Warrior General Games

I really don't see it as rich get richer.
(I wouldn't want a 2nd team even if I could buy one FYI)


A lot in this game hinges on the team owner. A great owner - or a terrible owner - WILL have a dramatic effect on a players experience. It is in Warrior Generals best interest - for the health of the game - that terrible owners are minimized. A terrible owner could negatively impact all 43 players on his team....and his league! That is big.


I believe what room's suggestion says is- "You've been responsible with your one team -- we are going to trust you with another team"

It more makes good / reliable / dependable owners in a position to have an even more positive impact on GLB2.

It is a reward for long standing, consistency.

Imagine if any one could buy as many teams as they want...you'd have guys who haven't played either GLB in 2 years popping in - buying 4 teams with all of their left over flex -- and then never logging in again - dragging down as many as 170 players with them.

The best owners get more teams.
I like it.
I also think that the people who build the best bots should get to have more superstars because their superstars are going to be in demand.
Because rich get richer SHOULD be a thing.

Originally posted by TxSteve
I believe what room's suggestion says is- "You've been responsible with your one team -- we are going to trust you with another team"

Owning a team up through veteran is being responsible with your team, imo. Even if you're not a top team, consistently trying is important. I have players on a couple teams that can't seem to break out of the 30-40 range but the owner is trying. Recruits what he can each offseason, changes tactics, posts what he did that went right and what went wrong, asks for feedback, etc. On the other hand, I've been on a couple teams that are top 10 (or near it) and the owner never posts, there's no engagement, etc. Both types of team have reached a level of success...one in engagement and one in on-field performance.

Why should one form of success be more important than the other? That's why I think owning a team to Veteran should be a key to unlocking a second team. It, at the very least, shows consistency as an owner.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Owning a team up through veteran is being responsible with your team, imo. Even if you're not a top team, consistently trying is important. I have players on a couple teams that can't seem to break out of the 30-40 range but the owner is trying. Recruits what he can each offseason, changes tactics, posts what he did that went right and what went wrong, asks for feedback, etc. On the other hand, I've been on a couple teams that are top 10 (or near it) and the owner never posts, there's no engagement, etc. Both types of team have reached a level of success...one in engagement and one in on-field performance.

Why should one form of success be more important than the other? That's why I think owning a team to Veteran should be a key to unlocking a second team. It, at the very least, shows consistency as an owner.

I try and post and keep people involved, but I have always owned all of my players. These past two seasons have been difficult because I try and keep some engagement without being overbearing.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Owning a team up through veteran is being responsible with your team, imo. Even if you're not a top team, consistently trying is important. I have players on a couple teams that can't seem to break out of the 30-40 range but the owner is trying. Recruits what he can each offseason, changes tactics, posts what he did that went right and what went wrong, asks for feedback, etc. On the other hand, I've been on a couple teams that are top 10 (or near it) and the owner never posts, there's no engagement, etc. Both types of team have reached a level of success...one in engagement and one in on-field performance.

Why should one form of success be more important than the other? That's why I think owning a team to Veteran should be a key to unlocking a second team. It, at the very least, shows consistency as an owner.

I would agree with you that both owners likely contribute to a positive gaming experience for their players (possibly even moreso the team with less wins).

In both of those cases it would be my opinion that the team owner could/should be allowed to purchase a 2nd team -- both are good for GLB.

Owning to Vet is probably a solid 'must have' -- long enough that some of the folks who flash in the pan and burn out quickly don't drag 43 players down with them.

I don't like it.

You make a farm system and the dilution of cares by the owner just won't be there, leading to the lol minors syndrome. The goal shouldn't be how well you play in vet... how well you do on the way to vet determines your ladder positioning going in to Vet. The goal shouldn't be for teams to get to Vet and then stay... the default IMO should be to have them get to vet, finish plateau, then reboot.

Here is example I think your looking for. I have 3 players on 3 different rookie teams. 0 posts in forums, literally. 6-10,6-11,8-8-1 for records. All used the auto fill feature to recruit. Only 1 owner inactive.

While the idea of owner scores is an interesting one in itself, I was thinking of different "rules" on buying a second team in general.

Mainly, allowing people to purchase CPU teams in leagues lower than teams they own. As in, if you own a professional team, you'd be allowed to buy a seasoned CPU team in a human league.

The team is dead anyway, not sure what harm would come if it was human owned instead of CPU. Maybe an extra league would survive the next borging.

Originally posted by Corndog
While the idea of owner scores is an interesting one in itself, I was thinking of different "rules" on buying a second team in general.

Mainly, allowing people to purchase CPU teams in leagues lower than teams they own. As in, if you own a professional team, you'd be allowed to buy a seasoned CPU team in a human league.

The team is dead anyway, not sure what harm would come if it was human owned instead of CPU. Maybe an extra league would survive the next borging.

How would you stop people from buying those CPU teams with no other intent but to have support reset them to Rookie?

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
How would you stop people from buying those CPU teams with no other intent but to have support reset them to Rookie?

If you're buying the team just to reset to rookie, why not just buy a rookie team outright?

Might be more appealing as well - if you offered those teams buying a CPU in a non rookie tier - some kind of chemistry advantage (start at 25 or 50 or something) to add to the incentive.

It definitely takes away from the game having CPU teams in a league.

In Adams - which used to be very solid - but now we have 4 cpu/horrid teams which makes for a pretty boring league.

Originally posted by Galithor
If you're buying the team just to reset to rookie, why not just buy a rookie team outright?

Because demand would be highest for Rookie. The mechanic would be to buy whatever team you want just to 'secure' your rookie team for next season. I'd hedge that very few people would try to play in the tier that they purchase. We're talking about 2nd teams, not 1st.

Originally posted by TxSteve
Might be more appealing as well - if you offered those teams buying a CPU in a non rookie tier - some kind of chemistry advantage (start at 25 or 50 or something) to add to the incentive.

It definitely takes away from the game having CPU teams in a league.

In Adams - which used to be very solid - but now we have 4 cpu/horrid teams which makes for a pretty boring league.

This would be nice. I mean I bought one a few days ago, was able to get most the roster filled. However I've played 1 league game 1 ladder game went 1 n 1 now face Time Trial next league game with a team that has virtually no chemistry against his 100 across the board. Chances of win?

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
Because demand would be highest for Rookie. The mechanic would be to buy whatever team you want just to 'secure' your rookie team for next season. I'd hedge that very few people would try to play in the tier that they purchase. We're talking about 2nd teams, not 1st.

I'm keeping mine in Sophomore next season though I just bought it. I haven't decided beyond season 7 yet but that's the plan atm. However I am on list for incoming Rookie team since early season and have a roster already confirmed for that rookie team.

Only way I'd want a reset is if my plans aren't fulfilled for 2 teams.

Zaran, if you want a hand i'll look over your roster and get tactics figured out with you