Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Dub J
If team ownership was cheaper I would create more dots, tbh.



Originally posted by lhass
True - I'd own a team again if it was cheaper.

The point I was trying to make and bring to the table

Point one owning....400 season dots cost more unless OOP or mlf

point two own again....what team did you own before that put you off? I am on and off my glb but owning was never a cost issue was always building dots and EQ

two points

not being a dick but owning a team is not a cost issue unless you do one by yourself....I know owners that spend next to nothing and have peps do work

How would a cheaper team make you buy more dots? Most dots already cost more per season than an entire team...

If anything, making players cheaper would make me want to own more teams.

Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
How would a cheaper team make you buy more dots? Most dots already cost more per season than an entire team...

If anything, making players cheaper would make me want to own more teams.

If you have 10 dollars and something you want to buy costs 10 dollars you will not buy anything else.

If you have 10 dollars and something you want to buy costs 5 dollars you are prone to spend the other 5 dollars on something else.

Not everyone is in a group that supplies a team with a full roster. This could very well be the difference between full rosters and continuing on with teams with 1/3 CPU rosters.

Originally posted by Dub J
If you have 10 dollars and something you want to buy costs 10 dollars you will not buy anything else.

If you have 10 dollars and something you want to buy costs 5 dollars you are prone to spend the other 5 dollars on something else.

Not everyone is in a group that supplies a team with a full roster. This could very well be the difference between full rosters and continuing on with teams with 1/3 CPU rosters.

Originally posted by Dub J
If you have 10 dollars and something you want to buy costs 10 dollars you will not buy anything else.

If you have 10 dollars and something you want to buy costs 5 dollars you are prone to spend the other 5 dollars on something else.

Not everyone is in a group that supplies a team with a full roster. This could very well be the difference between full rosters and continuing on with teams with 1/3 CPU rosters.



If I only have ten dollars to my name, I'll probably just hang myself

Besides cutting a team cost in half will do what exactly? Let you boost a centre 2/3 times. Congrats, that's a lot better thank just making players cheaper.

Originally posted by Dub J

Not everyone is in a group that supplies a team with a full roster. This could very well be the difference between full rosters and continuing on with teams with 1/3 CPU rosters.



i know that you are just trolling, but this is just too stupid to ignore. you cant fill 1/3 a team from 400 fp. these noobs dont know that you love to troll more than life itself, so some forums deserve real answers and really need to go back to banning trolls. sorry dub, but trolling noobs just is beneath you and not good for the game

Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
If I only have ten dollars to my name, I'll probably just hang myself

Besides cutting a team cost in half will do what exactly? Let you boost a centre 2/3 times. Congrats, that's a lot better thank just making players cheaper.

Do I have to draw this in crayon for you to comprehend what I'm posting?

In my analogy dollars = flex.

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
i know that you are just trolling, but this is just too stupid to ignore. you cant fill 1/3 a team from 400 fp. these noobs dont know that you love to troll more than life itself, so some forums deserve real answers and really need to go back to banning trolls. sorry dub, but trolling noobs just is beneath you and not good for the game

I'm not trolling. If you think paying 2008 prices for things with this game in the state it's in then you are delusional.

Going by the popularity of the game now compared to back then, and the size of the user base, flex should cost half of what it is right now

Originally posted by Dub J
Do I have to draw this in crayon for you to comprehend what I'm posting?

In my analogy dollars = flex.



even if teams were free you could only make one dot with the saved flex... how does that help fill a team?

im not even sure you got through highschool.

According to your logic there is only one team at GLB.

so we can all make one olineman each if we currently own a team instead of cutting dot prices in half so we can actually build dots.

that makes about as much sense as raising the price of flex.

Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
so we can all make one olineman each if we currently own a team instead of cutting dot prices

What does one of those things have to do with the other?

You are so simple you think I'm implying keep player cost the same but reducing ownership cost?

ohlololol

please stop posting