Warrior General Games

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

And what happens after the trial season is up? Team resets back to rook?

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
And what happens after the trial season is up? Team resets back to rook?

The owner for the season has the option to renew and if he doesn't it goes back to a cpu team as it was before.

And while I don't believe team payment barrier is a real pressing issue. It would certainly have to come with stipulations imo.

Owning a player for 5 seasons.
5 Free ownership seasons. (Player owning not counted while free team is in use)
Team must carry minimum of 30 human players throughout the season to extend the free ownership to the next season.

Originally posted by Adderfist
The owner for the season has the option to renew and if he doesn't it goes back to a cpu team as it was before.

I'm pretty sure the CPU team is there because all leagues must be filled, and their is no 1 non-consolidated league that has few enough teams to evenly fill the gaps in the other leagues.

Therefore until # of teams drops below a certain threshold, CPU teams will have to fill leagues.

But you're right, I put in a request to see if I can own the CPU team parked in the slot that AGD2D vacated, but as usual i'm not going to get any response from admins until Day 5 of the season.

Originally posted by bhall43
And while I don't believe team payment barrier is a real pressing issue. It would certainly have to come with stipulations imo.

Owning a player for 5 seasons.
5 Free ownership seasons. (Player owning not counted while free team is in use)
Team must carry minimum of 30 human players throughout the season to extend the free ownership to the next season.

I think if you throw in a requirement that a certain % or # of players have to be from different agents,

that, that is cash.

edit: or it is cause for a new influx of multis... who knows which.

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

Think I brought this up in that other thread we talked about this. Allowing someone to pay like half price to run a CPU team. You wouldn't be able to cut anybody but could sign and run the coordinating. Sort of gives incentives to people just looking for a team to hit up a CPU team and maybe pick up the trial ownership.

See, here's the problem we're facing: there are plenty of players and not so many teams to shelter them.

If this is turning into an issue, it's not an user problem to solve, but GLB's.

Overall, this we should increase the value for a team.

I think the first step would be to allow teams to be created on any tier. See, people contested about allowing players to jump seasons as that would cause harm, however, regardless of the tier, there's no team without players, therefore, teams would be created according to demand.

----

On a second thought, whenever a human-filled roster (at least 37 players controlled by human users) is not renewed, instead of freeing the team it could go to an auction.

If an user is looking to manage a team, then going after an auction is tempting since he won't have to chase for players on the marketplace or the transfer list. Also, the market dictates the price of the team in an auction, so teams may go more or less than 500 flex, according to its quality according to the user base.

If a team is acquired by a new user, the current roster has the incentive to keep their players, leading to another tier of boosts in the upcoming season.

----

On a third note, it is not price that dictates if an user acquires a product or not, on the internet it only matters if it is free or not. Would you pay even $1 to join Facebook? Good for you, 99% of its users wouldn't. I could list plenty of examples on how this business works, but I hope you can Google them (just check the in-app purchase model dominating the mobile applications).

So offering free teams to fill the gaps for the tiers where they're demanded is a great deal, you lose 500 flex, but you make a lot more. Of course, this is the last resort and the free discount would only be valid for the first season. Perhaps the user needs at least 1 player at the desired team's tier to apply for ownership, but this is all food for thought.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
I think if you throw in a requirement that a certain % or # of players have to be from different agents,

that, that is cash.

edit: or it is cause for a new influx of multis... who knows which.

Why would it need to be different agents? As long as the players aren't CPU that is money for GLB and homes for FA's.

Originally posted by kaiijy
See, here's the problem we're facing: there are plenty of players and not so many teams to shelter them.

If this is turning into an issue, it's not an user problem to solve, but GLB's.

Yeah, they need to give new agents better tools to make better joes faster.
always been WGs problem, they need to find a way to eliminate the learning curve.

tbh I think their should be different types of leagues per age group.
1. Cool thing about glb was that the teams in Elite were often the best teams, and the teams in Comp or regular were not as good as the teams above them.

This created a place where everyone could be competitive. The only problem? This userbase gives no credit to the ppl winning rookie league #5.
If you can create a place where even all of the awful agent could ban together and be competitive, slowly but surely their skills will increase, and its hard for me to believe that by the time that they hit Vet, it will take more than a slight adjustment to fit in with the bigger talents of the game.

The solutions to the problems are obvious, but finding a seamless way to integrate these solutions without disturbing the flow or dampening profits is the toughie.

Originally posted by bhall43
Why would it need to be different agents? As long as the players aren't CPU that is money for GLB and homes for FA's.

Cuz if you give me that oppurtunity i'll call up my boy fswa and he will help me fill up the team.

That may be just me, but hey that's 43 people who could have had teams otherwise.

Originally posted by kaiijy

----

On a second thought, whenever a human-filled roster (at least 37 players controlled by human users) is not renewed, instead of freeing the team it could go to an auction.

If an user is looking to manage a team, then going after an auction is tempting since he won't have to chase for players on the marketplace or the transfer list. Also, the market dictates the price of the team in an auction, so teams may go more or less than 500 flex, according to its quality according to the user base.

If a team is acquired by a new user, the current roster has the incentive to keep their players, leading to another tier of boosts in the upcoming season.

----



What if I don't want to play with the agent who wins the auction? Seems kinda nonsensical. The agents are playing for the coordinator/owner they signed with not random joe bob who takes over winning an auction. Not to mention we resign at the end of every season. So the guy who won that auction just won himself the headache of talking 43 guys into resigning.

At this point there already is a far more logical path for this by going through an ownership transfer with support if someone is that serious about taking over said team.

Originally posted by bhall43
What if I don't want to play with the agent who wins the auction? Seems kinda nonsensical. The agents are playing for the coordinator/owner they signed with not random joe bob who takes over winning an auction. Not to mention we resign at the end of every season. So the guy who won that auction just won himself the headache of talking 43 guys into resigning.

At this point there already is a far more logical path for this by going through an ownership transfer with support if someone is that serious about taking over said team.

A) I bet the share of users whom the team owner is irrelevant is larger than those who care.
B) The ownership transfer requires awareness, meanwhile the auction is open to all users.

Originally posted by kaiijy
A) I bet the share of users whom the team owner is irrelevant is larger than those who care.

what game are you playing? certainly not glb.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
they need to find a way to eliminate the learning curve.



There is a point where you cross the line between a "learning curve" that people just don't want to learn and absolutely no learning curve. This game is already teetering on that line imo. I mean the concepts are incredibly simple when you dive in besides some of the DAI bugs. You already lost a number of people who liked GLB1 because of the simple player building concept and the ability to reset your player each season.

Originally posted by kaiijy
A) I bet the share of users whom the team owner is irrelevant is larger than those who care.


lol ya OK

Originally posted by mikeyb23
Yes, it is Han Solo. Had a deadbeat owner that placed him on Special teams and ran him up the middle 90% of the time. The team was pretty terrible, yet he still managed to do ok.