Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog
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.

so basically, your game sucks? good administrating, no wonder this game is doing so well lol. my suggestions were very valid, you and your closed minded unquestionable wisdom are an anchor to this games success

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.

It has the potential to be popular. GLB1 was, at one point, extremely popular. My view is the need to slow build, which is fixed in this design, was the most important thing that destroyed it. There are certainly other legitimate views as to what might have, and it likely wasn't only one thing. But it proves that this type of game has potential.

And this site, with pickup games, smartly even allows for quick play of a sort (which would be better if, as noted, Rookies weren't so inept). I think you're overly pessimistic about what the ceiling is in terms of potential popularity.

Originally posted by Sov.
so basically, your game sucks?

Na, the game has a lot of good qualities.

As far as being marketable, it is pretty poor, though.

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.


....if clash of clans.....you know what nvm

I mean in response to my post, you could have just immediately said something like:

"Nice theory that rookie game play causes players to quit, but the data just doesn't back that up."

Would have shut me up right away instead of having the confusing discussion we're having now.

Originally posted by Nyria
GLB1 was, at one point, extremely popular.

GLB Classic was mildly popular in the late 2000s. It was a pioneer in the freemium model, and existed during a time before smart phones and before Facebook games, before Farmville and all it's derivatives.

The format worked because of novelty, and a lack of anything similar. Now the market is overflowing with freemium models, and the GLB freemium model isn't the greatest. The issue is that the current users like the current model. Changing the model alienates the current users, not changing the model really limits the potential of growth.

Originally posted by jhiggseiu14
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.

....if clash of clans.....you know what nvm

As far as I know, you actually do something in clash of clans, don't you? Most freemium models give you an hour or two of gameplay before you start hitting wait timers, and even then, the first wait timers are 10-15 minutes.

Signing up and hitting an immediate wait timer of 1-2 days is a bit harsh.

The idea of an asynchronous on-demand play style might do better. It would more accurately mimic the Clash of Clans model. All users would basically have their own team, then click a button the play a game.

The main issue with that is the complexity of the sim. It takes a great deal of processing power to run a sim, and doing it "on-demand" isn't very reasonable, especially if each user had their own team and were doing multiple on-demand games during an hour.

Though, at that point you'd also have to do away with leagues and just have it entirely based on the ladder. Unless league games were automated like currently and on demand games were ladder based.

But it would also get rid of the "gameplanning" that most people seem to enjoy. You'd just have to more or less run a standard gameplan and hope for the best.

Don't misconstrue any of these statements, though.

We very much like the format of GLB. The structured nature creates something "bigger than you", and creates tension building up for big games and situations for gameplanning. It helps reflect football much better than an "a la carte" style of other freemium games like Clash of Clans.

We pride ourselves in the fact that GLB isn't an evergrowing money sink of wait timers and paywalls. The structure is what it is, and you can't pay to skip it, and it doesn't gradually get more and more drawn out to try to squeeze more money out of you.

Unfortunately, the static model attracts and retains a lot fewer people than the bait and switch style of other models.

Might you at least consider the idea that less inept rookies, maybe along with promoting the idea of pickup games more strongly, might make a significant difference, if only, say, 30% more users than now (I think that's low, but let's say)?

On demand ladder games that count would be really radical, but why not at least play at the margins and allow anyone who's any sort of coach with a team to initiate a quick scrimmage (which costs some flex and thus makes you money, and moves you, if only very mildly, in a direction you admit would be more successful?) I was surprised that as Head Coach and then Assistant GM (a promotion I was given in hopes I'd be able to do just this) your system wouldn't let me pay flex to initiate something like that.

As long as there were scheduled, game planned league games, I don't think on demand ladder games would even be a turnoff to me, if you really thought those would improve the game's popularity.

Originally posted by Nyria
Might you at least consider the idea that less inept rookies

"Less inept rookies" translates to skills having less of an impact.

If Rookies with no skills in catching can reliably catch, why would you ever spend points in catching when you can spend it in running faster? An artificial boost to rookies that makes them better creates a situation where your player gets worse over time instead of better, which I'm not sure is the greatest feeling either, as well as being confusing. Being able to catch every pass with 20 catching then suddenly not being able to catch anything after you hit Sophomore would be a confusing situation for a new player.

Dangit, my post was the last of the page. I'm gonna go kick rocks

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/11114/111142124/3816445-2371068400-37436.gif

Originally posted by Corndog
"Less inept rookies" translates to skills having less of an impact.

If Rookies with no skills in catching can reliably catch, why would you ever spend points in catching when you can spend it in running faster? An artificial boost to rookies that makes them better creates a situation where you player gets worse over time instead of better, which I'm not sure is the greatest feeling either, as well as being confusing. Being able to catch every pass with 20 catching then suddenly not being able to catch anything after you hit Sophomore would be a confusing situation for a new player.

I don't know if you read the suggestions thread on it, but you're right that you have to need close to 100 Catching to always catch when you're open, etc.. I don't want skills to mean less, so every point of Catching should and must matter, I agree.

In the Suggestions thread I suggested starting every player with 5,000 more points than they start with, and making the 2nd star boost SP like the 1st and 3rd stars instead of the trap of giving an AP that shouldn't be spent until the season change as part of taking an SA silver. Then you give that SA as the 4th star.

I did also suggest an artificial boost of 15% (phased out over 2 seasons), small enough to avoid the exact "getting worse" pitfall you mentioned, also small enough that another poster suggested it was too trivial to bother with, and if you did the other things I guess maybe it is.

My one other suggestion was "rookies get 100 chem." I'm no fan of chem's impact at all, like nearly everyone else, but whatever you want it for in terms of rewarding teams for staying together, that doesn't apply to rookies who no matter what currently start at 50 at best (0, if picked up after the first few days; that part could be kept if you found it necessary, although it punishes those who sign up for the game on, say, a season's 8th day).

If GLB2 wants my opinion on what they should do ell I'd better get some money. My ideas would change the game.

I'd like more seasons at vet... minimum 4 instead of 2. Its a lot of work building up to Vet to only get 2 seasons before you buy expensive career boots just to get 2 more seasons.

But I digress, making a free player that no one really knows what the attributes do, and then wait to see him play every other day doesn't lend to retention. The real meat of this game is coordinating/owners/general managing of a team. Maybe if it was easier to make and roll an entire team or just coordinating a cpu team or something to get them more involved?