Warrior General Games

Originally posted by merenoise
Originally posted by -Achanceb4-

link me someone who had 9 teams.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/home.pl?user_id=39385

PW whore

Originally posted by Myd
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?

Did you post in the forums? Some teams you post in the forums and no one ever responds. When a team clams up I am not going to waste time trying to make em talk.

Especially in the lower tiers where it was, at least at one time, mostly guys signing trainees for the big leagues and they did not seem to care about winning or losing.

But where the players are talkative I talk back.

Varies with real life situations of course. In recent years I have been a caregiver, two office worker and lost my Mom, so there have been stretches of limited GLB time for sure.

But generally speaking I would like to engage the players more than they seem inclined.

Is it me?

LOL dont answer that.

Originally posted by Greywolfmeb
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.

In some of the teams yes. Until recently the teams other than the Miracle and the Pee Wee were all clubs built to be farm clubs. As such I was fine with signing wayward old timers and non boosters to them to the spots my guys and network guys did not fill. Thats why I needed to totally recycle the word and grace when they hit national pro.

The Miracle had guys good enough for the league but not enough great players. That was mostly me and my co-owner. We just didn't get the right rumors as to what was the way to build a dot.

Originally posted by yello1
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.

I want to start by saying I am not trying to tell you what to like and what not to like. I was trying to have a legitimate discussion against your suggestion. so if you want to take it personal and get pissy go for it. as far as the excuses you are giving for fielding mediocre teams if you enjoy that and want to waste not only your flex but others in doing that feel free to do so. most people I have ever dealt with on this game want to actually be successful. with that said I have not dissed you at all. I am just trying to understand why anyone would rather have more shitty teams. instead of focusing on less teams and being more successful. you can make your excuses as to how hard it is to combine teams due to players signing in blocks or whatever excuse you gave.

but at the end of the day most people on this game want competition that is why most people play the game. and having more shitty teams isn't going to accomplish that. a league restructure that has less teams while ensuring the teams there were full rosters would add to the competition. there have been more people leave the game due to all the 255-0 blowouts than there have been due to not being able to own more crappy teams that you can't find enough players to fill. If you enjoy not having successful teams and are happy with that then more power to you and I wish you the best of luck. but making it so that people like yourself can purchase more teams is going to do nothing but water down the player pool even more.

Originally posted by hatchman
Originally posted by yello1

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.

Originally posted by
I want to start by saying I am not trying to tell you what to like and what not to like. I was trying to have a legitimate discussion against your suggestion. so if you want to take it personal and get pissy go for it. as far as the excuses you are giving for fielding mediocre teams if you enjoy that and want to waste not only your flex but others in doing that feel free to do so. most people I have ever dealt with on this game want to actually be successful. with that said I have not dissed you at all. I am just trying to understand why anyone would rather have more shitty teams. instead of focusing on less teams and being more successful. you can make your excuses as to how hard it is to combine teams due to players signing in blocks or whatever excuse you gave.

but at the end of the day most people on this game want competition that is why most people play the game. and having more shitty teams isn't going to accomplish that. a league restructure that has less teams while ensuring the teams there were full rosters would add to the competition. there have been more people leave the game due to all the 255-0 blowouts than there have been due to not being able to own more crappy teams that you can't find enough players to fill. If you enjoy not having successful teams and are happy with that then more power to you and I wish you the best of luck. but making it so that people like yourself can purchase more teams is going to do nothing but water down the player pool even more.

Dude, I say again, chill out, I wasnt getting pissy with you. Just talk about the subject and lets stop worrying about our inner Oprah. I was trying to make the point that there are 51 flavors of ice cream at Baskin Robins for a reason. As such dismissing a way of playing the game that some may have that you do not share is unfounded. Just because you may not like it does not mean others can't (play alot of teams rather than one cadre of the best players from those other teams).

And the notion that having more teams means they must all be shtty is simply wrong btw. Teams of free agents (not network or One agent teams) develop over time due to chemistry issues and the "join a winner", "join my buddy" and other natures of free agency. So the more teams you have developing the MORE success you will have season to season. Thats my belief anyway. I am only just exploring it since the Grace and Word are only just recently ceasing to be farm teams. But I think I have a better shot of getting into World League with three Nat Pro teams than one, and if I could get a fourth, then even more then. The more players who I associate with this way, the more free agents I have an in with. But thats just a theory, I could be wrong.

Also, I need more farm teams. And if you look at the age brackets, you can't cover them all even with six teams.

But, again, the big thing is this. CPU teams on league rosters suck. If you remove the cap, there will be less of them. Maybe none. Thats a good thing for competition for ALL. Owners can fill those teams if they want to. The owners they had didnt because they didnt care about the game, ever or anymore. Thats why they quit. Get an owner who DOES care about the game (care as in enjoying it) and there will be more effort to recruit and those teams will be filled or close to it.

You still do not get the point where the hell do you get the added players to fill these teams? Teams that are CPU are CPU for a reason there aren't enough players now to fill all the teasm already here. by letting owners own more teams that just waters down the player pool even more. and in turn makes recruiting for most teams even harder. when that happens then the level of competition drops even more. Personally I don't have to deal with it because I am to the point I build entire teams on my own. but I do not see how your suggestion will do a dang thing you are saying.

there is so many drawbacks to your suggestion and not much of any positives to it. Yeah you can say that if GLB lets agents buy more teams that will add a small amount of extra revenue to the site, well witht he watered down player pool and the even worse competition GLB would start loosing even more players. and loosing those players would cost the site even more money than what it would generate from adding the number of teams you can own.

I seriously wonder just how many agents on the site actually own 6,7 or 8 teams now. I bet that the number isn't anywhere like what you would think.

Can the horseflesh be served or does it require more tenderizing?

Originally posted by CDZYO
Can the horseflesh be served or does it require more tenderizing?

more tenderizing definately I figure me and Yello1 will argue this for sometime. Or atleast until I get bored of arguing with him about it.

Originally posted by Favre4Ever
GLB creates X number of teams. GLB gets popular. There are more owners than teams available. Bort makes more teams. And more teams. And then allows members to buy more teams. And adds more teams and then more teams. Every year it seem slike there are more leagues on top of leagues, teams on top of teams... The whole system has become diluted and saturated with filth.

Meh, except that's not really what happened. I don't think Bort has added teams in a couple of years at the very least.

It's more like GLB creates X number of teams. GLB gets popular in a very short period of time. Bort has to add a ton of teams in 2008 and the earliest part of 2009. There is a fairly decent balance between teams and players (leaned a bit to the side of too many teams but not bad). Userbase starts declining steadily. After a few seasons Bort figures it's time to start deleting some teams. Userbase plummets to the point Bort can't delete teams fast enough.

It's not that too many teams have been released. It's that far too many users have left this game to sustain the amount of teams we have. GLB needs to figure out a way to start reeling some people back in here.

Originally posted by yello1

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.

So, using your metaphor, it would be good business practice if one were to own a mall with 5 empty storefronts to open 30 new storefronts that you can't fill? Sounds like one would be wasting money and making the same problem one was trying to rectify, worse. Or even better - if you have a bunch of struggling businesses in your mall, let them open 2nd, 3rd and 4th stores - because if you own four stores, you obviously will be making 4x the profit (even if demand remains the same and you're simply spreading that same profit, while actually costing yourself more money by all the additional expenses of the extra stores).

-1 for the initial post, and -1 for each additional idiotic post.

+1

-1

Originally posted by hatchman
You still do not get the point where the hell do you get the added players to fill these teams? Teams that are CPU are CPU for a reason there aren't enough players now to fill all the teasm already here. by letting owners own more teams that just waters down the player pool even more. and in turn makes recruiting for most teams even harder. when that happens then the level of competition drops even more. Personally I don't have to deal with it because I am to the point I build entire teams on my own. but I do not see how your suggestion will do a dang thing you are saying.

there is so many drawbacks to your suggestion and not much of any positives to it. Yeah you can say that if GLB lets agents buy more teams that will add a small amount of extra revenue to the site, well witht he watered down player pool and the even worse competition GLB would start loosing even more players. and loosing those players would cost the site even more money than what it would generate from adding the number of teams you can own.

I seriously wonder just how many agents on the site actually own 6,7 or 8 teams now. I bet that the number isn't anywhere like what you would think.

1) The players were on the teams to begin with mostly. I have had a full roster sold to CPU many times when the owner ran out of care or flex. In those instances where that was not the case it was likely due to an owner not trying hard enough, not knowing what to do, or lacking contacts or a combination thereof. An owner buying an 4th team would presumably have the care needed, and the know how and the contacts from his many clubs and players.

2) The players would come from wherever they scurried to, the D Leagues, lower tier leagues (ie the decent natty pro LB stuck in reg pro) the Azz End of team rosters (the 6th CB and the SS stuck into STOP not because he wants to but thats the home he found, etc), and from the mega-owners stables themselves. As you note you buy your own stable. The people who have ten teams tend to do that as well. So a new team is new motivation to build even more dots.

3) That there ARE enough players for these teams in the system is proven by the player position screen in the creation menu. While a couple of slots are thin, most positions are well covered, and thats counting all the teams including CPU ones.

4) Even if these teams wind up dragging away some players from other co level competitive clubs, so what? You dont NEED to have 55 players on the roster, you dont NEED to have 4 DEs. Heck theres a WL team with only 3 guys at some of the 4 dot spots, a good competitive one too (was perusing open WL builds yesterday, natural 118 strength Center. wow).

5) And of course there are the CPU cowboys who coach teams to winning seasons with only CPUs. Not a fan of those but they are teams that compete.

6) In short, there is more competition coming from these teams being player owned than being CPU shells. And thats the choice, your idea of smaller leagues has been suggested to Bort ad nauseum and he hasn't gone there yet. With the Free Player change there are more players, I think, and therefore less reason to do it now than before. So it is what it is, and I can't imagine you would honestly prefer to play a CPU punching bag than a real human player with a human roster?

7) If there aren't that many of us, then there is even less reason to have the cap, no? It would be a trivial matter then.

Originally posted by hatchman
more tenderizing definately I figure me and Yello1 will argue this for sometime. Or atleast until I get bored of arguing with him about it.

I'm there pretty much. Not because its a bad argument, but because I thiiink with my last reply, if you catch all the points this time (some of this I said before think you missed it with your reply), we will have made our points and heard the opposition and anything further would be repetition. And no minds will be changed in the process, naturally.

Originally posted by Dub J
Meh, except that's not really what happened. I don't think Bort has added teams in a couple of years at the very least.

It's more like GLB creates X number of teams. GLB gets popular in a very short period of time. Bort has to add a ton of teams in 2008 and the earliest part of 2009. There is a fairly decent balance between teams and players (leaned a bit to the side of too many teams but not bad). Userbase starts declining steadily. After a few seasons Bort figures it's time to start deleting some teams. Userbase plummets to the point Bort can't delete teams fast enough.

It's not that too many teams have been released. It's that far too many users have left this game to sustain the amount of teams we have. GLB needs to figure out a way to start reeling some people back in here.


If you look at the player numbers in the demand screen that would not seem to be the case.

Might be misleading, though, come to think of it. That may well be including old inactive dots of inactive accounts. Hmmm.