Warrior General Games

1) An owner in GLB creates the environment that players can "have fun in the game" within through a myriad of methods such as maintained team forums, competitiveness, etc. that are usually time-consuming in some way for said owner ('volunteer job')

2) What makes GLB fun, and what makes player-only agents want to pay money to GLB, essentially begins with an active & engaged owner.

3) There is currently a barrier of entry to being an owner and that is FP

4) There are users who have the time to spend on GLB (and most likely already spend that time here) to be 'good owners' who are not owners because they, for whatever reason, cannot justify the cost of running of a team.

5) Having more active owners means there is literally more opportunities for players to find roster spots that come with those side benefits that make the game fun, such as an active team forum.

What part of this logic are you disagreeing with exactly?

Laggo doesn't get it...

People aren't buying teams because they feel its not worth it. Not because they can't afford it.

The part where you are handing free teams to people who can't pay for teams. How are they getting these teams and why is anyone paying for said teams if these people are getting them for free?

Originally posted by Laggo

5) Having more active owners means there is literally more opportunities for players to find roster spots that come with those side benefits that make the game fun, such as an active team forum.

What part of this logic are you disagreeing with exactly?

more huntsmans and more jail teams as well.

you're thinking of the perfect world that didn't happen in 40 or so seasons of glb.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Laggo doesn't get it...

People aren't buying teams because they feel its not worth it. Not because they can't afford it.

not worth it...make it goddam cheaper then...sheesh

you price your product according to the value it provides.

Originally posted by sieg76
not worth it...make it goddam cheaper then...sheesh

you price your product according to the value it provides.



The value it provides depends on the value of your coordinators though.

Originally posted by sieg76
not worth it...make it goddam cheaper then...sheesh

you price your product according to the value it provides.



Uh no you don't. You price your product as the max people will pay without hurting your sales.

You guys are just bad at basic business apparently, lol

Originally posted by bhall43
The part where you are handing free teams to people who can't pay for teams. How are they getting these teams and why is anyone paying for said teams if these people are getting them for free?

This is obviously the crux of the issue and what would have to be figured out.

Ideally it would be no different than superstars; something you either work towards and earn or pay for to have immediately. Obviously, the number of paid teams would have to vastly outweigh the number of free teams in order to encourage people to skip the line financially. Does it make sense for people who bought superstars and got to run them for 5-6 seasons to be angry at the person who finally got to make one after waiting for their free player to hit the tiers to earn it?

This is literally high school business though. GLB's goal is to retain and create new revenue sources and the biggest generator of revenue is player boosting. A player is encouraged to boost when he feels he is in a competitive and/or fun situation. Those situations are created by owners. Thus, if GLB wants to create new revenue sources, it is in their best financial interest to create (even artificially) as many owners with appealing playing environments as possible.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0

People aren't buying teams because they feel its not worth it. Not because they can't afford it.

This argument doesn't make any sense to me because you are essentially saying the same thing. Worth is almost entirely determined by cost in this case as that is what you are trading for the ability to run a team. You literally give up nothing else but the FP cost so how can you say people think it's "not worth it" but they would be willing to pay for it in the same breath?

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Uh no you don't. You price your product as the max people will pay without hurting your sales.

if you have a high value product that nobody wants it is not your goddam price that's the problem. luckily here there is some value.

nobody wants to own because the costs outweigh the value.

so you lower the damn price or you increase the value

get back to flipping burgers jampy

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
more huntsmans and more jail teams as well.

you're thinking of the perfect world that didn't happen in 40 or so seasons of glb.

Again, not every 'free team' would convert into the kind of good environment for players that leads to player retention I was talking about but how are those examples any worse than the CPU teams already in the leagues or better yet having no team at all?

One 'good owner' has the potential to take 30-40 agents who would otherwise quit the game and make them paying customers.

You're telling me you don't see why it would be in GLB's best interest to find more people who are willing to take up that role?

Originally posted by Laggo
This argument doesn't make any sense to me because you are essentially saying the same thing. Worth is almost entirely determined by cost in this case as that is what you are trading for the ability to run a team. You literally give up nothing else but the FP cost so how can you say people think it's "not worth it" but they would be willing to pay for it in the same breath?


well no. it's not just $ cost.

You ever thought of

effort must = satisfaction ?

If I know shit all about joes, why will I own a team? Even if its 1 cent, i still going to be a frustrated losing owner,
makes no sense and just isn't worth it.

Originally posted by sieg76
if you have a high value product that nobody wants it is not your goddam price that's the problem.

nobody wants to own.

so you lower the damn price or you increase the value

get back to flipping burgers jampy

You honestly don't know shit, I can teach you economics all day, but you seem to ignorant to try to understand another point of view.

People aren't buying teams because $10 every 3 months is too much $. They aren't buying because being a team owner is freaking annoying and stressful, especially for newbies.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0


People aren't buying teams because $10 every 3 months is too much $. They aren't buying because being a team owner is freaking annoying and stressful, especially for newbies.

that's value, son. thanks for making my point

Originally posted by Laggo

One 'good owner' has the potential to take 30-40 agents who would otherwise quit the game and make them paying customers.

You're telling me you don't see why it would be in GLB's best interest to find more people who are willing to take up that role?

unrealistic bro... What you are feeding is the glb1 WL effect.

It's the same people on the same teams doing the same things... The demographic is set, WG already knows what the userbase will find acceptable to pay.

If I am currently a newbie who created a horrible joe who is a FA. Am I going to buy a team when my players been an FA for 3 seasons now?
And even if Newbie Agent does buy a team, they have a horrible season because knowledgeable agents are beating the crap out of them. Suddenly The effort they are putting in is not = to the satisfaction they are getting out... Suddenly, it's not worth it. Why grow grey hairs over a $5 team? Why grow grey hairs over a 1 cent team? Just no.

Originally posted by Laggo
This is obviously the crux of the issue and what would have to be figured out.

Ideally it would be no different than superstars; something you either work towards and earn or pay for to have immediately. Obviously, the number of paid teams would have to vastly outweigh the number of free teams in order to encourage people to skip the line financially. Does it make sense for people who bought superstars and got to run them for 5-6 seasons to be angry at the person who finally got to make one after waiting for their free player to hit the tiers to earn it?

This is literally high school business though. GLB's goal is to retain and create new revenue sources and the biggest generator of revenue is player boosting. A player is encouraged to boost when he feels he is in a competitive and/or fun situation. Those situations are created by owners. Thus, if GLB wants to create new revenue sources, it is in their best financial interest to create (even artificially) as many owners with appealing playing environments as possible.


It takes a person at least 10 seasons of a free player to earn a superstar. Which costs the exact same as a regular player. It is hard for me to see the cost of a team as a barrier that needs exploring. It would be different to me if there was a crux of people on the PLFT's forum asking for coaching jobs because they can't afford a team. Coordinating is free.

I could see extension incentives for people who keep their teams without resetting. Maybe a free season extension and 500 extra flex points for keeping a team for 5 straight seasons with above the minimum human players on it. That way people aren't just holding their teams full of CPU's for the hell of it. It actually becomes a goal to snag FA's off the market.

Originally posted by sieg76
that's value, son. thanks for making my point

Clearly trolling. gtfo twat.