Going for it on 4th down all the time would be pretty lame imo. Certainly not something that would help retain agents.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > What would you do to grow GLB2?
Nyria
online
online
Originally posted by bhall43
Going for it on 4th down all the time would be pretty lame imo. Certainly not something that would help retain agents.
There's a difference between "being able to go for it on 4th down" and "going for it on 4th down all the time."
There actually is a very successful high school coach (saw this on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel) who goes for it on 4th down practically all the time, and wins doing it. But unless he gets hired to a major college program and popularizes it, that would look weirder than what we have now.
However, my first suggestion (which many people didn't like) was to be able to go for it with up to 3 yards to go and designating a "dead zone" (too far for a FG, too close to gain much from punting-- it would have to be in opponents' territory) in which to go for it with that many yards to go and a zone so close to the opponent's end zone where you want to go for it because if you fail it's like a super coffin corner kick.
Most of those who opposed that did say that if it was just 4th and 1 or less they wouldn't have much of a problem with it, though most also didn't want even 4th and goal from the 2 or 3 to be "go for it except in specific score situations" land, and especially with FG kicking less reliable than real life it doesn't make sense to me not to be able to go for it on 4th and goal anywhere inside the 3.
Going for it on 4th down all the time would be pretty lame imo. Certainly not something that would help retain agents.
There's a difference between "being able to go for it on 4th down" and "going for it on 4th down all the time."
There actually is a very successful high school coach (saw this on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel) who goes for it on 4th down practically all the time, and wins doing it. But unless he gets hired to a major college program and popularizes it, that would look weirder than what we have now.
However, my first suggestion (which many people didn't like) was to be able to go for it with up to 3 yards to go and designating a "dead zone" (too far for a FG, too close to gain much from punting-- it would have to be in opponents' territory) in which to go for it with that many yards to go and a zone so close to the opponent's end zone where you want to go for it because if you fail it's like a super coffin corner kick.
Most of those who opposed that did say that if it was just 4th and 1 or less they wouldn't have much of a problem with it, though most also didn't want even 4th and goal from the 2 or 3 to be "go for it except in specific score situations" land, and especially with FG kicking less reliable than real life it doesn't make sense to me not to be able to go for it on 4th and goal anywhere inside the 3.
Edited by Nyria on Sep 19, 2015 19:27:15
Fumblerooski
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Going for it on 4th down all the time would be pretty lame imo. Certainly not something that would help retain agents.
Nearly every football game ever made allows you to go for it on 4th down, we're talking going back to techmo bowl in the 80s. You might not like it, but new players will expect that to be in the game and be confused when it isn't. This thread is about retaining new players, not what you like.
Going for it on 4th down all the time would be pretty lame imo. Certainly not something that would help retain agents.
Nearly every football game ever made allows you to go for it on 4th down, we're talking going back to techmo bowl in the 80s. You might not like it, but new players will expect that to be in the game and be confused when it isn't. This thread is about retaining new players, not what you like.
Xars
offline
offline
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
I'm talking specifically about retaining new agents that join the game and make rookie players. If I were a new agent, players perform so poorly that I would have thought this is a broken, incomplete game and walked away. It's only because of my history in GLB1 that I stuck around, people that have been around for awhile don't realize how ridiculous some parts of this game look from the outside; you can't even go for it on 4th down, which is absurd.
A lot of truth here.
Personally, I don't think the not going for it on 4th down is what drives new agents off. Maybe it's the last straw, but if the other stuff was addreesssed it probably wouldn't matter.
Rookie can be brutal if you have a bad build on a team with bad builds and a bad DC.
Unfortunately, that's the norm for a new player.
I'm talking specifically about retaining new agents that join the game and make rookie players. If I were a new agent, players perform so poorly that I would have thought this is a broken, incomplete game and walked away. It's only because of my history in GLB1 that I stuck around, people that have been around for awhile don't realize how ridiculous some parts of this game look from the outside; you can't even go for it on 4th down, which is absurd.
A lot of truth here.
Personally, I don't think the not going for it on 4th down is what drives new agents off. Maybe it's the last straw, but if the other stuff was addreesssed it probably wouldn't matter.
Rookie can be brutal if you have a bad build on a team with bad builds and a bad DC.
Unfortunately, that's the norm for a new player.
Originally posted by Xars
Rookie can be brutal if you have a bad build on a team with bad builds and a bad DC.
Unfortunately, that's the norm for a new player.
So make it so there's no bad builds and no bad coordinators?
In order for that to happen in a purely competitive game, there has to also be no possibility of good builds or good coordinating, and I'm not sure that's what people want. If all choices lead to the same outcome then there's not much point in playing.
Rookie can be brutal if you have a bad build on a team with bad builds and a bad DC.
Unfortunately, that's the norm for a new player.
So make it so there's no bad builds and no bad coordinators?
In order for that to happen in a purely competitive game, there has to also be no possibility of good builds or good coordinating, and I'm not sure that's what people want. If all choices lead to the same outcome then there's not much point in playing.
Edited by Corndog on Sep 19, 2015 19:27:46
And I mean, none of that even addresses the actual loss of new users.
Less than a tenth of a percent log in days later to see how their player did in a game, let alone get mad that they "didn't go for it on 4th and 8" and quit. The overwhelming majority of new users log in, make a player, realize there's nothing to do, then forget about about the game.
Less than a tenth of a percent log in days later to see how their player did in a game, let alone get mad that they "didn't go for it on 4th and 8" and quit. The overwhelming majority of new users log in, make a player, realize there's nothing to do, then forget about about the game.
Edited by Corndog on Sep 19, 2015 19:40:50
Edited by Corndog on Sep 19, 2015 19:37:57
Fumblerooski
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
And I mean, not of that even addresses the actual loss of new users.
Less than a tenth of a percent log in days later to see how their player did in a game. The overwhelming majority of new users log in, make a player, realize there's nothing to do, then forget about about the game.
Uncontested rolls like catching balls when wide open, finding a guy in front of your face to block, and not randomly falling over shouldn't be as hard, make the basic rolls easier to do well on. Contested rolls like 2 players engaged in a block or a CB covering a WR should be where builds and coordinating makes the difference.
And I mean, not of that even addresses the actual loss of new users.
Less than a tenth of a percent log in days later to see how their player did in a game. The overwhelming majority of new users log in, make a player, realize there's nothing to do, then forget about about the game.
Uncontested rolls like catching balls when wide open, finding a guy in front of your face to block, and not randomly falling over shouldn't be as hard, make the basic rolls easier to do well on. Contested rolls like 2 players engaged in a block or a CB covering a WR should be where builds and coordinating makes the difference.
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
Uncontested rolls like catching balls when wide open, finding a guy in front of your face to block, and not randomly falling over shouldn't be as hard, make the basic rolls easier to do well on. Contested rolls like 2 players engaged in a block or a CB covering a WR should be where builds and coordinating makes the difference.
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
This thread is about retaining new players, not what you like.
Uncontested rolls like catching balls when wide open, finding a guy in front of your face to block, and not randomly falling over shouldn't be as hard, make the basic rolls easier to do well on. Contested rolls like 2 players engaged in a block or a CB covering a WR should be where builds and coordinating makes the difference.
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
This thread is about retaining new players, not what you like.
Sov.
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
And I mean, none of that even addresses the actual loss of new users.
Less than a tenth of a percent log in days later to see how their player did in a game, let alone get mad that they "didn't go for it on 4th and 8" and quit. The overwhelming majority of new users log in, make a player, realize there's nothing to do, then forget about about the game.
i mean, just an assumption as we are mere peons at the feet of you all knowing admins, but probably something to address then hmm??
maybe a visual step by step tutorial worth x amount of flex for completing (give em the first one free type of deal) that walks them through creating a player and their SAs and the basics of joining a team and setting up their players preferences. at the end it should require them to register to the forums and maybe offer bonus x amount of flex for them posting in a welcome/new player thread or something. im sure a couple of these more customer friendly forum users will welcome them and offer them help for the rest of their questions, getting them engaged with the community on the forums will keep them active. after a week or two of having their free player (and additional 1 or 2 players) they will be hooked. plus offering them more than the 1 free player gets them invested in their additional non-free players so they are more inclined to boost and contribute to the game going forward rather than to just keep 1 free player and fade away.
you're welcome
And I mean, none of that even addresses the actual loss of new users.
Less than a tenth of a percent log in days later to see how their player did in a game, let alone get mad that they "didn't go for it on 4th and 8" and quit. The overwhelming majority of new users log in, make a player, realize there's nothing to do, then forget about about the game.
i mean, just an assumption as we are mere peons at the feet of you all knowing admins, but probably something to address then hmm??
maybe a visual step by step tutorial worth x amount of flex for completing (give em the first one free type of deal) that walks them through creating a player and their SAs and the basics of joining a team and setting up their players preferences. at the end it should require them to register to the forums and maybe offer bonus x amount of flex for them posting in a welcome/new player thread or something. im sure a couple of these more customer friendly forum users will welcome them and offer them help for the rest of their questions, getting them engaged with the community on the forums will keep them active. after a week or two of having their free player (and additional 1 or 2 players) they will be hooked. plus offering them more than the 1 free player gets them invested in their additional non-free players so they are more inclined to boost and contribute to the game going forward rather than to just keep 1 free player and fade away.
you're welcome
Edited by Sov. on Sep 19, 2015 20:09:12
Originally posted by Sov.
i mean, just an assumption as we are mere peons at the feet of you all knowing admins, but probably something to address then hmm?
Without changing the entire format of the game, there's never going to be much to do after making a player.
Not everyone likes yelling at each other in the forums. Especially Yahoo users accessing the site through an iframe on Yahoo. Redirecting them to the forums isn't going to alleviate the issue of having nothing to do.
Offering flex to new users who have no vested interest is also pretty pointless. Make a player that you can't do anything with, then let them make another player that they can't do anything with if they sign up for forums that they don't want to use.
Without actual gameplay, retention rate is always going to be abysmal. The people who actively seek out browser games generally aren't the people that would be interested in this kind of browser game. Which is admittedly quite the dilemma.
i mean, just an assumption as we are mere peons at the feet of you all knowing admins, but probably something to address then hmm?
Without changing the entire format of the game, there's never going to be much to do after making a player.
Not everyone likes yelling at each other in the forums. Especially Yahoo users accessing the site through an iframe on Yahoo. Redirecting them to the forums isn't going to alleviate the issue of having nothing to do.
Offering flex to new users who have no vested interest is also pretty pointless. Make a player that you can't do anything with, then let them make another player that they can't do anything with if they sign up for forums that they don't want to use.
Without actual gameplay, retention rate is always going to be abysmal. The people who actively seek out browser games generally aren't the people that would be interested in this kind of browser game. Which is admittedly quite the dilemma.
Edited by Corndog on Sep 19, 2015 20:13:44
Fumblerooski
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
Uncontested rolls like catching balls when wide open, finding a guy in front of your face to block, and not randomly falling over shouldn't be as hard, make the basic rolls easier to do well on. Contested rolls like 2 players engaged in a block or a CB covering a WR should be where builds and coordinating makes the difference.
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
This thread is about retaining new players, not what you like.
It's really straight forward logic - new players don't like it when their players fail all the time. If I was arguing for my pet peeves I'd be more concerned with morale and end of half logic, those are much more annoying to me, but for this specific discussion I am sticking to the topic.
What exactly is your point on this topic, other than to disagree with us for the sake of disagreeing?
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
Uncontested rolls like catching balls when wide open, finding a guy in front of your face to block, and not randomly falling over shouldn't be as hard, make the basic rolls easier to do well on. Contested rolls like 2 players engaged in a block or a CB covering a WR should be where builds and coordinating makes the difference.
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
This thread is about retaining new players, not what you like.
It's really straight forward logic - new players don't like it when their players fail all the time. If I was arguing for my pet peeves I'd be more concerned with morale and end of half logic, those are much more annoying to me, but for this specific discussion I am sticking to the topic.
What exactly is your point on this topic, other than to disagree with us for the sake of disagreeing?
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
It's really straight forward logic - new players don't like it when their players fail all the time. If I was arguing for my pet peeves I'd be more concerned with morale and end of half logic, those are much more annoying to me, but for this specific discussion I am sticking to the topic.
What exactly is your point on this topic, other than to disagree with us for the sake of disagreeing?
Um, if you want to take it as "disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing" then go for it.
I'm telling you that new users aren't leaving the game because players fall down sometimes. It's easy to think that issues you have are issues that everyone has, and mask it as some kind of "save the game" campaign, but making players fall down less isn't going to change the fact that 999 out of 1000 new users leave before they see their players fall down.
It's really straight forward logic - new players don't like it when their players fail all the time. If I was arguing for my pet peeves I'd be more concerned with morale and end of half logic, those are much more annoying to me, but for this specific discussion I am sticking to the topic.
What exactly is your point on this topic, other than to disagree with us for the sake of disagreeing?
Um, if you want to take it as "disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing" then go for it.
I'm telling you that new users aren't leaving the game because players fall down sometimes. It's easy to think that issues you have are issues that everyone has, and mask it as some kind of "save the game" campaign, but making players fall down less isn't going to change the fact that 999 out of 1000 new users leave before they see their players fall down.
Fumblerooski
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Um, if you want to take it as "disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing" then go for it.
I'm telling you that new users aren't leaving the game because players fall down sometimes. It's easy to think that issues you have are issues that everyone has, and mask it as some kind of "save the game" campaign, but making players fall down less isn't going to change the fact that 999 out of 1000 new users leave before they see their players fall down.
I was making a guess based on what I see. It look like you have data, so my guess was wrong. Why didn't you just post this to begin with? Would have made things a lot simpler.
Um, if you want to take it as "disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing" then go for it.
I'm telling you that new users aren't leaving the game because players fall down sometimes. It's easy to think that issues you have are issues that everyone has, and mask it as some kind of "save the game" campaign, but making players fall down less isn't going to change the fact that 999 out of 1000 new users leave before they see their players fall down.
I was making a guess based on what I see. It look like you have data, so my guess was wrong. Why didn't you just post this to begin with? Would have made things a lot simpler.
Originally posted by Fumblerooski
I was making a guess based on what I see. It look like you have data, so my guess was wrong. Why didn't you just post this to begin with? Would have made things a lot simpler.
Because I wanted to see user's ideas without intervention.
When it starting becoming a riot of groupthink about minor issues (at best) I decided to comment.
I was making a guess based on what I see. It look like you have data, so my guess was wrong. Why didn't you just post this to begin with? Would have made things a lot simpler.
Because I wanted to see user's ideas without intervention.
When it starting becoming a riot of groupthink about minor issues (at best) I decided to comment.
yello43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Without actual gameplay, retention rate is always going to be abysmal. The people who actively seek out browser games generally aren't the people that would be interested in this kind of browser game. Which is admittedly quite the dilemma.
That isn't necessarily true. Earlier I brought up a tutorial thing to get people into the game. There are usually two types of tutorials on browser games. One that you just do everything and then its done. The other is one that you have to keep coming back over time to finish. I won't name games but some of these games with option 2 have little you actually get to do, they just make it seem like you have a lot to do. If you invest time into starting, you are more interested in coming back. Right now you basically register, put a few points on a guy, and then that is the end of it. You lost a minute or two.
One of the odd things that I've had to do with a team I run in this game with my friends- I had to tell them their free players had free boost. Sure that is a small thing, but they had no clue. Putting this in a tutorial might not retain people necessarily but it would go a long way into making more educated users. The more success a user has, the longer they stick around.
Without actual gameplay, retention rate is always going to be abysmal. The people who actively seek out browser games generally aren't the people that would be interested in this kind of browser game. Which is admittedly quite the dilemma.
That isn't necessarily true. Earlier I brought up a tutorial thing to get people into the game. There are usually two types of tutorials on browser games. One that you just do everything and then its done. The other is one that you have to keep coming back over time to finish. I won't name games but some of these games with option 2 have little you actually get to do, they just make it seem like you have a lot to do. If you invest time into starting, you are more interested in coming back. Right now you basically register, put a few points on a guy, and then that is the end of it. You lost a minute or two.
One of the odd things that I've had to do with a team I run in this game with my friends- I had to tell them their free players had free boost. Sure that is a small thing, but they had no clue. Putting this in a tutorial might not retain people necessarily but it would go a long way into making more educated users. The more success a user has, the longer they stick around.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
