Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
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.

You probably took economics in high school and think you're the subject matter expert in the field.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
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.

You have no empathy whatsoever, have you considered that there are players who don't know shit all about making joes but don't care? Would you like me to quote the OP of this very thread?

Originally posted by mikeyb23
Well, since I have been playing here for a long time, except for a few years, it's sad that if you do not have the perfect build(AT least in somebody's eyes), then there is no place for you on this site after a season or 2. That's just ridiculous, and you people that think you know it all are just killing this site, because some people don't wanna hear that critique on a player that they think is good. I used to try to take the critique and build on it, but when you do, somebody says something about another weakness. What should be a fun site is turning into a "numbers nerd" game that will never last.

THIS RIGHT HERE IS A PLAYER THAT COULD BE A PAYING CUSTOMER IF HE HAD AN ACTIVE AND ENGAGED OWNER BUT THERE SIMPLY AREN'T NUMERICALLY ENOUGH.

How simple is this concept.

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.

I;m confused now because you are agreeing with me while saying you're not.

There are people who would be willing to take on that annoyance but are turned off by the barrier to entry of FP. Having more people willing to take on that annoyance is better in GLB in all respects, whether they are good at the game or not (as long as they provide a fun environment as I described previously they are a net positive).

Like I said, alienating existing paying customers is a risk but that's why you would put some thought into a system that seemed fair and/or still rewarding to current owners who continued to pay for teams (like free scrimmages if you pay for a team, and paid scrimmages if you have a free team as a flash thought).

Originally posted by bhall43
It actually becomes a goal to snag FA's off the market.

This is the fix...

We need to find incentive for Decent owners to actually venture into PLFT and sign players.

A few problems include: 1. Most teams are drawn out from Day one. 2. PLFT and Marketplace are full of awful joes.

Originally posted by Laggo
I;m confused now because you are agreeing with me while saying you're not.

There are people who would be willing to take on that annoyance but are turned off by the barrier to entry of FP. Having more people willing to take on that annoyance is better in GLB in all respects, whether they are good at the game or not (as long as they provide a fun environment as I described previously they are a net positive).

Like I said, alienating existing paying customers is a risk but that's why you would put some thought into a system that seemed fair and/or still rewarding to current owners who continued to pay for teams (like free scrimmages if you pay for a team, and paid scrimmages if you have a free team as a flash thought).

his problem is he is agreeing without realizing it.

Originally posted by Laggo

You have no empathy whatsoever, have you considered that there are players who don't know shit all about making joes but don't care? Would you like me to quote the OP of this very thread?


So you think OP will buy a team?

Either way you look at this, either A you lose out on ppl who will own teams for the hell of it (which isn't what we want) or B you will create a dynamic where people who don't mind paying for a team will seek out the free way of getting and team, and never pay a game.

Plan B loses WG the income. Plan B (aka what you are pushing for, some kind of free team system) will never happen.

K I'm done here..

Apparently something having a steep learning curve means it costs too much

I mean even shelling someone a free team doesn't stop them from resetting which is undoubtedly the huge problem at hand here. I think you could quickly fill up the game with more rookie teams by continuing to improve the game and eventually open up the amount of teams per agent to 2-3 teams a piece. The problem of course is getting these teams from Rookie to Veteran.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
So you think OP will buy a team?

Either way you look at this, either A you lose out on ppl who will own teams for the hell of it (which isn't what we want) or B you will create a dynamic where people who don't mind paying for a team will seek out the free way of getting and team, and never pay a game.

Plan B loses WG the income. Plan B (aka what you are pushing for, some kind of free team system) will never happen.

OP might buy a team if a) it wasn't annoying as shit to own or B) It was as annoying as shit to own but super cheap in equal amounts to how annoying it is to own.

If you were making this argument for player building in glb I would agree whole-heartedly, because you can look it up, I've never paid for a player on glb. All of my joes/dots have been free.

Had they been $10 over the course of their careers? I probs would have bought hundreds of dots over the course of the 30+ seasons of GLB i've been around.

But the 1k flex for glb1 and the 500 flex for glb2 is by no means a barrier. And tbh, if you really think that's a barrier, you aren't in the demographic Bort and co. salivate over, and you should stick to free players like I do.

Originally posted by sieg76
OP might buy a team if a) it wasn't annoying as shit to own or B) It was as annoying as shit to own but super cheap in equal amounts to how annoying it is to own.

Much more A than B.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
So you think OP will buy a team?


No, I think with more teams it wouldn't be so difficult for him to find a place he could enjoy playing at though.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Either way you look at this, either A you lose out on ppl who will own teams for the hell of it (which isn't what we want) or B you will create a dynamic where people who don't mind paying for a team will seek out the free way of getting and team, and never pay a game.

Wow that false dichotomy

What does it mean to "lose out on people who will own teams for the hell of it?"
I'm honestly not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. Who is owning a team "for the hell of it"? Are you saying people would have free teams 'just cause' and do a shitty job of it? Because then I would just respond for the millionth time that that is no different from current CPU teams at all. It's a lateral movement, it doesn't get better or worse so what is the problem?

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
you will create a dynamic where people who don't mind paying for a team will seek out the free way of getting and team, and never pay a game.

Have you actually thought about that at all before you typed it?

Tell me, how is that working for superstars? Are people who want superstars waiting the 6~ seasons you need to carry a few players to earn it, or are they just buying it outright? I think we've already seen more than enough people choosing the latter option. This is just a question of balancing time investment versus paywall. Classic F2P monetization stuff. You develop a system where owning a free team is plausible but slow and/or penalizing but paying for a team is quick, easy, and conveys some rewards.

I would say good coordinators are key, moreso than ownership.

Originally posted by bhall43
I mean even shelling someone a free team doesn't stop them from resetting which is undoubtedly the huge problem at hand here. I think you could quickly fill up the game with more rookie teams by continuing to improve the game and eventually open up the amount of teams per agent to 2-3 teams a piece. The problem of course is getting these teams from Rookie to Veteran.

This is is a seperate (but more immediately pressing issue).

A system that balanced free vs paid teams would be more aimed of solving the problem of creating more revenue for GLB and increasing the player base in general which does help that problem by sheer numerical strength.

Originally posted by Laggo
Who is owning a team "for the hell of it"? Are you saying people would have free teams 'just cause' and do a shitty job of it? Because then I would just respond for the millionth time that that is no different from current CPU teams at all. It's a lateral movement, it doesn't get better or worse so what is the problem?


On the other hand there are few CPU teams right now in competitive leagues. More teams like the ones you are talking about hurts the enjoyment of the rest of the actual leagues. That is a problem.

Originally posted by Laggo
No, I think with more teams it wouldn't be so difficult for him to find a place he could enjoy playing at though.


Stop the bullshit. No one in GLB history would argue this statement.

Originally posted by Laggo
Wow that false dichotomy

What does it mean to "lose out on people who will own teams for the hell of it?"
I'm honestly not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. Who is owning a team "for the hell of it"? Are you saying people would have free teams 'just cause' and do a shitty job of it? Because then I would just respond for the millionth time that that is no different from current CPU teams at all. It's a lateral movement, it doesn't get better or worse so what is the problem?


Uh no not at all.. You will have ppl like Dub J (:rofl who will own troll teams that will reset because they are so damn cheap.
What we need is an influx of new owners who will take new agents from rookie to plateau.

So far nothing except bhall's suggestions has given anything that could accomplish this.

Originally posted by Laggo
Have you actually thought about that at all before you typed it?


Uh yeah? If there was a free way to get a team, you think i'd pay 500 flex a season? Do you think I'd pay 1 flex a season if it was free?

Come on now.

Originally posted by Laggo
Tell me, how is that working for superstars? Are people who want superstars waiting the 6~ seasons you need to carry a few players to earn it, or are they just buying it outright? I think we've already seen more than enough people choosing the latter option. This is just a question of balancing time investment versus paywall. Classic F2P monetization stuff. You develop a system where owning a free team is plausible but slow and/or penalizing but paying for a team is quick, easy, and conveys some rewards.


It's so classic but you can't apply it to glb2.

Originally posted by bhall43
On the other hand there are few CPU teams right now in competitive leagues. More teams like the ones you are talking about hurts the enjoyment of the rest of the actual leagues. That is a problem.

You could do something like a "Trial ownership" that takes CPU teams and gives ownership for a season to one of the agents.