Originally posted by Bacon Nator
Kirghiz's suggestion of more BT's and better training % for intense and multi-train is the way to go.
Kirghiz's suggestion of more BT's and better training % for intense and multi-train is the way to go.
Enkidu98
offline
offline
The problem here is, as I stated above, AEQ and BT's are over valued due to the necessity of having +% AEQ and now with a reasonable path to having 4 pieces of fully upgraded AEQ, that is the only/premier path to go.
People desire to enhance Multi-training, etc with more BT's rewarded is not an effort to balance the system, but to make Multi-Training a more viable method for obtaining BT's for AEQ. If we approach the balance decisions purely on this basis, we're doing no one a favour and all we do is create a different path most everyone will follow in training their players because it produces maximum reward.
At that time, someone else will likely make an argument that, 'Well if I FOCUS in a single attribute, I should be getting more results!" or something in the same family.
When it comes down to it, more options and more complexity does not result in a better system.
What we need to do when looking at the system, is measure the desired result of the 'best' builders/players and how they know what produces the best results. Then, we need to analyse the desired RESULTS for balance, not the system used for obtaining them. If the overwhelming choice is to arrive at a specific destination (4 AEQ Pieces, fully upgraded) then perhaps the Destination is the problem, not the means of getting there.
AEQ (and Basic EQ) is likely the single largest factor in a build. With the ability to stack 58 points into a single attribute ((10 + 3) * 4 = 52 + 6 from Custom EQ) builds are exaggerated. Combine these with % bonuses from AEQ or VA's etc and we get absolutely ridiculous attributes. People have calculated them to over 240 for certain situations and even higher in others.
This breaks the SIM. It requires balancing the sim to 'work' with attributes that exaggerated, and in so doing, it makes having anything NOT as exaggerated a completely useless build.
So likely our work should have been/should continue to be, balancing AEQ so that it is not SIM breaking. By doing this, the training paths aren't defined for the players by the _need_ to obtain enough BT's to get a solid 4 AEQ fully upgraded AND by making the alternatives (focusing on attribute growth instead of BT's) equally desirable we can have a flexible training system that offers multiple choices.
Otherwise, just give everyone the same attribute growth and BT return per training point because there is just ONE viable path to a functional/competitive player. Cookie Cutter reigns supreme.
Certainly there are a few different cookie cutters, but the thing they all share in common is the need to amass 4 fully upgraded AEQ and a combination of VA's that will maximise their equipment distorted attributes to ungodly levels.
People desire to enhance Multi-training, etc with more BT's rewarded is not an effort to balance the system, but to make Multi-Training a more viable method for obtaining BT's for AEQ. If we approach the balance decisions purely on this basis, we're doing no one a favour and all we do is create a different path most everyone will follow in training their players because it produces maximum reward.
At that time, someone else will likely make an argument that, 'Well if I FOCUS in a single attribute, I should be getting more results!" or something in the same family.
When it comes down to it, more options and more complexity does not result in a better system.
What we need to do when looking at the system, is measure the desired result of the 'best' builders/players and how they know what produces the best results. Then, we need to analyse the desired RESULTS for balance, not the system used for obtaining them. If the overwhelming choice is to arrive at a specific destination (4 AEQ Pieces, fully upgraded) then perhaps the Destination is the problem, not the means of getting there.
AEQ (and Basic EQ) is likely the single largest factor in a build. With the ability to stack 58 points into a single attribute ((10 + 3) * 4 = 52 + 6 from Custom EQ) builds are exaggerated. Combine these with % bonuses from AEQ or VA's etc and we get absolutely ridiculous attributes. People have calculated them to over 240 for certain situations and even higher in others.
This breaks the SIM. It requires balancing the sim to 'work' with attributes that exaggerated, and in so doing, it makes having anything NOT as exaggerated a completely useless build.
So likely our work should have been/should continue to be, balancing AEQ so that it is not SIM breaking. By doing this, the training paths aren't defined for the players by the _need_ to obtain enough BT's to get a solid 4 AEQ fully upgraded AND by making the alternatives (focusing on attribute growth instead of BT's) equally desirable we can have a flexible training system that offers multiple choices.
Otherwise, just give everyone the same attribute growth and BT return per training point because there is just ONE viable path to a functional/competitive player. Cookie Cutter reigns supreme.
Certainly there are a few different cookie cutters, but the thing they all share in common is the need to amass 4 fully upgraded AEQ and a combination of VA's that will maximise their equipment distorted attributes to ungodly levels.
Edited by Enkidu98 on Jun 3, 2010 06:49:36
Disastermaster
offline
offline
How about thinking and testing before making changes?
But no, changes are made, people adjusting to it and now you want to change it again just after a few days?
But no, changes are made, people adjusting to it and now you want to change it again just after a few days?
simpathia
offline
offline
Originally posted by Enkidu98
People desire to enhance Multi-training, etc with more BT's rewarded is not an effort to balance the system, but to make Multi-Training a more viable method for obtaining BT's for AEQ.
Indeed.
Giving out more BTs when multi-training will make multi-training a more viable path toward 4 pieces of AEQ.
The issue is that AEQ is way under-priced. You currently can't get the same return on investment from training.
If a build with less than 4 pieces of AEQ should become a viable option again then these are the options:
- increase the price of AEQ (solving the root cause of the problem)
- increase bonus percentage for intense and/or multi-training (with possible unwanted side effects requiring additional changes)
- increasing the auto-level gains (yeah, I know, you don't want to go there)
If it is ok that 4 pieces of AEQ remains mandatory, but you just want multi-training to be an option to get there, then adding extra BTs to multi-training also works.
People desire to enhance Multi-training, etc with more BT's rewarded is not an effort to balance the system, but to make Multi-Training a more viable method for obtaining BT's for AEQ.
Indeed.
Giving out more BTs when multi-training will make multi-training a more viable path toward 4 pieces of AEQ.
The issue is that AEQ is way under-priced. You currently can't get the same return on investment from training.
If a build with less than 4 pieces of AEQ should become a viable option again then these are the options:
- increase the price of AEQ (solving the root cause of the problem)
- increase bonus percentage for intense and/or multi-training (with possible unwanted side effects requiring additional changes)
- increasing the auto-level gains (yeah, I know, you don't want to go there)
If it is ok that 4 pieces of AEQ remains mandatory, but you just want multi-training to be an option to get there, then adding extra BTs to multi-training also works.
Stray Doug
offline
offline
The crux of the problem being defined is that 4 AEQ is easily attainable and you don't have to make a big sacrifice to get there. I don't think that can easily be fixed anytime soon, and I'm not sure this end goal is really the problem. It's the "paths to get there". More on that in a bit, but primary options under consideration to make 4 AEQ harder, less desirable, or "cost more" relative to other things seem to be:
(a) increase BT price of AEQ... base, upgrades, or both... making it more difficult to attain 4
(b) reduce effectiveness of AEQ (less bonus or less frequent upgrades)
(c) increase effectiveness of alternative training methods in terms of SP benefit (training gains)
(d) increase effectiveness of alternative training methods in terms of BT benefit
- (a) doesn't really solve anything in and of itself. OK, now 3 AEQ is the holy grail, and with multi-training you can barely acquire 2. It doesn't change the relative value of training. In fact, it's actually worse than current system, because currently you CAN multi-train a couple seasons early on and STILL get to 4 AEQ by decline.
- (b) seems like a major, major change that would take a lot more thought and effort
- (c) I think this is fine, but just increasing "intense" doesn't increase the likelihood of multi-training all that much, more likely people just do more intense single-training early in career to aid their cap-building approach. Could increase potential value of continued training later in career relative to AEQ, but would need to be big, which would imbalance thing at early levels. It's sort of like, players over level 40 (roughly speaking) need a bigger incentive to train intense. Players under level 10-20 already have one. Maybe the intense bonus should vary with player level or age?
- (d) In particular providing a modest improvement in BT payout for multi-train. I do think this brings multi-train back into the mix a bit more. I wouldn't make a dramatic change, but encouraging multi-train a bit more is a good thing IMO. Multi-train needs the extra boost, not intense per se, because multi-train doesn't directly support cap building as well.
IMO, (d) is most likely to produce at least modest desired results. It doesn't mitigate what seems to be the new "end goal" of 4 AEQ, but does provide a bit more variety in approaches as to how to get there... increases the balance between multi-training vs. cap building early in a career.
If you think the problem is that we have an entire generation of players that are now are working towards 4 AEQ end builds, then you are going to take more time and do something more dramatic to the options. There's no quick fix.
While implementing (d) wouldn't address this issue, it IS an adjustment within the current system that could be made in the very short run to improve one aspect of game balance, and probably wouldn't piss anyone off other than the "OMG STOP CHANGING STUFF" crowd. And generally people react less negatively to minor buffs than they do to so much as even the faintest whiff of a nerf. And honestly, I'm not sure that 4 AEQ is really that bad of an end goal to have. Do I double or triple stack a +% AEQ? Or do I add another SA buff, or a different +%? I think 4 AEQ still leaves plenty of options... EVERY olineman will have at least 1 +hold block% piece, no doubt, maybe even 2... but there's still potential variety beyond that. If you only had players with 1-2 AEQ, they'd all pretty much have the same thing. It's those 3rd-4th pieces where more variation/variety come in.
(a) increase BT price of AEQ... base, upgrades, or both... making it more difficult to attain 4
(b) reduce effectiveness of AEQ (less bonus or less frequent upgrades)
(c) increase effectiveness of alternative training methods in terms of SP benefit (training gains)
(d) increase effectiveness of alternative training methods in terms of BT benefit
- (a) doesn't really solve anything in and of itself. OK, now 3 AEQ is the holy grail, and with multi-training you can barely acquire 2. It doesn't change the relative value of training. In fact, it's actually worse than current system, because currently you CAN multi-train a couple seasons early on and STILL get to 4 AEQ by decline.
- (b) seems like a major, major change that would take a lot more thought and effort
- (c) I think this is fine, but just increasing "intense" doesn't increase the likelihood of multi-training all that much, more likely people just do more intense single-training early in career to aid their cap-building approach. Could increase potential value of continued training later in career relative to AEQ, but would need to be big, which would imbalance thing at early levels. It's sort of like, players over level 40 (roughly speaking) need a bigger incentive to train intense. Players under level 10-20 already have one. Maybe the intense bonus should vary with player level or age?
- (d) In particular providing a modest improvement in BT payout for multi-train. I do think this brings multi-train back into the mix a bit more. I wouldn't make a dramatic change, but encouraging multi-train a bit more is a good thing IMO. Multi-train needs the extra boost, not intense per se, because multi-train doesn't directly support cap building as well.
IMO, (d) is most likely to produce at least modest desired results. It doesn't mitigate what seems to be the new "end goal" of 4 AEQ, but does provide a bit more variety in approaches as to how to get there... increases the balance between multi-training vs. cap building early in a career.
If you think the problem is that we have an entire generation of players that are now are working towards 4 AEQ end builds, then you are going to take more time and do something more dramatic to the options. There's no quick fix.
While implementing (d) wouldn't address this issue, it IS an adjustment within the current system that could be made in the very short run to improve one aspect of game balance, and probably wouldn't piss anyone off other than the "OMG STOP CHANGING STUFF" crowd. And generally people react less negatively to minor buffs than they do to so much as even the faintest whiff of a nerf. And honestly, I'm not sure that 4 AEQ is really that bad of an end goal to have. Do I double or triple stack a +% AEQ? Or do I add another SA buff, or a different +%? I think 4 AEQ still leaves plenty of options... EVERY olineman will have at least 1 +hold block% piece, no doubt, maybe even 2... but there's still potential variety beyond that. If you only had players with 1-2 AEQ, they'd all pretty much have the same thing. It's those 3rd-4th pieces where more variation/variety come in.
Edited by Stray Doug on Jun 3, 2010 10:30:52
Edited by Stray Doug on Jun 3, 2010 10:26:38
Shalubis
offline
offline
I don't agree with the premise that 4 AEQ is a bad thing that needs to be fixed. I also don't agree with the premise that multi-training sucks and needs to be buffed in order to compete with 4 AEQ building. I've been able to use the current system to put together individualized plans for each of my new builds - each will get 4 full AEQ, and each will be using a variety of multi, enhanced, intense, normal, and light training. I'm not sure any of the methods works 'better.' I'm pretty sure I found a way to get to an end goal that I have in mind. That's what's key to me.
Frankly, I find this thread really demoralizing. We've got 1 real life GLB day under our belts with the new system and already we've got a mob mentality to nerf the people who think they've got it figured out? I can tell you, I don't think anybody has publicly put up a build method that's 'the' superior method, yet, at all. Any attempt to nerf or buff the builds you think will dominate the game 439 days from now is really just flying blind.
Frankly, I find this thread really demoralizing. We've got 1 real life GLB day under our belts with the new system and already we've got a mob mentality to nerf the people who think they've got it figured out? I can tell you, I don't think anybody has publicly put up a build method that's 'the' superior method, yet, at all. Any attempt to nerf or buff the builds you think will dominate the game 439 days from now is really just flying blind.
Edited by Shalubis on Jun 4, 2010 10:52:35
Edited by Shalubis on Jun 4, 2010 10:52:10
Shalubis
offline
offline
My suggestion - let the new system play out as is. Don't change a thing to the training system. Focus your collective energy on the sim as it currently is now. For instance...
- What's the precise role for % pieces in the game?
- What's the precise level of morale and energy that's best for the game?
There are probably other issues worth working on. But if just these two issues were hashed out a lot of the meta stuff of the game would solve itself.
- What's the precise role for % pieces in the game?
- What's the precise level of morale and energy that's best for the game?
There are probably other issues worth working on. But if just these two issues were hashed out a lot of the meta stuff of the game would solve itself.
Narsil
offline
offline
You guys are going about this all wrong. If you're trying to create more parity among players you need to have less options, not more. The only people who benefit from having so many different building options are the same people who already build the best players - the people who spend an hour+ here every day, who read as much training discussion as possible, who build multiple players to experiment with, who sit around working out all the math. The more casual player is going to be in the same place he's always been - left behind. Every time you create some VA that makes a big difference the more intense players will jump on it early while the casual players get left behind. And then when you nerf it the intense players will adjust, while the casual player gets left behind. The intense players understand and take advantage of stacking VAs and EQ, the casual players get left behind. The intesnse players understand capping strategies and when to fill out some SAs, the casual players spend points all over the place. And the best part is that all the intense players know each other and try to play together while the casual player just hopes that one of his FA offers is from a team that doesn't blow.
You can make all the changes you want, add things, nerf things, take things away, but you will NEVER stop the intense players from making superior dots. Go back and read the first post of this thread for god's sake. Those guys have been sitting around for days doing the math, making spreadsheets, comparing each other's info, re-doing the math again with different considerations, etc. If you want more player parity you need to make it easier for the casual player, not harder for the intense player. The more options you put out there the more ways the intense players will find to get an advantage.
You can make all the changes you want, add things, nerf things, take things away, but you will NEVER stop the intense players from making superior dots. Go back and read the first post of this thread for god's sake. Those guys have been sitting around for days doing the math, making spreadsheets, comparing each other's info, re-doing the math again with different considerations, etc. If you want more player parity you need to make it easier for the casual player, not harder for the intense player. The more options you put out there the more ways the intense players will find to get an advantage.
beenlurken
offline
offline
Most here are missing the key issue...
The main reason these changes were made was to eliminate the "optimal build path". That is never going to happen. What is that so hard to understand? The hardcore players willing to put in the time will always eventually discover the best route to the perfect dot.
Right now the best path "might" be the light/normal combo with 4 AEQ (regardless the path will be discovered). GLB's response could be to buff intense and multi training as discussed here. It does not matter. The hardcore gamers will just respond with a intense/multi/light combo with 4 AEQ build path and eliminate the need for normal training (or something of that nature). That is the cycle.
As long as there are auto-level and training gains to utilize to maximize build potential these optimal build paths will exist. Now I am not saying to get rid of them. I am just saying that if we are to keep them than stop changing the game to try and prevent something that will never be prevented. Let us play the damn game already. If intense training becomes obsolete, then who really cares? Remove it if you have to... but dont make everyone have to reformulate their optimal build paths by changing things again.
The main reason these changes were made was to eliminate the "optimal build path". That is never going to happen. What is that so hard to understand? The hardcore players willing to put in the time will always eventually discover the best route to the perfect dot.
Right now the best path "might" be the light/normal combo with 4 AEQ (regardless the path will be discovered). GLB's response could be to buff intense and multi training as discussed here. It does not matter. The hardcore gamers will just respond with a intense/multi/light combo with 4 AEQ build path and eliminate the need for normal training (or something of that nature). That is the cycle.
As long as there are auto-level and training gains to utilize to maximize build potential these optimal build paths will exist. Now I am not saying to get rid of them. I am just saying that if we are to keep them than stop changing the game to try and prevent something that will never be prevented. Let us play the damn game already. If intense training becomes obsolete, then who really cares? Remove it if you have to... but dont make everyone have to reformulate their optimal build paths by changing things again.
Edited by beenlurken on Jun 5, 2010 11:45:20
Edited by beenlurken on Jun 5, 2010 11:30:30
beenlurken
offline
offline
Originally posted by Narsil
You guys are going about this all wrong. If you're trying to create more parity among players you need to have less options, not more. The only people who benefit from having so many different building options are the same people who already build the best players - the people who spend an hour+ here every day, who read as much training discussion as possible, who build multiple players to experiment with, who sit around working out all the math. The more casual player is going to be in the same place he's always been - left behind. Every time you create some VA that makes a big difference the more intense players will jump on it early while the casual players get left behind. And then when you nerf it the intense players will adjust, while the casual player gets left behind. The intense players understand and take advantage of stacking VAs and EQ, the casual players get left behind. The intesnse players understand capping strategies and when to fill out some SAs, the casual players spend points all over the place. And the best part is that all the intense players know each other and try to play together while the casual player just hopes that one of his FA offers is from a team that doesn't blow.
You can make all the changes you want, add things, nerf things, take things away, but you will NEVER stop the intense players from making superior dots. Go back and read the first post of this thread for god's sake. Those guys have been sitting around for days doing the math, making spreadsheets, comparing each other's info, re-doing the math again with different considerations, etc. If you want more player parity you need to make it easier for the casual player, not harder for the intense player. The more options you put out there the more ways the intense players will find to get an advantage.
I should have read all of the posts first.... ^^^^^ what he said
You guys are going about this all wrong. If you're trying to create more parity among players you need to have less options, not more. The only people who benefit from having so many different building options are the same people who already build the best players - the people who spend an hour+ here every day, who read as much training discussion as possible, who build multiple players to experiment with, who sit around working out all the math. The more casual player is going to be in the same place he's always been - left behind. Every time you create some VA that makes a big difference the more intense players will jump on it early while the casual players get left behind. And then when you nerf it the intense players will adjust, while the casual player gets left behind. The intense players understand and take advantage of stacking VAs and EQ, the casual players get left behind. The intesnse players understand capping strategies and when to fill out some SAs, the casual players spend points all over the place. And the best part is that all the intense players know each other and try to play together while the casual player just hopes that one of his FA offers is from a team that doesn't blow.
You can make all the changes you want, add things, nerf things, take things away, but you will NEVER stop the intense players from making superior dots. Go back and read the first post of this thread for god's sake. Those guys have been sitting around for days doing the math, making spreadsheets, comparing each other's info, re-doing the math again with different considerations, etc. If you want more player parity you need to make it easier for the casual player, not harder for the intense player. The more options you put out there the more ways the intense players will find to get an advantage.
I should have read all of the posts first.... ^^^^^ what he said
beenlurken
offline
offline
By Catch22
To balance the training system a bit more and give more incentive for people to train on intense and use multiple attribute training, we have made the following changes:
-- intense training has received an additional 10% bonus to training gains
-- training 3 attributes now receives 4 bonus tokens instead of 3
-- training 4 attributes now receives 6 bonus tokens instead of 4
You guys just dont get it..... either that doesnt change a thing or it causes some other aspect of training/building to be "irrelevant".
To balance the training system a bit more and give more incentive for people to train on intense and use multiple attribute training, we have made the following changes:
-- intense training has received an additional 10% bonus to training gains
-- training 3 attributes now receives 4 bonus tokens instead of 3
-- training 4 attributes now receives 6 bonus tokens instead of 4
You guys just dont get it..... either that doesnt change a thing or it causes some other aspect of training/building to be "irrelevant".
Enkidu98
offline
offline
Originally posted by beenlurken
By Catch22
To balance the training system a bit more and give more incentive for people to train on intense and use multiple attribute training, we have made the following changes:
-- intense training has received an additional 10% bonus to training gains
-- training 3 attributes now receives 4 bonus tokens instead of 3
-- training 4 attributes now receives 6 bonus tokens instead of 4
You guys just dont get it..... either that doesnt change a thing or it causes some other aspect of training/building to be "irrelevant".
Yup, this will just be geekmathed out and people will find the best pattern for training that gives you the most SP gains while also allowing for 4 AEQ's and that will be the new pattern shared with most everyone but the noobs, who will find their barrier to entry has increased and their ability to F-up their first players has also increased so the amount of time before they actually can enjoy a competitive player will have increased and the rate of attachment for new players will likely consequently decrease.
The biggest problem I think to GLB is how your systems and just additions on top of additions and little balancing thought was done and all balancing is reactionary.
By Catch22
To balance the training system a bit more and give more incentive for people to train on intense and use multiple attribute training, we have made the following changes:
-- intense training has received an additional 10% bonus to training gains
-- training 3 attributes now receives 4 bonus tokens instead of 3
-- training 4 attributes now receives 6 bonus tokens instead of 4
You guys just dont get it..... either that doesnt change a thing or it causes some other aspect of training/building to be "irrelevant".
Yup, this will just be geekmathed out and people will find the best pattern for training that gives you the most SP gains while also allowing for 4 AEQ's and that will be the new pattern shared with most everyone but the noobs, who will find their barrier to entry has increased and their ability to F-up their first players has also increased so the amount of time before they actually can enjoy a competitive player will have increased and the rate of attachment for new players will likely consequently decrease.
The biggest problem I think to GLB is how your systems and just additions on top of additions and little balancing thought was done and all balancing is reactionary.
DiMo28
offline
offline
How about nerfing +% AEQ by increasing 1% per upgrade instead of 2%?
I think this AEQ is overpowered to begin with and makes it less of "must have" equipment. It would be more on par with the top level SAs.
Also, this makes the structure of charging 60 BT for 5%, 30 BT for 3% and 15 BT for 2% look a bit more attractive for buying a 5% piece. BTW, who is going to pay twice the amount for a 3% AEQ when it's only 1% difference? Either the cost needs to change or it should be 4% AEQ.
I think this AEQ is overpowered to begin with and makes it less of "must have" equipment. It would be more on par with the top level SAs.
Also, this makes the structure of charging 60 BT for 5%, 30 BT for 3% and 15 BT for 2% look a bit more attractive for buying a 5% piece. BTW, who is going to pay twice the amount for a 3% AEQ when it's only 1% difference? Either the cost needs to change or it should be 4% AEQ.
DiMo28
offline
offline
Also, in the recent past, Catch has mentioned making secondary attributes more necessary/valuable than they currently are. I could see multi-training being much more viable if that were to happen.
ijg
offline
offline
Originally posted by Shalubis
I don't agree with the premise that 4 AEQ is a bad thing that needs to be fixed. I also don't agree with the premise that multi-training sucks and needs to be buffed in order to compete with 4 AEQ building. I've been able to use the current system to put together individualized plans for each of my new builds - each will get 4 full AEQ, and each will be using a variety of multi, enhanced, intense, normal, and light training.
Same here. Even before the change, limited multi training was compatible with 4 AE if you plan it right.
Originally posted by Narsil
You guys are going about this all wrong. If you're trying to create more parity among players you need to have less options, not more. The only people who benefit from having so many different building options are the same people who already build the best players
POST OF THE YEAR!!!
This is 100% accurate, not to mention, burnout of good agents will go down if they didn't have to be on site 5+ hrs/day to compete.
More importantly, for Bort's long term financial future, many consumer marketing studies have shown too much choice frustrates people. I can't remember the exact #, but something like 5 choices of anything is plenty for most people to feel in control of their decision, but not overwhelmed. Before Bort leaves beta and starts advertising, he needs to simplify the game or new users won't hang around.
I don't agree with the premise that 4 AEQ is a bad thing that needs to be fixed. I also don't agree with the premise that multi-training sucks and needs to be buffed in order to compete with 4 AEQ building. I've been able to use the current system to put together individualized plans for each of my new builds - each will get 4 full AEQ, and each will be using a variety of multi, enhanced, intense, normal, and light training.
Same here. Even before the change, limited multi training was compatible with 4 AE if you plan it right.
Originally posted by Narsil
You guys are going about this all wrong. If you're trying to create more parity among players you need to have less options, not more. The only people who benefit from having so many different building options are the same people who already build the best players
POST OF THE YEAR!!!
This is 100% accurate, not to mention, burnout of good agents will go down if they didn't have to be on site 5+ hrs/day to compete.
More importantly, for Bort's long term financial future, many consumer marketing studies have shown too much choice frustrates people. I can't remember the exact #, but something like 5 choices of anything is plenty for most people to feel in control of their decision, but not overwhelmed. Before Bort leaves beta and starts advertising, he needs to simplify the game or new users won't hang around.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
