Warrior General Games

Originally posted by bhall43
As it should be from a business stand point. That being said something does need to be done to encourage people to get into the coaching aspect.

It's tough tho, glb1 always had a rough go of that. And it ultimately sucked facing the same network of guys over and over to the point you got into the playoffs and spent 3 rounds facing the same duo of coordinators from 3 different teams. Best case scenario you make the dai more intuitive and go from there. Currently it has been and still is a nightmare for a majority of the agents in this game and is just another barrier keeping a newbie from continuing the process of trial and error.

I posted in another forum about how a subscription would help this game. Pay monthly to control an entire team. Extra for S* players monthly up to a limit of 8.

But the point was with someone controlling the entire team they would have more incentive to learn to do it all themselves.

This is what I posted there

" With team subscription. $15 a season and purchase S* up to 6-8-10 per team at an extra $3(at 8 limit this is $24 more) a piece per season. Stay at vet if you like reset if you like.

This might keep people around when they can learn at $15 and build all builds and have a team they can retry with as they learn with no heavy loss.

Would promote rivalry as agents would then be mostly vs each other. People can still work together coaching and game planning. But for the most part you worry about your own team. Double so with staying at vet. If you have top team the others might have to reset to knock you off.

I think it would seem to lose money but if it creates growth and sustainability to increase population. Wouldn't 500 teams going at a time be a little more fun than 100 agents on 40 teams?

This would also limit the inactive issue. Tough to replace a guy who just up and leaves as is."

I know they always hate 'free flex' options - so this is a waste of time (and multi's are always a problem).

but come up with some free flex achievements.

New owner (gonna have to figure out how to check IP's or something)
pay 500 flex for team that season

sign a player: 50 flex
get 10 human players on defense: 50 flex
get 10 human players on offense: 50 flex
sign a kicker and punter: 50 flex
build a custom offensive playbook: 50 flex
build a custom O tactic: 50 flex
build a custom D playbook: 50 flex
build a custom D tactic: 50 flex
build a custom special teams depth chart: 50 flex
post in your team forum: 50 flex

There - you've given a single free season of team ownership - and walked a new owner through some of the steps.

One shot deal - if they want to continue to own a team - they will pay the 500 flex in soph season.


I've said this so many times over the many years I've been in glb1 and 2 -- the game here is in coordinating. So much more interesting and fun than simply building a player and checking in on occasion. That is where the hook is. (strangely -- it is the more lacking side of the game (player building) where all of the cash comes in...but that is for considering another day).

Get more people to play with ownership and coordinating -- and you will likely get more people heavily invested in the game.

First one is free kids...

Originally posted by dbill
I posted in another forum about how a subscription would help this game. Pay monthly to control an entire team. Extra for S* players monthly up to a limit of 8.

But the point was with someone controlling the entire team they would have more incentive to learn to do it all themselves.

This is what I posted there

" With team subscription. $15 a season and purchase S* up to 6-8-10 per team at an extra $3(at 8 limit this is $24 more) a piece per season. Stay at vet if you like reset if you like.

This might keep people around when they can learn at $15 and build all builds and have a team they can retry with as they learn with no heavy loss.

Would promote rivalry as agents would then be mostly vs each other. People can still work together coaching and game planning. But for the most part you worry about your own team. Double so with staying at vet. If you have top team the others might have to reset to knock you off.

I think it would seem to lose money but if it creates growth and sustainability to increase population. Wouldn't 500 teams going at a time be a little more fun than 100 agents on 40 teams?

This would also limit the inactive issue. Tough to replace a guy who just up and leaves as is."

I really think this is the way to "save" the game

Originally posted by TxSteve
I'd prefer the opposite - only allow a user to coach 1 team (2 max). Game might get more competitive if more people were gamplanning, etc on their own and learning the game.

I suggested this a few seasons ago and got down-voted so fast...

I prefer a game that allows me to coach as many teams as I would like provided there is a market of owners who wish me to coach them.