Warrior General Games

Someone mentioned this in another thread. I would like to see the limit of teams owned by a single user dropped from 9 to 6 but allow a user to own up to 5 teams of the same league type.

The logic for this is simple.

1) Some folks think that owning 9 teams is ridiculous. Can't say that I disagree with them since the proof is out there in the form of a multitude of CPU teams and human owned teams with CPU rosters. It only makes sense to scale back the overall amount of teams one person can own. There are too many people that own too many horrible teams for multiple seasons. I think 6 is a good compromise between the old standard 3 and the current 9.


2) There are a number of users here that only care about one league type and couldn't care less about the other two. Say I'm a casual league guy and I don't give a shit about peewee or regulars. Why should I be penalized to only own three teams just because I am not interested in the other two league types?

GLB is not reaching it's financial potential because they are leaving casual teams sitting out there that would be bought by someone who truly knows how to run those type of teams and has a strong interest in the success of those teams. To avoid one user overwhelming a league with his teams I am suggesting to keep the limit at 5. Even if the user managed to get all his teams into the same league 5 out of 32 isn't too bad. Anything more than 5 or 6 would be pushing it, though.

+1

+1

As noted I believe it would make more sense for GLB to drop the cap altogether precisely because there are too many CPU owned teams.

That said I personally would not mind losing the ability to own some teams to be able to get more regular clubs. I only own seven since I do not care to own more than one Pee Wee, pee wees not helping with the farm concept. And I personally prefer regular teams.

However I would, for that reason, suggest the limit in your OP be made 7, not 6. That way you could have your current three and three and one and not have people dumping teams when this idea implements, which would result in MORE teams owned by CPUs as a result.

But that said, teams generate flex purchases so I imagine this is NGTH any time soon.

Originally posted by yello1
As noted I believe it would make more sense for GLB to drop the cap altogether precisely because there are too many CPU owned teams.

That said I personally would not mind losing the ability to own some teams to be able to get more regular clubs. I only own seven since I do not care to own more than one Pee Wee, pee wees not helping with the farm concept. And I personally prefer regular teams.

However I would, for that reason, suggest the limit in your OP be made 7, not 6. That way you could have your current three and three and one and not have people dumping teams when this idea implements, which would result in MORE teams owned by CPUs as a result.

But that said, teams generate flex purchases so I imagine this is NGTH any time soon.

and as in your own suggestion about raising the number of teams you can own it has been shown that there aren't enough players to do what you are asking. so why not just let your suggestion die off and move onto something that may have a chance of happening.

+1 to OP

+1

Originally posted by yello1
As noted I believe it would make more sense for GLB to drop the cap altogether precisely because there are too many CPU owned teams.

That said I personally would not mind losing the ability to own some teams to be able to get more regular clubs. I only own seven since I do not care to own more than one Pee Wee, pee wees not helping with the farm concept. And I personally prefer regular teams.

However I would, for that reason, suggest the limit in your OP be made 7, not 6. That way you could have your current three and three and one and not have people dumping teams when this idea implements, which would result in MORE teams owned by CPUs as a result.

But that said, teams generate flex purchases so I imagine this is NGTH any time soon.



The point you are missing, is if there are less teams available for people to buy, there would less cpu teams, so if you drop the number of teams one owner can buy, then you are cutting the availability and need of teams, thus needed less cpu teams around to purchase, cutting down the amount of human owned teams with cpu's on them.

Exactly

There would be less teams overall but those fewer teams would be owned by people that actually want them to succeed. There would be less peewee and casual farm teams because those teams would now be populated by people that actually care about those leagues rather than someone that buys it for a season or two just to hold dots for a regular team.

Hence the title "focused". lol

Originally posted by CNinja
Originally posted by yello1

As noted I believe it would make more sense for GLB to drop the cap altogether precisely because there are too many CPU owned teams.

That said I personally would not mind losing the ability to own some teams to be able to get more regular clubs. I only own seven since I do not care to own more than one Pee Wee, pee wees not helping with the farm concept. And I personally prefer regular teams.

However I would, for that reason, suggest the limit in your OP be made 7, not 6. That way you could have your current three and three and one and not have people dumping teams when this idea implements, which would result in MORE teams owned by CPUs as a result.

But that said, teams generate flex purchases so I imagine this is NGTH any time soon.



The point you are missing, is if there are less teams available for people to buy, there would less cpu teams, so if you drop the number of teams one owner can buy, then you are cutting the availability and need of teams, thus needed less cpu teams around to purchase, cutting down the amount of human owned teams with cpu's on them.

Reducing the number of teams people can buy and league contractions are not the same thing. They can both be done, but they are distinct and separate ideas.

Originally posted by Dub J
Exactly

There would be less teams overall but those fewer teams would be owned by people that actually want them to succeed. There would be less peewee and casual farm teams because those teams would now be populated by people that actually care about those leagues rather than someone that buys it for a season or two just to hold dots for a regular team.

Well as to league contractions I have my usual concerns and concessions. If a minor league has 31 CPUs, yeah you can lose a league there.

But I am fairly certain that if you stop tossing leagues at the higher end levels of the game you are killing the game. Firstly because you will be taking big league teams away from some people and their dot's agents with all the piss off factor thats going to generate, and secondly and most damningly you are creating the impression that GLB is on its way out. That sort of impression is self fufillin, as people wander off to find the next game to play.

wat?

I mean, you're posting as if everyone owns 9 teams. dunno the actual number but I would speculate that if we were to average it out it would come out to something like 1-2 teams per user. Don't know how cutting the cap down to 6 is killing the game. It's pretty stupid to even have it at 6. I was thinking 4 (with no cap on which type of league) would make even better sense. Too many people out there own a bunch of crappy teams and should focus on just 1-3 teams, tbh.

Originally posted by Dub J
wat?

I mean, you're posting as if everyone owns 9 teams. dunno the actual number but I would speculate that if we were to average it out it would come out to something like 1-2 teams per user. Don't know how cutting the cap down to 6 is killing the game. It's pretty stupid to even have it at 6. I was thinking 4 (with no cap on which type of league) would make even better sense. Too many people out there own a bunch of crappy teams and should focus on just 1-3 teams, tbh.

Reducing ownership cap is not, but notable league contractions at the national pro or reg pro levels is.