Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Lidd


also the "3-day inactive" rule is way too short. Summer is here, long-weekends, vacations and much more can and will arise.


Yeah this concerns me too, as I can already think of a couple occasions coming up this summer when I will be gone. I think a week is more reasonable, or have some sort of system where an agent can contact you beforehand to let you know when he'll be out of town for a few days.

Originally posted by DC_fan_SCRface
One owner owning multiple teams needs to be addressed...one account, one team, period!

A few guys shouldn't be able to blow all that dough on 3+ teams and buy every player for their teams. Let everyone own one if they want...same amount of money is coming in, just from multiple buyers instead of a lesser number of greedy individuals.

Greed is a terrible thing on here!! If your as good as you think you are, you shouldn't have to cheat, move your own players from team to team, and whatnot to win. Play straight up football...like a real team.


With that logic then why can I have 16 players and while someone else has only 2 or 3? Thats not fair I have more players. You want to stop that too? It should be first come first serve.(in my opinion) I understand why the admins would want it this way though. Keeps more user interested in the game.

Originally posted by fool
Originally posted by Lidd



also the "3-day inactive" rule is way too short. Summer is here, long-weekends, vacations and much more can and will arise.


Yeah this concerns me too, as I can already think of a couple occasions coming up this summer when I will be gone. I think a week is more reasonable, or have some sort of system where an agent can contact you beforehand to let you know when he'll be out of town for a few days.



If your an owner and you go inactive for three days you shouldn't get to own a team. You would make a bad owner.

Originally posted by Tigerbait0307


If your an owner and you go inactive for three days you shouldn't get to own a team. You would make a bad owner.



Completely Disagree. As long as you have GMs to update the game plan you can scout a week or 2 before hand and have a solid win lined up.

Originally posted by Tigerbait0307
Originally posted by DC_fan_SCRface

One owner owning multiple teams needs to be addressed...one account, one team, period!

A few guys shouldn't be able to blow all that dough on 3+ teams and buy every player for their teams. Let everyone own one if they want...same amount of money is coming in, just from multiple buyers instead of a lesser number of greedy individuals.

Greed is a terrible thing on here!! If your as good as you think you are, you shouldn't have to cheat, move your own players from team to team, and whatnot to win. Play straight up football...like a real team.


With that logic then why can I have 16 players and while someone else has only 2 or 3? Thats not fair I have more players. You want to stop that too? It should be first come first serve.(in my opinion) I understand why the admins would want it this way though. Keeps more user interested in the game.



Different entirely...there isn't a problem with supply and demand in reference to players. There is one in reference to team ownership.

I think its kinda lame to own 15+ player to begin with, but thats just me. Proves you have an ass load of spare time, lots of disposable income, or a combination of the two. I like having a player, building him, watching him progress, and see the team improve.

Again I refer to greed. Thats my opinion. Even 2 or 3 aint bad, but 10...15...20 players? That really necessary? Betcha that team forum is hopping, where's the team atmosphere?

To the point...limiting team ownership to one per owner would lessen the effects of collusion, limit(not eliminate) cheating, and allow others to enjoy the game. Thats what we're talking about here THE GAME!

Originally posted by Kusig
Originally posted by Tigerbait0307



If your an owner and you go inactive for three days you shouldn't get to own a team. You would make a bad owner.



Completely Disagree. As long as you have GMs to update the game plan you can scout a week or 2 before hand and have a solid win lined up.





Yeah man that's ridiculous. Everyone has a RL stuff that comes up right? You can't be a good owner because you take a Carribean cruise for a week? Preposterous! Thats what GM's are for, you cover for each other.

Originally posted by fool
Originally posted by Kusig

Originally posted by Tigerbait0307




If your an owner and you go inactive for three days you shouldn't get to own a team. You would make a bad owner.



Completely Disagree. As long as you have GMs to update the game plan you can scout a week or 2 before hand and have a solid win lined up.





Yeah man that's ridiculous. Everyone has a RL stuff that comes up right? You can't be a good owner because you take a Carribean cruise for a week? Preposterous! Thats what GM's are for, you cover for each other.

I concur...GM's, OC's, and DC's are still active and able to lead their team. The 3-day rule seems a bit perposturous, IMO.

If you have someone like a GM to run things while you're gone, then I think that's fine.

But shame on some of you that have multiple teams.....that's just out and out greed.

I say one account, one team. And if it makes some account owners mad enough to leave, then so be it. There's enough interest in this game that they'll not be missed.

But I bet they wouldn't leave anyway

Excellent plan but the major thing I have a concern is:

"The list is ordered by account creation date."

This is a good way, in my opinion to begin the list, but let's look at this say three weeks down the line. My account was created during season 1 sometime. I've been looking for a team for a little bit, but refused to spam and would make an solid active owner, in my opinion. I get on the list and am waiting for two months to get my team. Then, the week I'm likely to get my team, someone who created their account even a day before mine gets on the list. They're going to get a team before me. How is it fair to people who have been waiting for a while to get their team while another only has to wait a day.

Account creation date would be a fair way to start the list, but after some time, it's unfair to those who decided early on to get their team and have been waiting. Perhaps, during the first week, account creation date should be acceptable (to give people time to think it over even), but after that it should be by list sign up date/time.

How about just increasing the capacity of the number of teams available, then increase the cost of buying in to offset it?

This game is clearly very popular, why not just expand?

Originally posted by Zeke Woodson
If you have someone like a GM to run things while you're gone, then I think that's fine.

But shame on some of you that have multiple teams.....that's just out and out greed.

I say one account, one team. And if it makes some account owners mad enough to leave, then so be it. There's enough interest in this game that they'll not be missed.

But I bet they wouldn't leave anyway

I absolutely agree. You want to see who the best owners are? Let them manage one team. Anybody can run 20 teams and get a winner here or there, that doesn't prove anything; not to mention, owning multiple teams also breeds monopolistic owners who can sh*t on anyone/everyone and rule with an iron fist. Really now, if 1% of the customer base owns 100% of the teams how could that equate into fairness/equality for the other 99%? It can't. One owner - one team.

Originally posted by Vhladd
Originally posted by Zeke Woodson

If you have someone like a GM to run things while you're gone, then I think that's fine.

But shame on some of you that have multiple teams.....that's just out and out greed.

I say one account, one team. And if it makes some account owners mad enough to leave, then so be it. There's enough interest in this game that they'll not be missed.

But I bet they wouldn't leave anyway

I absolutely agree. You want to see who the best owners are? Let them manage one team. Anybody can run 20 teams and get a winner here or there, that doesn't prove anything; not to mention, owning multiple teams also breeds monopolistic owners who can sh*t on anyone/everyone and rule with an iron fist. Really now, if 1% of the customer base owns 100% of the teams how could that equate into fairness/equality for the other 99%? It can't. One owner - one team.


Good points...also agree here. There needs to be time spent on issues like this. I understand its in the beginning phases...but we're spending money like everyone else and have the right to a product that isn't tainted.

Originally posted by bluepike
Excellent plan but the major thing I have a concern is:

"The list is ordered by account creation date."

This is a good way, in my opinion to begin the list, but let's look at this say three weeks down the line. My account was created during season 1 sometime. I've been looking for a team for a little bit, but refused to spam and would make an solid active owner, in my opinion. I get on the list and am waiting for two months to get my team. Then, the week I'm likely to get my team, someone who created their account even a day before mine gets on the list. They're going to get a team before me. How is it fair to people who have been waiting for a while to get their team while another only has to wait a day.

Account creation date would be a fair way to start the list, but after some time, it's unfair to those who decided early on to get their team and have been waiting. Perhaps, during the first week, account creation date should be acceptable (to give people time to think it over even), but after that it should be by list sign up date/time.

I also agree and what about those people who created accounts back in the early stages of season one but then quit the game for one reason or anoter. Then they come back during season 3, would they have priority over say someone that has been active everyday since start of season 2? That wouldn't be fair.

good idea. i like it.

Very smart, very fair solution. Well done gentlemen.