Warrior General Games

Originally posted by TehKyou
Yeah, it was already 50/50 I was going to replenish my flex (actually like 40/60) but since ben halls arguement that reduced flex cost per boost would not net in more dots, more revenue and more unrefunded CEQ upgrades I no longer have any interest in purchasing that MVP package. You can chalk this one up as bhall losing the company a small amount of money.

I actually agree with him though. I spend as much as I feel like spending, and speaking for myself, lowering the cost would not mean I would make more dots. I have all I need regardless of the costs.

Originally posted by TehKyou
Yeah, it was already 50/50 I was going to replenish my flex (actually like 40/60) but since ben halls arguement that reduced flex cost per boost would not net in more dots, more revenue and more unrefunded CEQ upgrades I no longer have any interest in purchasing that MVP package. You can chalk this one up as bhall losing the company a small amount of money.

Yes because I set up the financials for this company...

Originally posted by CornBlade
No, multis are illegal on this website


must be a new rule

Originally posted by CornBlade
No, multis are illegal on this website


Your to new to know about who/what a CornBlade is....also to new to know multi's are illegal

Originally posted by bhall43
The highest flex position in GLB2 is 150 flex.

There are 12 SP boosts at 200 flex per boost regardless of player.
There are 3 AP boosts at 250 flex per boost regardless of player.
There are also 4 career extension boosts available at 150 flex per player if you choose to use them.

That is 3750 for the highest rated player that I can tell. That is about half the investment of the current highest leveled player in GLB1.

Plus your player never really "retires". He joins a legend league that you can watch him essentially forever.

Ah IC now...thanks for the clear up

Originally posted by Team Nucleus
Your to new to know about who/what a CornBlade is....also to new to know multi's are illegal

It cuts corns off your feet

Originally posted by bhall43
Yes because I set up the financials for this company...

It's more like, if the company shares your belief that a lowered flex cost per boost would not result in more dots and money flooding the game, then it is for sure doomed to end. It's already headed that way and I'm just jumping ship sooner rather than later.

Originally posted by TehKyou
It's more like, if the company shares your belief that a lowered flex cost per boost would not result in more dots and money flooding the game, then it is for sure doomed to end. It's already headed that way and I'm just jumping ship sooner rather than later.

So you didn't understand anything in this conversation?

Originally posted by CornBlade
It cuts corns off your feet

wahman32, is that you?

Originally posted by bhall43
So you didn't understand anything in this conversation?

I understood plenty. The conversation started off as if they made it cheaper to boost while keeping the flex refund the same, the amount of money spent on the game would pretty much stay the same since people budget for this game already or it would increase since it is very likely more people would create dots. I think that would be a smart business plan by the company.

You expressed arguements suggesting otherwise, that it would not even at least keep profit for the company where it is at already but more likely to make the company lose money.

The conversation started out is 70% is 70% is 70%. Regardless of the amount of flex spent over a dots lifetime it will always be 70% if that is the refund rate they give. Somehow you were suggesting that if they lowered the amount of flex it would take to boost a dot over it's lifetime it is not a 70% return to the customer.

I was under the impression that our conversation was about GLB1. Not the cost of GLB1 vs. GLB2

Originally posted by TehKyou
I understood plenty. The conversation started off as if they made it cheaper to boost while keeping the flex refund the same, the amount of money spent on the game would pretty much stay the same since people budget for this game already or it would increase since it is very likely more people would create dots. I think that would be a smart business plan by the company.

You expressed arguements suggesting otherwise, that it would not even at least keep profit for the company where it is at already but more likely to make the company lose money.

The conversation started out is 70% is 70% is 70%. Regardless of the amount of flex spent over a dots lifetime it will always be 70% if that is the refund rate they give. Somehow you were suggesting that if they lowered the amount of flex it would take to boost a dot over it's lifetime it is not a 70% return to the customer.

I was under the impression that our conversation was about GLB1. Not the cost of GLB1 vs. GLB2


That doesn't equate to what you said here.

Originally posted by TehKyou
It's more like, if the company shares your belief that a lowered flex cost per boost would not result in more dots and money flooding the game, then it is for sure doomed to end. It's already headed that way and I'm just jumping ship sooner rather than later.


But anyways, your argument only holds water because you believe people would create more dots. True. They would create more dots because the dots would cost less. A few people ITT already said they budget for this game. How do you see them changing their budget with a reduced flex price? I for one don't see them increasing that budget. In fact many would likely decrease that budget because they would get the same amount of players for LESS.

Regardless my thoughts on the financial structure of this game are meaningless.

Originally posted by bhall43
Originally posted by TehKyou

I understood plenty. The conversation started off as if they made it cheaper to boost while keeping the flex refund the same, the amount of money spent on the game would pretty much stay the same since people budget for this game already or it would increase since it is very likely more people would create dots. I think that would be a smart business plan by the company.

You expressed arguements suggesting otherwise, that it would not even at least keep profit for the company where it is at already but more likely to make the company lose money.

The conversation started out is 70% is 70% is 70%. Regardless of the amount of flex spent over a dots lifetime it will always be 70% if that is the refund rate they give. Somehow you were suggesting that if they lowered the amount of flex it would take to boost a dot over it's lifetime it is not a 70% return to the customer.

I was under the impression that our conversation was about GLB1. Not the cost of GLB1 vs. GLB2


That doesn't equate to what you said here.

Originally posted by TehKyou

It's more like, if the company shares your belief that a lowered flex cost per boost would not result in more dots and money flooding the game, then it is for sure doomed to end. It's already headed that way and I'm just jumping ship sooner rather than later.


But anyways, your argument only holds water because you believe people would create more dots. True. They would create more dots because the dots would cost less. A few people ITT already said they budget for this game. How do you see them changing their budget with a reduced flex price? I for one don't see them increasing that budget. In fact many would likely decrease that budget because they would get the same amount of players for LESS.

as the cost to own and operate a full roster of 55 approaches affordability, you'll see a spike in the number of people doing so... not just a simple even correlation between price drops and dots bought

it's not like people will say "oh, now for the same amount of money, instead of buying 15 dots, i can buy 45" and stop there ... if they can buy 45, there's an appeal to shelling out the extra $ for the last 10

but i see what you mean, if they only have a certain level of interest in this game no matter what, and only -want- 6 dots, then that's just GLB losing money

but we have no actual data on player buying habits, just a bunch of theories, so this is kinda silly