how to build them and then utilize them
but this is easy to whine about
next season the whine's will include:
only allow an owner to have 2 of his players on his team because it gives him an advantage
keep dumbing down the AI until I can compete with no effort
you cannot legislate equality in the leagues or competitiveness for everyone - not possible
Originally posted by pottsman
3) Recruit a new team of players and then slowly replace them.
So the only way you get to play with your own players or with a group of friends is if you and they create multiple waves of players. It still makes no sense to punish people who just want to keep playing with the same group of people they've been playing with.
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
when competing against teams that don't have that.
Will you please just stop whining incessantly about this? Teams don't have equal resources. They never have and they never will. Most people can't compete with tautology's flex purchases or w_alloy's knowledge of builds. Compared to those things, a stadium advantage is ridiculously trivial. This whole crusade to make everyone equal is a fool's pursuit that can never be achieved, but is being used as an excuse to carry out otherwise nonsensical changes.
+1,000,000
I would trade my stadium and all it's cash for taut to fully fund all the players and alloy tell him how to build them and then utilize them
but this is easy to whine about
next season the whine's will include:
only allow an owner to have 2 of his players on his team because it gives him an advantage
keep dumbing down the AI until I can compete with no effort
you cannot legislate equality in the leagues or competitiveness for everyone - not possible
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
