Warrior General Games

Each team owner should have a 'score' based on metrics surrounding human players and competitiveness. If their score is low, aka they aren't fielding a competitive team, you block them from purchasing another. If their score is just ok, you still don't allow them to buy another. You could privately display the current grade on the buy team page (maybe range it from F to A like a school grade).'

If their score meets a high threshold, supporting that they have a well-run team, you allow them to buy another. You could have an increasing threshold above 2 teams meaning you'd only get 3 teams (or more) if you were a top tier owner with all your teams.

The uber owner would be one who is never inactive, consistently at the top of their tier ladder, and with consistent high number of human players and absence of CPUs. It shouldn't need to be all that complex to calculate and should account for longevity, not just fluctuating based on short term. A 2nd team should be granted after seasons of proving you can run your first extremely well. A third would then be able to be purchased after those two were both extremely run well for another few seasons.

You could likewise strip F owners of their teams at the end of seasons. Sounds harsh but they'd be the ones frequently inactive, at the bottom of their ladder tiers with CPUs.

tl;dr reward good owners

Or, just let everyone own a single veteran team, but as many lower tier teams as they want.

I wouldn't mind the game officially supporting a baseball style farm system.

Let owners have a lower tier team as long as they keep one at vet level to make keeping vet teams alive easier.

I like the grading Idea but don't strip people of there teams or don't allow people to buy teams. Everybody should be able to buy the same amount of teams

Originally posted by underdog13
Everybody should be able to buy the same amount of teams

You must be a liberal.

I dont like that you want to tie the grade to team success. There are so many random things that influence the teams success.

I think the most important ´variables are activity, constancy in owning a team and human player ratio on the team. Maybe something like average chemistry would help to see how an owner treats his players. But that means you get punished, if an agent goes inactive and you have to replavce the players.

But in general I like the idea. I would prefer to combine that with prohibiting new player to get a team for a period of time (30 days, one season,...).

I'm still on board with my college system and allowing people to own 1 VET and 1 College Team. You have that you don't need to own or control multiple "farm style" teams

That said I doubt they'd do it or do it anytime soon so anything that allows direct ownership of more than 1 team I'm all for.

Originally posted by Evil Sports Agent
I dont like that you want to tie the grade to team success. There are so many random things that influence the teams success.

I think the most important ´variables are activity, constancy in owning a team and human player ratio on the team. Maybe something like average chemistry would help to see how an owner treats his players. But that means you get punished, if an agent goes inactive and you have to replavce the players.

But in general I like the idea. I would prefer to combine that with prohibiting new player to get a team for a period of time (30 days, one season,...).

but that promotes average team owners getting to add additional teams, which only promotes the mediocrity. That was a vented negative from GLB1 from Corndog in another thread. This is concentrating 'wealth'. You give the owners that you reasonably know are going to field highly competitive teams more teams.

Team success is a fine metric, especially when you're looking at the accuracy of the ladder in regards to tiers. There's no reason to give an owner with a team in say the 40's or 50's of his tier another team, just because it's full of human players.

Problem is if you make it based on team success you will shrink the overall experience. More owners will build their own players to avoid inactive agents. Organizations will become closer and open less because they want to maintain success.

Overall I think it would have far greater negative impact as proposed. Not against it entirely even though it would stop me from doing what I plan to do for at least 1-2 seasons at least depending. Just performance is a bad metric for ownership otherwise Jerry Jones needs revoked.

Why not base it on championships? You can have teams equal to the number of championships you've got, minimum 1. So after you pick up the second championship you can get a second team.

Or base it on trophies...give them a reason to be there other than bragging rights... can own teams equal to the number of trophies, with a minimum of 1 team. (as an example) Obviously the numbers can change...but the concept is there.

Originally posted by Zaranthuul
Problem is if you make it based on team success you will shrink the overall experience. More owners will build their own players to avoid inactive agents. Organizations will become closer and open less because they want to maintain success.

Overall I think it would have far greater negative impact as proposed. Not against it entirely even though it would stop me from doing what I plan to do for at least 1-2 seasons at least depending. Just performance is a bad metric for ownership otherwise Jerry Jones needs revoked.

We're talking an agent buying a second team instead of having to find another agent to buy it more or less for them. It's not effecting anything performance-wise. You're reaching too far to an extreme where it has a drastic effect.

This seems to promote a "rich get richer" mechanism that WGG has attempted to stay away from since the early days of GLB. Besides, you're no really preventing mediocre teams. Its not that hard to find a "straw owner" if you want to control a second team.

If WGG wants to grant second teams, it should be something more "basic". If an agent owns a team through veteran with minimal inactivity (since RL does happen), they should be able to own a second team. Once that second team makes it to Veteran they can get a third team. This would, over time, increase revenue stream in a long-term way.

Fwiw, rich get richer has always been in reference to performance bonuses.

Not owning another team. It'd be like saying they were against someone creating another player because of 'rich get richer', lol.

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
Fwiw, rich get richer has always been in reference to performance bonuses.

Not owning another team. It'd be like saying they were against someone creating another player because of 'rich get richer', lol.

Only if they said, "in order to build a 2nd QB your first QB has to be in the top 10 of the HOF for two consecutive seasons because we don't want people building bad QBs."

If they open up the ability to purchase multiple teams and then tie that ability to performance it is most certainly a rich get richer model.