Warrior General Games

Originally posted by TxSteve
team ownership costs are by far the least of the problems.

As others pointed out -- it is player cost that is too high.

This is a coordinator game -- not a player game --- and coordinating is free. Team ownership is incredibly cheap (not to mention your 'rich get richer' plan is always one that bort has disliked).


Yes - the new energy change may require more depth -- which means (in my opinion) the game will shrink even faster -- as it will require more players be built (they won't be because they are too expensive). Who is going to spend an extra couple thousand flex per season to build backups who play 10-20 plays a game other than GE and his team of multi's?

Yeah... I have seen established agents this offseason struggling to find agents to build players. Granted, this appears to be a decent sized tier with multiple quality teams, but not filling out just causes the owners to be forced to build more players which only increases the cost of team ownership. At least lower/eliminate the cost of OLineman. That is a position group that nobody really seems to want to build unless it is a S* player.

Lower the prices for players!

Originally posted by Detroit Leos
At least lower/eliminate the cost of OLineman

Intriguing idea. Let OLinemen come with the team. Team owner handles the build or assigns it to the OC. Teams start with 2 C, 4 OG, and 4 OT with an option to cut down the default setup. S* Olinemen can be built for current costs.

I'd say the teams who finish below .500 should get the higher reward. No reason to reward the agents who have strong teams every year while punishing newer owners who are still trying to figure it out. The new owners are the ones who should have the cost reduced so they don't quit so fast.

Originally posted by dbill
I'd say the teams who finish below .500 should get the higher reward. No reason to reward the agents who have strong teams every year while punishing newer owners who are still trying to figure it out. The new owners are the ones who should have the cost reduced so they don't quit so fast.

This

Maybe the better idea would be

For agents who create the bulk of the players themselves get a discount to player costs. Say a 50% reduction if they build at least half the roster(of the hipuman players). So new agents aren't stuck with a CPU roster that can't compete, on top of being behind in the game planning/coaching end as well. Helps keep their cost down while they get acclimated.

Originally posted by dbill
Maybe the better idea would be

For agents who create the bulk of the players themselves get a discount to player costs. Say a 50% reduction if they build at least half the roster(of the hipuman players). So new agents aren't stuck with a CPU roster that can't compete, on top of being behind in the game planning/coaching end as well. Helps keep their cost down while they get acclimated.

I like that but multi's like GE would benefit even further that way

Originally posted by Team Nucleus
I like that but multi's like GE would benefit even further that way

Maybe can add a time limit to it. So it benefits newer agents mostly. But yeah I get your point. My point is newer agents(say in their first three to five seasons) have the cost cut down so they don't just give up because they are throwing to much money into a pit. Vet owners who can get vet agents to build them dots don't need a discount imo. We need more agents, not for it to be cheaper for the elite owners/agents.

IMO I'd like to see team owners that have owned a team say 5+ seasons, give those team owners incentives to continue or reset by lowering costs of renewing team ownership in half...just a thought

Its a no brainer, a lot of people would just create more players if the cost decreases, spending the same money, and some people that don't have a lot of money or don't want to spent so much in a browser game would be able to play and afford players with full boosts, GLB wouldn't lose money with this.

Originally posted by McLovinCowboys
Its a no brainer, a lot of people would just create more players if the cost decreases, spending the same money, and some people that don't have a lot of money or don't want to spent so much in a browser game would be able to play and afford players with full boosts, GLB wouldn't lose money with this.

Pretty much. Which is why base players should just be free, and only charge for boosts. It guarantees that any team can field a roster without CPUs, and recruit human players since there's so few out there right now. Experienced agents who boost are still playing the game, it's the new/casual agents who dropoff every season.

Originally posted by McLovinCowboys
Its a no brainer, a lot of people would just create more players if the cost decreases, spending the same money, and some people that don't have a lot of money or don't want to spent so much in a browser game would be able to play and afford players with full boosts, GLB wouldn't lose money with this.

They would likely be afraid of non-boosting leagues likely. Then they are running servers etc for teams that don't provide them any money

Definitely doubt they make all players free outside of boosting. Free OLine maybe though since the team owner essentially ends up making all of those spots now since others rarely build them...

Originally posted by HayRow
They would likely be afraid of non-boosting leagues likely. Then they are running servers etc for teams that don't provide them any money

Whats to stop non-boosting leagues now? You could still have a non-boosting league, nothings stopping it...besides you don't get a full refund of initial player cost here compared to Classic anyway