Warrior General Games

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Shorter plateau takes away incentive and sustainability of non-network teams. It will make them less likely to exist and more users to instead just quit due to the disadvantage of short plateau.

Imho anyone advocating for shorter plateau is being fickle at the detriment to the game and userbase.

I don't want it shorter... I just don't want the total number of Plateau and 1st season of decline to be TWICE as long as it took to build. One less, to me, is perfect. It, at least, causes turnover and still allows sustainability at the same time. 7+1 = 8 and that's just 1 too long IMHO.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I don't want it shorter... I just don't want the total number of Plateau and 1st season of decline to be TWICE as long as it took to build. One less, to me, is perfect. It, at least, causes turnover and still allows sustainability at the same time. 7+1 = 8 and that's just 1 too long IMHO.

Depends, not every agent keeps their dots in decline

Originally posted by Bluesman
Depends, not every agent keeps their dots in decline

I don't

same here. Only in rare occasions.

I almost always keep mine 1 season in decline; The only exception is when teams have a whole farm group to replace, and there is no suitable home to go to. Dots are still very good their 1st decline season.

One guy I had won WL D-MVP in his 2nd season of decline: CB - KoB's Marv Woodson https://glb.warriorgeneral.com/game/player.pl?player_id=4736503 - S86

KOB CBs are godlike, we're talking about "human" dots here.

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Shorter plateau takes away incentive and sustainability of non-network teams. It will make them less likely to exist and more users to instead just quit due to the disadvantage of short plateau.

(a) if only having 4 seasons, they are going to spend time with at least 1-2 of them just to get to WL (whereas network teams can move dots and get full 4 in WL)

(b) the larger % of a dots seasons that are plateau, the larger # of plateau dots, and the more competitive plateau leagues can be given there are more teams and more dots.

Let's say 1000 dots will exist. 7 plateau seasons means 7 divided by 11 means 636 of the dots will be plateau dots, vs 4/8 being 50% or 500 dots. So in this example 7 vs 4 plateau seasons will increase the # of plateau teams and number of plateau dots in the game by 636/500= +27%

Nevermind the fact that the short a dots total life is, the more we are actually paying for each dot per month (ie $35 dot cost over 8 seasons compared to $35 dot cost over 11 seasons equals 37.5% more expensive dots per month to have the same # of active dots on your account.


Imho anyone advocating for shorter plateau is being fickle at the detriment to the game and userbase.

The cost argument is probably going away, if you believe what Bort has says about a subscription based model.

Every other part of what you're arguing sustains the same old "nothing but WL matters" mindset, which is how we got to where we are now: a small group of die hards with multi-accounts sharing a very few coordinators across dozens of teams.

Imagine if you needed a top 4 team every season, to qualify for WL. Like imagine a trophy system or something. Conference game losers got Bronze, title game was for Gold and Silver. When your team accumulates 4 trophies, you become WL eligible. Once you're in WL team chemistry goes away, and your roster gets locked.

Every season would have to be WL quality. Teams would be in a race to collect as many trophies as possible before they expired. This system would create its own all-time great list.

Originally posted by Bluesman
Depends, not every agent keeps their dots in decline

Agree... which is why 6 not 5 or 4. Again, to me it subjective. If it changes, it changes and we'll all deal with it then. Some will complain... some will love it. If it doesn't change then we'll just keep on keepin' on. Some will love it... some will complain. Most of us will deal with the cards that get dealt and make the best of it. But, since the OP asked the question, they should be prepared for the answers and those will differ and vary from person to person. I'm in the camp of 6. I think the OP would prefer to eliminate all levels below Pro at least.

Originally posted by reddogrw
4 season build

7 season plateau

1 season decline

12 seasons of usable dot life

This. ^^

Originally posted by TJ Spikes
The cost argument is probably going away, if you believe what Bort has says about a subscription based model.

Every other part of what you're arguing sustains the same old "nothing but WL matters" mindset, which is how we got to where we are now: a small group of die hards with multi-accounts sharing a very few coordinators across dozens of teams.

Imagine if you needed a top 4 team every season, to qualify for WL. Like imagine a trophy system or something. Conference game losers got Bronze, title game was for Gold and Silver. When your team accumulates 4 trophies, you become WL eligible. Once you're in WL team chemistry goes away, and your roster gets locked.

Every season would have to be WL quality. Teams would be in a race to collect as many trophies as possible before they expired. This system would create its own all-time great list.



What does bort say about a subscription model? He's been very quiet on the idea for awhile not. Flex dot cost will remain since people need a way to churn the flex they already had (ie a subscription option would obv be a 2nd option available, not delete current dot cost).

As far as this having anything to do with WL, it clearly does not. The fact is if you want a cool ladder promotion system, you need (a) teams to exist long enough to feasibly journey up the ladder in plateau which 5 seasons isn't really enough for, but and (b) you need go have enough dots and teams to fill out enough leagues for a cool ladder.

The fact is, both (a) and (b) above are helped by longer plateau.

The rest of what your talking about is weird (trophies) though I have been a part of "WL isn't the most healthy for the game" since it was invented.

The fact is the short plateau (5 seasons) made it impossible for non-network teams to recruit since replacing 1/5th of your team or more every season is impossible with a 7 or 8 season plateau you have two huge things that benefit non-network teams. A longer plateau to fight up the ladder organically, and if a team wasn't to try to sustain by recruiting, your needed dots every season is much much lower.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I think the OP would prefer to eliminate all levels below Pro at least.

While I originally liked insta-dots, that war has already been lost, and at this point since so many enjoy the build process I think the 4 season build cycle was a good implementatuon by Bort, a happy medium.

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
While I originally liked insta-dots, that war has already been lost, and at this point since so many enjoy the build process I think the 4 season build cycle was a good implementatuon by Bort, a happy medium.




+1 Right again Wise

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
While I originally liked insta-dots, that war has already been lost, and at this point since so many enjoy the build process I think the 4 season build cycle was a good implementatuon by Bort, a happy medium.




Then why kill it with a long plateau run?

because a dot's life was in the past 7+5=12. Now can't be less than 4+7 in my eyes.