Warrior General Games

Since GLB2 is a Player's game and GLB is a coordinators style game why not do this?

"THIS game should have been a "buy your own team of players to create". Because it's a coordinators game and not a players game. There will always be more people who just want to create and watch players then there will ever be people who want to coordinate."

So why not do this I'd very much enjoy this aspect. Buying a team with all the players and build all the players and do all the AI's and stats etc. and on GLB 2 have it more to the individual players.

i actually kinda like this idea

+.89

What amount of $ would that require? I'm not into paying much more without a re-focus on developing the sim further.
Would removing the cpu dot penalties accomplish much the same thing?

Originally posted by dbreeze
What amount of $ would that require? I'm not into paying much more without a re-focus on developing the sim further.
Would removing the cpu dot penalties accomplish much the same thing?

Well I don't see why they wouldn't make it affordable for everyone so everyone could have a team. Maybe just make it more Flex for higher Leagues, Pro would cost a substantial amount more then Pewee.
Just an Idea.

I think this type of business works because it's a small cost each month and we don't see the end cost. If the cost of a dot had included the total expenditure through end build, I think very few people would play. Most of us will drop 10 or 20 bucks a month without thinking about it, but ask us to drop 120 - 240 bucks and very few will. Still, I like the idea of not being at the mercy of some guy from who knows where going inactive due to a heart attack or lost job or who knows what, and leaving me scrounging through failed teams for a replacement.

The new idea for GLB 3.

but a lot times the coordinator is basing his playcalls etc around the builds of the players on the team. I know it's a little cookie cutter is, but especially with defense the builds can be widely different (ie: int CBs, KL CBs, or just plain cover CBs)

I suppose you could make it where you had some sort of computer players etc, but I think that would be such a huge change that it doesn't make sense unless the game starts loosing players


also... may people (myself included) prefer GLB1 to GLB2... so if they took away the ability for me to make players here, chances are I'd just quit

Would love to have a CPU player league where you control the whole CPU team. I want to be a owner but i dont want to have to try and recruit people to fill all my positions. I dont want to listen to people whining.

Something similar to What if Sports Gridiron dynasty. It would just be soo Much better here. Have fictional recruiting of CPU players etc. I love what they have done at Whatifsports in this regards I just love the Dotball game play here much better.

Well an Idea would be you buy the team. and you receive a full roster of players that are completely customize-able. So for instance you could train one of your 2 or 3 HB to be a returner or maybe a power back. or maybe you'd just preffer two combo backs.. leave all those options to the owners. and or just allow the the game to do it yourself.

+1

Been saying this for years.

This could be solved by simply reducing the upfront cost of flex by reducing (or removing) the backend recycling of it. Believe the math* comes out to about $30-35/month for an entire team IIRC. That would also not change anybody else's ability to play with just 1 dot if they chose to do that.

I think I argued this with DB/CDog a while back that the recycling of flex, on a website that doesn't get ad revenue, is silly since GLB doesn't get any revenue from people "hanging out" after their money is spent. So the upfront (higher) cost for flex essentially forces the user to pay more for 1 player, and then eventually can recycle for 2-3 more players. My argument was that most users of this game have more fun when they have more dots, and the current model discourages that. Especially when you consider the absurdly long time it takes to build a player to peak level (don't get me started on that tangent). They seemed to apply some of that logic to GLB2 but I'd rather see that on GLB1 personally.


* = the math assumes the same revenue per agent for GLB as they would get today for the same level of flex purchase. Though I'd argue it can be lowered and you'd gain more revenue from more agents if you made it somewhat affordable to own an entire team, and widely affordable to own an entire offense or defense.