Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Bane

easy fix #1 -- cut flex buying prices in half
easy fix #3 -- cut max roster sizes down to 30

Fix 1 and 3 would contradict each other. Keep roster size as is, lowering flex cost for GLB1 dots would possibly allow us to see a boost in number of dots created, off-setting the need to lower the max roster size. Get rid of gimping teams that have 10+ CPU dots, change that number to 20+ CPU dots. Easier fix and helps those teams that fall short of filling a full 55 roster

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120520002433/uncyclopedia/images/2/26/Stoner-weed-advisory.jpg

whatchutalkinboutwillis

u

NoU

Originally posted by SteveMax58
Cut the flex cost to 1/4 and remove all recycling...and I bet your sales go up year over year (I'll bet a HoF package on it).


I said cut it in half then eliminate recycling and i said it about 3 years ago, but Bort and Co do make a salient point: if it were not for flex recycling, there would be no more GLB1 right now because that is the only thing keeping 90% of the people here that are here. They have a bunch of recycled flex and are like, may as well spend it.

Originally posted by tpaterniti
I said cut it in half then eliminate recycling and i said it about 3 years ago, but Bort and Co do make a salient point: if it were not for flex recycling, there would be no more GLB1 right now because that is the only thing keeping 90% of the people here that are here. They have a bunch of recycled flex and are like, may as well spend it.

I disagree with the premise here though. I would argue that people make as many dots as their money will allow...not that they only want 3 or 4 dots and thats all the time they have to bother with. I think Bort would have to argue the latter in order for his logic on the flex model to stand up. The argument of a higher flex cost, higher recycle rate only makes the barrier to entry for "fun" higher imo. And having people hang around without spending more never makes sense unless your goal is to put ads on the site and get traffic that way. I'd still argue that isn't the best way to do it but its at least more logical imo.

So I think you have to define how you think people have the most "fun" playing this game. I argue that this is not a game where the most fun you can have is to play 1 dot and focus all kinds of time on that 1 dot. Maybe at first if you are learning the basics, but not after a short while. Most people play 1 or 2 or 4 dots (whatever) based on their desired spend level. And that would be fine except for managing a couple of dots doesn't require that much focus or time...so even if somebody gets "hooked" on managing 1 dot, their "spending more because I like the game" figure will be more like 3 or 4 dots...not 40. And in my view, you want to cater the flex model to get the most "hooked" players as you can, as those players will spend more. So unless you like team building or coordinating or other social aspects here...its very easy to drift away from this game and possibly find some other online game that might steal your money away from GLB.

My argument, and the same argument you made, is that cutting the flex cost for dots is a larger benefit to the game. My reasoning is that people have more fun with this game when they can play lots of dots and experiment more. Talking entire team level of dots, or even multiple teams. Now that can keep you somewhat busy & focused on this game, especially if you coordinate, and lead to better competition, more available dots (ideally you always have more dots than teams...never vise versa), and ultimately a more interesting game.

Of course none of this is likely nor the only issue with GLB...but I'd say if they reduce roster sizes significantly (like 40 or less) then your cost model makes more sense to be 1/2. If they keep the roster sizes as is, then my 1/4 makes more sense (or somewhere in between ours). And I'm saying "makes sense" as in "gets the most revenue generated" for GLB, which also means more people actively playing it.

I don't disagree with you. Here are a few things to consider:

1.) Bort and Co built this game modeled off of Cyberdunk, a basketball sim with only 5 or 6 players per team, so it is very possible they did expect people to care a lot about the micro elements of each player.
2.) Bort and Co I think were always planning to create WG games under whatever name. It doesn't make sense to you to have non paying people around, but if you think about it, first that does make sense for this type of game. If 10% of the GLB population are spending and spending significant amounts, which seems always to have been the case (at least 10, probably more at certain points), you still need fodder around to fill out teams. Even if those guys can afford to build their own teams, they need teams to play against, which will probably be full of low paying agents who own 3-10 players. Also, WG games now has a large pool of people to market their other games to. So why keep non paying players around? To make the game work for the paying players and because they hoped to get them involved in all the other games they were planning to work on in the future.

I am just reconstructing some of their reasonings. I tend to agree with you more.

GLB classic still being on the radar just means that Bort will always have a spot in his heart for his first love. Nostalgia may save GLB yet.

Forum Food Fight

This whole thread:

Fan 1: Too high?

Fan 2: You know, the trajectory.

Fan 3: Who gives a shit, its gone.

Originally posted by Jiddy78
This whole thread:

Fan 1: Too high?

Fan 2: You know, the trajectory.

Fan 3: Who gives a shit, its gone.

Maybe we should start one of those wave things.

Just make insta-dots an option
and shorten the off season.
That's the super simple 90% solution Bort and Co. should be focused on.