Warrior General Games

Originally posted by yello1

Yes, you are the hated 1%. For you the fat cat owner it is a penalty, I agree.

But revolutions have to begin somewhere.

*points at the guillotine*

Next!



You really didn't just go there did you?

You do realize that 1% of the agents on this game pay enough to keep this game running and 99% of the agents in this game don't even pay for Bort's next Hot Dog?

-1

If this is a problem for your team I would suggest a reboot and for you to restart from Rookie Leagues with a group of dots you can trust to stay with you and follow your guidance on dot building. It doesn't take long to level up anymore so you're not talking about a huge amount of time invested.

Originally posted by stumanroo
You really didn't just go there did you?

You do realize that 1% of the agents on this game pay enough to keep this game running and 99% of the agents in this game don't even pay for Bort's next Hot Dog?

Oh look, its Mr. Forbes!

Get Heem!!!!

lol

Yes there is a huge question mark on the economics here, which is why I say "might be necessary". Its possible that Bort CAN and is already living off of the 1%ers and that the rest are all gravy to him. Maybe if they all quit the one percenters will be enough and there will just be one League left, and the game will be a small time niche game with a handful of players keeping Bort in vacation money.

Or might be that you are wrong and the filthy masses are also needed to keep the wheels on the cart.

I do not know.

But I do think that the less parity there is the more likely player numbers will dwindle over time than rise or be sustained.

This is a suggestion to move to parity. If you have a better one, post it and I will likely +1 it too.

Originally posted by JCJayhawk
-1

If this is a problem for your team I would suggest a reboot and for you to restart from Rookie Leagues with a group of dots you can trust to stay with you and follow your guidance on dot building. It doesn't take long to level up anymore so you're not talking about a huge amount of time invested.

Read the forums more, look at league standings, this is not just about me and my teams.

"Yello1 was blessed by a miracle. A condition was detected and apparently confirmed multiple times. He prayed for the test to have been a mistake and in fact there was no problem at all. The power of prayer is real a miracle happened! Praise the Lord!"

I would suggest trying this technique again. It's the only way this suggestion is going anywhere.

So what you are saying is that if people have their friends on their teams and their friends build good dots, they can't all be on the team together because you have a team of bad builders?


I just checked the NGTH list and it expressly states that yello1 suggestions are NGTH.

yello1 must be a politician. he's always trying to pander to the lowest common denominator. not good at at glb? elect me, and we'll dumb it down for you so that skill is no longer th basis of success. sadly, in the US, he'd get elected

Dumb suggestion..buy my flex and Ill reconsider.

force good teams to sign bad dots?

terrible idea.

And since this is the suggestions forum yello, here's one for you. Religion and Sports don't really mix. Why not relax the themes of your teams and you might have a little more success recruiting dots.

The only thing you would be doing is hurting teams without alliances of teams. The top teams all seem to have them. The only difference is that instead of Dharma Initiatives, South Otto Fragile Porcelain Mice, etc always being in WL you will have their 2nd or 3rd team there.
So you are basically just going to recycle the top teams into 1st / 7th / whatever tier and they reload for another run and stay up top (because rarely is the Effective Level more than a few points above normal that early).

i know what would really help parody is for owners not to own more than 1 crappy team. if you cant get 1 team to be a winner, odds are pretty good that you wont get 3. that would free up alot of players to join owners that might actually know how to run a team. if you took all the best players from your 3 teams, maybe you would have a better winning % than 13-35 combined record.

Originally posted by JCJayhawk
And since this is the suggestions forum yello, here's one for you. Religion and Sports don't really mix. Why not relax the themes of your teams and you might have a little more success recruiting dots.

I've had a grand total of two, well three counting you, people complain about my team themes.

I have lost track of the number of others who have lauded them, and joined a team over them as well for some.

I'm not generally like this, but I had a need to thank god and this and charity seemed to be the two ways to do it so I did both. Not a holy roller type so knocking on doors or something like that wasn't a viable option.

Sorry if you are not a fan.

Heathen.

Not getting much support for this. Might want to let it drop. Besides, doesn't take great dots to have a winning record. Doesn't take great dots to make the playoffs. Don't even need great dot's to win championships. Might take great dots to win the WL, not sure, yet.

Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
i know what would really help parody is for owners not to own more than 1 crappy team. if you cant get 1 team to be a winner, odds are pretty good that you wont get 3. that would free up alot of players to join owners that might actually know how to run a team. if you took all the best players from your 3 teams, maybe you would have a better winning % than 13-35 combined record.

A plausible theory but it leaves out that having more teams gets you more exposure and puts you in more leagues and gets you more over all numbers of players associated with your teams that gets you more avenues for recruits etc etc etc.

I just started a "network" rookie team. Something that would not have been possible if I had just stuck with the OTM as my only "real" team which was the case until the farm teams started getting promoted to national pro and I decided wtheck lets see how it goes.

So your point is noted, but erroneous.