Warrior General Games

Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by hatchman

Originally posted by yello1


Its simpler than that.

There are 19 CPU owned teams in Regional and National Pro. Thats unsatisfactory.

Some one should own them.

If you let people own more teams, those teams would not be CPU owned.

QED

so basically you are saying that it is better to have shitty teams owned by a agent rather than have shitty teams owned by CPU's. come on there aren't enough freaking players to fill all these teams now. why let people own even more and water down the player pool even more.

seriously Yello1 I have no problem how many teams people own if they are actually competitive. but just owning teams for the sake of saying you own them doesn't work for most people.

Just looking at your teams Yello1 you have 4 teams that are at the Pro level instead of fielding 4 seperate teams. you could combine rosters and field 2 teams with the best builds of those 4 teams. and you could conceivably have a shot at winning championships with those 2 teams. but because you chose to own 4 teams around the same age level you are just watering down the player pool at that level and hurting all 4 of your own teams. so none of the 4 teams will be as good as they conceivably should be. in short by you owning 4 teams in that age level you are hurting not only your chances at winning a championship. but you are screwing the guys that have signed with your teams at that level. because you are hurting those players chances of winning a championship.

and before someone pops off it isn't all about winning those pretty little Gold trophies. I will say this if you aren't interested in winning those pretty little gold trophies then why waste the time and money to build players. If you aren't about winning then why not just focus on doing what you like on this game. like posting in forums or making a ton of suggestions or whatever.

You are under the mistaken impression that if I don't own those teams they will somehow vanish and not sully our fair game.

But thats not the case.

So long as their are ownerless teams, the cap on team ownership should be expanded. Allow demand to meet supply.

And your premise is not correct, by the way. I HAD just one team at the National Pro level (or any pro) for many seasons, the OTM being in Oceania Pro since S16 and the Grace only going up in S25 and the Word this offseason.

Players are like a gas, they will fill the volume.



Yello1 I have watched you make what seems like a thousand suggestions in this forum. and to my knowledge only 1 or 2 made any sense at all. if there are a ton of CPU teams in a age bracket then GLB needs to delete those teams and make less conferences. I mean seriously what the hell does it matter if all teams are owned by a agent or CPU if there isn't enough damn players to fill the rosters. that is the problem that needs solving not enough players to fill all teams instead of the stupid crap of owning even more teams.

and to address how you say I was wrong about your teams. How many teams do you own that are at the Pro level right now? 4 am I right? so you say that I am wrong that you could stop ownership of 2 of them save yourself some flex by not paying for those 2 teams. then combine rosters from the 4 and make 2 even better teams? I mean seriously Yello this isn't rocket science. it is simple math.

Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by Greywolfmeb

Originally posted by yello1


Players are like a gas, they will fill the volume.

This is bullshit... the last bunch have seasons of half filled rosters all over GLB say it's you that is wrong.


Are you suggesting my teams are some how wonderous things that attract recruits?

Because I filled a half and a full team in a couple of days both times. Without network connections and no particular cachet about the team or its performance.

Half empty teams exist because their owner is not putting the time into the admittedly clunky recruiting system to put his teams face in front of enough players. Usually, I submit, because his team is a low level farm club he doesnt care about to begin with. Its just a training program for his big team. But whatever the reason, you can find recruits if you try hard enough these days. Maybe not 55 or the perfect guys you want, but still.



so it is better to own more shitty teams that can't compete than to own less teams and focus your time into those teams to make them better teams for your players. to possibly give the agents on your teams a chance for a successful team.

Originally posted by yello1
Are you suggesting my teams are some how wonderous things that attract recruits?

Because I filled a half and a full team in a couple of days both times. Without network connections and no particular cachet about the team or its performance.

Half empty teams exist because their owner is not putting the time into the admittedly clunky recruiting system to put his teams face in front of enough players. Usually, I submit, because his team is a low level farm club he doesnt care about to begin with. Its just a training program for his big team. But whatever the reason, you can find recruits if you try hard enough these days. Maybe not 55 or the perfect guys you want, but still.



Judging from your past successes or lack thereof and without looking at your rosters, I'd say you probably have a bunch of players that don't belong in your team's leagues.

Originally posted by yello1
I have 7 teams and that just aint so.

It just means you hire OCs and DCs to run the teams. More opportunities for more fun for more people.

Anyway its simple economics. Supply has exceeded demand. Demand is artificially capped. Remove the cap to use up the excess supply.

I would respectfully disagree. You forget I had a dot on one of your teams awhile back. There was very limited communication from the team's management. Then after a early four or five game losing streak, it became complete silence.

A second point, if you are at "only" seven teams now, isn't it premature to ask for ten? What happened to teams eight and nine?

Originally posted by Myd
I would respectfully disagree. You forget I had a dot on one of your teams awhile back. There was very limited communication from the team's management. Then after a early four or five game losing streak, it became complete silence.

A second point, if you are at "only" seven teams now, isn't it premature to ask for ten? What happened to teams eight and nine?

I would say not a fan of pee wee. I know I'm not.

Perhaps, change the OP to give the owner the option of what 9 teams he can own?

Instead of 3 each, maybe 4 casual, 4 regular and 1 peewee? Or some sort of combination up to the owner's discretion.

-1 GLB needs to do some addition by subtraction..

Originally posted by hatchman
Originally posted by yello1

Originally posted by hatchman


Originally posted by yello1



Its simpler than that.

There are 19 CPU owned teams in Regional and National Pro. Thats unsatisfactory.

Some one should own them.

If you let people own more teams, those teams would not be CPU owned.

QED

so basically you are saying that it is better to have shitty teams owned by a agent rather than have shitty teams owned by CPU's. come on there aren't enough freaking players to fill all these teams now. why let people own even more and water down the player pool even more.

seriously Yello1 I have no problem how many teams people own if they are actually competitive. but just owning teams for the sake of saying you own them doesn't work for most people.

Just looking at your teams Yello1 you have 4 teams that are at the Pro level instead of fielding 4 seperate teams. you could combine rosters and field 2 teams with the best builds of those 4 teams. and you could conceivably have a shot at winning championships with those 2 teams. but because you chose to own 4 teams around the same age level you are just watering down the player pool at that level and hurting all 4 of your own teams. so none of the 4 teams will be as good as they conceivably should be. in short by you owning 4 teams in that age level you are hurting not only your chances at winning a championship. but you are screwing the guys that have signed with your teams at that level. because you are hurting those players chances of winning a championship.

and before someone pops off it isn't all about winning those pretty little Gold trophies. I will say this if you aren't interested in winning those pretty little gold trophies then why waste the time and money to build players. If you aren't about winning then why not just focus on doing what you like on this game. like posting in forums or making a ton of suggestions or whatever.

You are under the mistaken impression that if I don't own those teams they will somehow vanish and not sully our fair game.

But thats not the case.

So long as their are ownerless teams, the cap on team ownership should be expanded. Allow demand to meet supply.

And your premise is not correct, by the way. I HAD just one team at the National Pro level (or any pro) for many seasons, the OTM being in Oceania Pro since S16 and the Grace only going up in S25 and the Word this offseason.

Players are like a gas, they will fill the volume.



Originally posted by hatchman
Yello1 I have watched you make what seems like a thousand suggestions in this forum. and to my knowledge only 1 or 2 made any sense at all. if there are a ton of CPU teams in a age bracket then GLB needs to delete those teams and make less conferences. I mean seriously what the hell does it matter if all teams are owned by a agent or CPU if there isn't enough damn players to fill the rosters. that is the problem that needs solving not enough players to fill all teams instead of the stupid crap of owning even more teams.

and to address how you say I was wrong about your teams. How many teams do you own that are at the Pro level right now? 4 am I right? so you say that I am wrong that you could stop ownership of 2 of them save yourself some flex by not paying for those 2 teams. then combine rosters from the 4 and make 2 even better teams? I mean seriously Yello this isn't rocket science. it is simple math.


In theory that might make sense. But the players are unlikely to cooperate, they did not, after all all join my Miracles when that was the only team I had.

That may not make sense at first blush, and it doesn't have too since people are not always sensible. But there are real variations that can explain why such decisions might be made. For instance; players may prefer one league over another, players may have come to a team because of its record the prior season, players may only have come to a team because their friend was on the team, or to get a particular starting position, or because the team had openings for all of several players they wanted on the same team, or because they wanted to be an OC or DC etc., or perhaps because the team was casual or not etc. And they may only stay with a team for those reasons, or out of inertia or loyalty.

Combining into one team may not satisfy many of those players. You may lose alot of players by asking them to change leagues, move to a team that may not have the record they want, which may not have room for all of their players, or both they and their friends players, or where they may not start or they may not be able to coach, or which is not casual or is casual etc. And trying to move them from one team to another may lose the benefit of inertia and loyalty and make them test the market.

So 1 is better than 4 does not necessarily translate the way you think it does.

As for the fact that you would prefer a smaller GLB to get rid of the CPUs, thats fine. Say that rather than saying my idea is bad. Because they are two separate ideas and your preference does not in itself render my idea good or bad. Even in a shrunken GLB there are going to be CPU teams. And unless you have 32 of them (which btw we don't - see post above) shrinking will not work because you would have to take teams away from players to remove a whole league. Not even considering the need for a pyramid structure to support the GLB theme of world national elite competitive and regular leagues.

Moreover, the game we have is the game we have. You might say "I'd rather see a smaller GLB" but the fact is thats not whats happening. My idea is about the here and now, and in the here and now there are CPU teams, which means the supply of teams has outpaced the demand. This means removing the artificial cap on demand is a good idea.

And, finally, you ignore the marketing effect of CPU teams upon the game. Ever see the down town of a struggling town with empty store fronts? And how one empty store front in a town or mall very quickly leads to others? CPU Teams are empty storefronts. They tell players that GLB is not vibrantly popular. This makes people down on the game, reduces good word of mouth and generates bad and in general over time makes your perceived problem of too few players a real one. And by the by, shrinking the leagues would give the same impression, if a game isn't growing then its on its way out in peoples minds.

But letting those teams be player owned is putting a business in that store front and removing that perception. And yes there would be more players for that store front. People do not sign to CPU teams, but they do to human teams. Players could come out of the D league, or be made outright to fill the player demand set in the player creation screen.

Every team should be human owned. Its a good thing for the game. Raising the cap on ownership would do that.

Its glaringly obvious. Your pie in the sky hopes for a shrinking GLB not withstanding.

Originally posted by yello1
But letting those teams be player owned is putting a business in that store front and removing that perception. And yes there would be more players for that store front. People do not sign to CPU teams, but they do to human teams. Players could come out of the D league, or be made outright to fill the player demand set in the player creation screen.

Every team should be human owned. Its a good thing for the game. Raising the cap on ownership would do that.


At the same time, it can also be said that a handful of CPU teams existing allow a person to purchase a team midseason and learn the ropes before a serious rebuild the next season.

Originally posted by Myd
Originally posted by yello1

But letting those teams be player owned is putting a business in that store front and removing that perception. And yes there would be more players for that store front. People do not sign to CPU teams, but they do to human teams. Players could come out of the D league, or be made outright to fill the player demand set in the player creation screen.

Every team should be human owned. Its a good thing for the game. Raising the cap on ownership would do that.


At the same time, it can also be said that a handful of CPU teams existing allow a person to purchase a team midseason and learn the ropes before a serious rebuild the next season.



Definitely true.

However 19 of them in the grown up leagues is way too many.

The trick would be raising the cap enough and no more than is just right so that you strike a balance that gets CPU teams off the dusty shelves but does allow for some midseason grabs.

And of course just because a "mega-owner" can buy a team doesn't mean he would beat out a n00b in making a bid for a team.

You could, perhaps, have CPU teams available for smaller or non-owners for a day or two before they went on the market for the higher volume owners.

And of course having a dearth of CPU teams could bring back the waiting list, and tell them when they need to add teams to the rookie leagues as well.

But anyway, yes thats a consideration.

Originally posted by TimDaBeast
I would say not a fan of pee wee. I know I'm not.

Perhaps, change the OP to give the owner the option of what 9 teams he can own?

Instead of 3 each, maybe 4 casual, 4 regular and 1 peewee? Or some sort of combination up to the owner's discretion.

That might be a solution. There would have to be some safeguards to prevent an Owner from working to take over a whole league by planning/rigging promotions/demotions using 9 teams of the same age group/type.

At the same time, might another nail in PW's coffin though.

Originally posted by Myd
Originally posted by TimDaBeast

I would say not a fan of pee wee. I know I'm not.

Perhaps, change the OP to give the owner the option of what 9 teams he can own?

Instead of 3 each, maybe 4 casual, 4 regular and 1 peewee? Or some sort of combination up to the owner's discretion.

That might be a solution. There would have to be some safeguards to prevent an Owner from working to take over a whole league by planning/rigging promotions/demotions using 9 teams of the same age group/type.

At the same time, might another nail in PW's coffin though.

I am not sure what the rationale behind the 3 - 3 - 3 thing was, particularly since Pee Wee doesn't have tiers of promotion the way the others do. But barring some monkey wrench that we are unaware of that could be a solution for sure, moving some of the pee wee options to the other two types or allowing that as an option. I own a pee wee, do not see any real need for owning another. But more teams to fill in the age gaps in farm leagues, or to have more nat pro teams would be fun.

I still say instead of the suggestion you are asking for here. that GLB should cut the CPU teams completely out and make smaller leagues that are completely human owned teams. and those teams would have to have at minimum 40 human owned players on the roster. if they bring back the waiting list to own teams then if people have to wait on getting a team they will be less likely to half ass their efforts in fielding the team.

And Yello1 your above post responding to my post I just want to cover it. first I am not stupid or retarded so don't waste our time in attempting to talk down to me. secondly your thoughts that players would reject the idea of combining 4 sucky teams and merging into 2 good teams is kinda far fetched in my eyes. most agents play this game to have a chance to be successful at it. so if you address those players in a way. that they have a option to possibly be on a competitive team. rather than a shitty one they would probably be more receptive. I fully understand some players want to play on the same team as their buddies. and others want to be on certain teams with a winning record and so on. everyone has that same problem. but most people don't continue to waste the flex in buying teams. to continue to build those teams into mediocre teams. If you would focus your time and efforts into building a smaller number of better teams rather than building more less successful teams.

Originally posted by hatchman
I still say instead of the suggestion you are asking for here. that GLB should cut the CPU teams completely out and make smaller leagues that are completely human owned teams. and those teams would have to have at minimum 40 human owned players on the roster. if they bring back the waiting list to own teams then if people have to wait on getting a team they will be less likely to half ass their efforts in fielding the team.

And Yello1 your above post responding to my post I just want to cover it. first I am not stupid or retarded so don't waste our time in attempting to talk down to me. secondly your thoughts that players would reject the idea of combining 4 sucky teams and merging into 2 good teams is kinda far fetched in my eyes. most agents play this game to have a chance to be successful at it. so if you address those players in a way. that they have a option to possibly be on a competitive team. rather than a shitty one they would probably be more receptive. I fully understand some players want to play on the same team as their buddies. and others want to be on certain teams with a winning record and so on. everyone has that same problem. but most people don't continue to waste the flex in buying teams. to continue to build those teams into mediocre teams. If you would focus your time and efforts into building a smaller number of better teams rather than building more less successful teams.



Don't think I was talking down but if someone insults me my tone is going to be in like kind. Not sure if you did or not, TLDR my reply. So sorry maybe as warranted.

We are speculating so who knows but since moving players from one team to another means cuts and signs I think I am the one speculating from firmer ground. I have had guys on my team for seasons on end, when I tried to move them (they were too low level for National Pro) I lost about half. And I also know I have had a few agents on my teams that are signing blocks of players at a time and it would be difficult to fit blocks into the same team. Etc as above. It may not be impossible but I am sure its not as much a given as you think.

And regardless of that, its wrong headed to think you should tell me how I want to play my game, what I am supposed to like or not. If I prefer having ten mediocre teams thats really up to me is it not?

Your preference for smaller leagues is noted. But like I said what we have is what we have, and my idea goes to that.

But I have to ask since you missed it or dissed it, don't you think its a negative message to the player base to move backwards to a smaller league structure? You don't think that in and of itself will hurt player retention and word of mouth new customers?

Better, IMO, to make your existing structure work better to gain more players to allow you to EXPAND, not retract.