Warrior General Games

Originally posted by akinghorn
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.

Your analogy lacks a key quality - being at all similar to the facts being discussed.

My suggestion creates no new teams (aka malls or store fronts). It merely expands the population of parties who are able to control them (aka allows people to work the existing store fronts).

Your better analogy would be to say that the existing open store fronts are begging for customers and barely making it each season, and that the CPU become human owned teams would create yet more stores fighting over the small customer base. However as noted in my last reply, the number of customers is more than enough to keep all the stores in the black and in fact reopening the shuttered storefronts would revitalize the shopping district and create new customers as well.

Originally posted by yello1
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.





exactly see your argument that there are plenty of Dots is simply wrong. look at each and every league all of them are age based right? so if there are empty teams in the age brackets then that means that either users are inactive or the players just aren't there. yes there are some players in the D-leagues but not enough to fill all the needed positions to fill the teams. so your argument about there being enough players is wrong. If there were enough players simply we wouldn't have so many CPU teams. and there wouldn't be that many rosters that didn't carry the 55 man roster.

also your point about the WL league team with only 40 dots. and I haven't looked at the WL but what was their record last season in WL? and did they make a run at a championship? seriously there is a difference in playing and doing your best and losing. and just owning teams to say you own them and those teams not being competitive.

Originally posted by yello1
Your analogy lacks a key quality - being at all similar to the facts being discussed.

My suggestion creates no new teams (aka malls or store fronts). It merely expands the population of parties who are able to control them (aka allows people to work the existing store fronts).

Your better analogy would be to say that the existing open store fronts are begging for customers and barely making it each season, and that the CPU become human owned teams would create yet more stores fighting over the small customer base. However as noted in my last reply, the number of customers is more than enough to keep all the stores in the black and in fact reopening the shuttered storefronts would revitalize the shopping district and create new customers as well.

on this I will ask you to do 1 thing prove that there are enough players to fill all the teams and I will back your suggestion. and I do not mean count CPU players or inactives that aren't signed to teams. I am talking legitimately active players signed to teams. we are talking about stores or any other bullcrap. we are talking simple supply and demand of players for teams. I will be waiting on your proof.

Originally posted by hatchman
on this I will ask you to do 1 thing prove that there are enough players to fill all the teams and I will back your suggestion. and I do not mean count CPU players or inactives that aren't signed to teams. I am talking legitimately active players signed to teams. we are talking about stores or any other bullcrap. we are talking simple supply and demand of players for teams. I will be waiting on your proof.

Does this include players that honestly don't want to sign on to a human team?

aaaaaaand he's back with a vengeance.

Originally posted by yello1
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.

Think it is pretty clear from the replies that the only person who even remotely thinks this is a good idea is you. All I see is -1 all over this thread and you failing to back off of a suggestion which is boneheaded even by your standards tbh.

Originally posted by Myd
Originally posted by hatchman

on this I will ask you to do 1 thing prove that there are enough players to fill all the teams and I will back your suggestion. and I do not mean count CPU players or inactives that aren't signed to teams. I am talking legitimately active players signed to teams. we are talking about stores or any other bullcrap. we are talking simple supply and demand of players for teams. I will be waiting on your proof.

Does this include players that honestly don't want to sign on to a human team?

He could count all players in GLB that would be able to be signed to human owned teams if they chose and there still wouldn't be enough supply for the demand.

Yello1 you make a ton of suggestions and I have thought that you had a couple suggestions that warranted support. and those suggestions got support. but crap like this suggestion just doesn't hold water and unless you can prove there is a miraculous abundance of Dots then your suggestion should just die here.

Originally posted by hatchman
Originally posted by yello1

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.





exactly see your argument that there are plenty of Dots is simply wrong. look at each and every league all of them are age based right? so if there are empty teams in the age brackets then that means that either users are inactive or the players just aren't there. yes there are some players in the D-leagues but not enough to fill all the needed positions to fill the teams. so your argument about there being enough players is wrong. If there were enough players simply we wouldn't have so many CPU teams. and there wouldn't be that many rosters that didn't carry the 55 man roster.

also your point about the WL league team with only 40 dots. and I haven't looked at the WL but what was their record last season in WL? and did they make a run at a championship? seriously there is a difference in playing and doing your best and losing. and just owning teams to say you own them and those teams not being competitive.

Didnt say a WL team had 40 dots, I said some of them only had 3 DEs, 3 Gs etc. and yes they were good contending teams. If a WL team had 40 dots I didnt notice that. I'd have to think 40 was too little. But you could contend without 55, especially if everyone else was going that way too. IMO the teams should be limited to 45, ala the active NFL roster. But thats another thread.

And just because the few old inactive dots might make that chart off IF it measures such inactive agents at all does not mean my idea is wrong. We are talking about 19 teams. Not exactly a vast number of dots to gather.

Lets get to the brass tacks.

There are 116700 players whose agents logged into the game in the last three days (per search). Thats obviously less than the number of active players in the game since I have inactive guys on my roster all the time who stop in once or twice a week who would not necessarily show up on this search.

There are 59 leagues, each with 32 teams. If we say each must have 55 players then the total TOTAL player demand of GLB at this time is 103840.

There you have it. There are at least 13,000 players ACTIVE players, hiding out in the D leagues.

Those 19 Pro teams that are CPU would take 1045 players to max out, or less than ten percent of the available players.

Fin.

Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by hatchman

Originally posted by yello1


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.





exactly see your argument that there are plenty of Dots is simply wrong. look at each and every league all of them are age based right? so if there are empty teams in the age brackets then that means that either users are inactive or the players just aren't there. yes there are some players in the D-leagues but not enough to fill all the needed positions to fill the teams. so your argument about there being enough players is wrong. If there were enough players simply we wouldn't have so many CPU teams. and there wouldn't be that many rosters that didn't carry the 55 man roster.

also your point about the WL league team with only 40 dots. and I haven't looked at the WL but what was their record last season in WL? and did they make a run at a championship? seriously there is a difference in playing and doing your best and losing. and just owning teams to say you own them and those teams not being competitive.

Didnt say a WL team had 40 dots, I said some of them only had 3 DEs, 3 Gs etc. and yes they were good contending teams. If a WL team had 40 dots I didnt notice that. I'd have to think 40 was too little. But you could contend without 55, especially if everyone else was going that way too. IMO the teams should be limited to 45, ala the active NFL roster. But thats another thread.

And just because the few old inactive dots might make that chart off IF it measures such inactive agents at all does not mean my idea is wrong. We are talking about 19 teams. Not exactly a vast number of dots to gather.

Lets get to the brass tacks.

There are 116700 players whose agents logged into the game in the last three days (per search). Thats obviously less than the number of active players in the game since I have inactive guys on my roster all the time who stop in once or twice a week who would not necessarily show up on this search.

There are 59 leagues, each with 32 teams. If we say each must have 55 players then the total TOTAL player demand of GLB at this time is 103840.

There you have it. There are at least 13,000 players ACTIVE players, hiding out in the D leagues.

Those 19 Pro teams that are CPU would take 1045 players to max out, or less than ten percent of the available players.

Fin.

we aren't discussing just Pro teams or atleast that wasn't what I took from your numerous examples. go through all of the leagues and see how many players would be needed to fill all of the current teams. to do this you would need to look at all teams and make sure they all had 55 human owned players to do so. then you would have to count all the CPU teams. you try to say there are a abundance of players and there isn't. That number you are quoting isn't a correct number or atleast me and most everyone else in this thread doesn't think it is.

Originally posted by yello1

Lets get to the brass tacks.

There are 116700 players whose agents logged into the game in the last three days (per search). Thats obviously less than the number of active players in the game since I have inactive guys on my roster all the time who stop in once or twice a week who would not necessarily show up on this search.

There are 59 leagues, each with 32 teams. If we say each must have 55 players then the total TOTAL player demand of GLB at this time is 103840.

There you have it. There are at least 13,000 players ACTIVE players, hiding out in the D leagues.

Those 19 Pro teams that are CPU would take 1045 players to max out, or less than ten percent of the available players.

Fin.

There are 59 REGULAR leagues. You forgot the 30 casual leagues and 10 pee wee leagues. Since those 40 leagues draw from the same player pool as regular leagues, your entire argument is fail.

Originally posted by merenoise
Originally posted by yello1

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.

Think it is pretty clear from the replies that the only person who even remotely thinks this is a good idea is you. All I see is -1 all over this thread and you failing to back off of a suggestion which is boneheaded even by your standards tbh.

The players dont decide the game changes, Bort does.

Besides a good discussion is always fun. Its only when it gets into silly gainsaying or repetitive that it gets boring.

Originally posted by yello1
The players dont decide the game changes, Bort does.

Besides a good discussion is always fun. Its only when it gets into silly gainsaying or repetitive that it gets boring.



I have to admit, I'm enjoying reading this one.

Originally posted by Myd
Originally posted by yello1

The players dont decide the game changes, Bort does.

Besides a good discussion is always fun. Its only when it gets into silly gainsaying or repetitive that it gets boring.



I have to admit, I'm enjoying reading this one.

my fingers hurt from typing so much I am going to have to start using shorter ansers LOL

Originally posted by Kirghiz
Originally posted by yello1


Lets get to the brass tacks.

There are 116700 players whose agents logged into the game in the last three days (per search). Thats obviously less than the number of active players in the game since I have inactive guys on my roster all the time who stop in once or twice a week who would not necessarily show up on this search.

There are 59 leagues, each with 32 teams. If we say each must have 55 players then the total TOTAL player demand of GLB at this time is 103840.

There you have it. There are at least 13,000 players ACTIVE players, hiding out in the D leagues.

Those 19 Pro teams that are CPU would take 1045 players to max out, or less than ten percent of the available players.

Fin.

There are 59 REGULAR leagues. You forgot the 30 casual leagues and 10 pee wee leagues. Since those 40 leagues draw from the same player pool as regular leagues, your entire argument is fail.



Boom and a bomb gets dropped from someone in the gallery and it ends the fight with a TKO of Yello1

Originally posted by hatchman
my fingers hurt from typing so much I am going to have to start using shorter ansers LOL

That's your problem, with Yello's ideas, you have to pace yourself as there will just be another three or four tomorrow.