Warrior General Games

Though I really don't think anyone cares that much about paying for ownership at any certain level so free probably isn't the way to go there.

Originally posted by bhall43
who gets the free ownerships?

Whoever gets. And the different between free and 1 penny is huge.

Originally posted by kaiijy
Whoever gets. And the different between free and 1 penny is huge.

The reason that teams are resetting has nothing to do with the cost of the team though. So it really doesn't make sense to offer a bunch of free teams for entirely no reason.

Guys, the cost of teams is the LAST reason teams are resetting. cmon now.

Bort knows his demographic lol... $5 a month is nothing to the median of the userbase.

I tell you what I would like to see, but probably ngth. Farm teams made unto a system. Let folks own one veteran tier team, and maybe up to 2-3 lower tier teams as long as they own a veteran team. Give those farm teams some reduced chemistry loss for transferring players between themselves or the parent team also reduce farm team costs. Once a farm team hits the end of pro season, auto-reset to rookie and cut the players loose as vet free agents. Anyone not taken by the parent team goes available to other vet teams.

Then you'd absolutely have plenty of lower tier teams all the time for folks to be trying off the wall builds on.

Say maybe 500 for the vet team, and then 250 each season for up to two farm teams. So one agent could own 3 teams, only one of which can be veteran for 1000 fp a season.

no... chemistry should have a larger hit.

Not sure why you're trying to take away the great equalizer.

Ya I don't really understand the reduced chem loss part. Almost seems unfair to FA's that aren't a part of someones farm.

Is there a reason why the pool couldn't be expanded to owning two teams, instead of just one?

Originally posted by Sardonik00
Is there a reason why the pool couldn't be expanded to owning two teams, instead of just one?

multiple multiple reasons:

same owners, same agents.

and to satiate the massive # of first time team owners who want a team before the fiends get seconds.

There really should be a way to earn a free team.

Again, probably half of the fun of GLB at this point is basically generated by the users themselves (rivalries, active team forums, writeups) and teams are the underlying gear behind both halves of fun.

That being said, teams are not entirely fun to run by a long shot. Maintaining tactics (or finding OC/DC you trust), recruiting players, maintaining a team forum; all thankless jobs that keep the GLB wheels turning.

The system is run right now by owners who are willing to take in some of that bad for the greater good, but it would be even better if we could find a way to leverage the interest of players who already spend a lot of time in the game to contribute to turning those wheels.

An active team owner who maintains a fun team board/atmosphere, communicates with his or her players or (and) the league, and makes an effort to be competitive is what encourages players to buy FP to boost, to extend their careers, etc. These users are the greatest single asset to GLB when it comes to customer acquisition and retention.

The more team owners we can find like that the more enjoyable the game is for a larger percentage of agents, which in turn means more revenue from more engaged players as well. The net loss GLB takes from giving a free team to the right person is easily offset by the chance that person can convert players who would otherwise quit out of boredom into real engaged customers.

I guarantee there are users in this game who would make great team owners but don't want to pay the fee, for whatever reason. The fee is not the reason teams reset but it is certainly a barrier to entry. It's probably not a good practice to distribute free teams at random, but the benefits of enabling that active but free user to contribute to retention and conversion of new customers seems to far outweigh the costs.

At best, that one user can change dozens of agents's likelihood to quit and views on the game (like OP's kind). At worst, it's another inactive owner that is no better or worse than the CPU teams that would be in a league in their place.

The question is how you identify those user's who might qualify as "good potential owners". Simplistically, any measure of interest in the game really would do (achievements, superstar points). If you wanted to ensure more accuracy, you could give Pallow or someone else something to do and let them vet actual offseason requests for a certain # of designated free teams inserted mid level tier - but that may just alienate current owners and be more trouble than it's worth.

Originally posted by Laggo
There really should be a way to earn a free team.

Uh... You are 2 clicks away from a game that costs $70 to create a QB/HB/WR.

I don't think giving out free teams helps anyone.

I guess I don't really see a lot of teams folding or not starting due to the team cost so that doesn't really seem like a place that needs to really be explored as far as I can see.

Seems like many of the early tier teams fold for reasons such as:

1) Messed up their caps, want to reset and do it right. (this is one of the major early resets)
2) Superstars have been earned. (another major part of resetting)
3) Inactive agents. (Had 2 teams fold on me this offseason because half their team went inactive.)
4) Having a hard time recruiting 43 human players. (I know this seems crazy but I have helped fill a number of teams with players because people don't sign with them)
5) Get bored or dislike the game. (not really a lot you can do about this it is what it is and can only continue improving the game you got at hand)

Would you pay for skill boosts or career extensions for your players if you couldn't find a team with an engaged owner to play for?

No?

It's in GLB's best interest to have as many of those "engaged owners" as possible in order to provide for as many agents as possible.

Again, the cost of buying a team is not the reason teams reset in the middle of the tier but it is a barrier to entry for a prospective owner. I guarantee there are agents who would make what we consider 'good owners' who are not owners simply because they do not want to pay for a team.

If you think that's an outlandish statement then lol. Want to argue otherwise?

I think bhall you are looking at it from way too much of a competitive standpoint. It's not even about competition at this stage, it's about literally having roster spots that come with active team forums, some communication from people regarding your player in any respect, aka the things that make you feel like you are playing a multiplayer game at all.

You are proposing that people who can't afford a team need free teams. How do they get those free teams? I guess your logic seems sort of backwards to me. This isn't even me coming from a competitive standpoint.