Warrior General Games

I think I can speak for most people on this site when I say that more dots is always a good thing. My suggestion is to develop a system whereby we get additional free players. This number could easily be modified, but lets say that for every two players you create using purchased flex or reward points, that gives you one additional free player.

Originally posted by The first person to comment on this
But wait, couldn't that be abused by people creating additional players but never boosting them?

Good thinking, that's very true. This is why my system would be tied to creating AND boosting players. For every two players you create, that allows you to create one additional free player. For every two (paid for) players you boost, that allows you one boost on your free player.

So in essence, someone can create two new dots, unlocking a new free player space. From there, they boost those dots. Once each of them is boosted 3 times, that allows them to boost this new free player 3 times.

Originally posted by The next person to comment
Well, couldn't someone create and boost two offensive linemen, in order to get a free QB or HB? That doesn't seem fair.

I'll make two points about this. First and foremost, free player rules would still apply. If there is low demand for your position, you cannot create a player of that position. In addition, the player would still need to pay for custom EQ.

Worst case scenario, we can tie the free player boosting to the spending on a paid player. If you create and boost two '200-flex' dots, that allows you to create and boost one free '200-flex' dot.

1) Will it improve the user experience with the game

More dots = more teams, more involvement, more caring.

2) Is there a business reason for implementing the suggestion

Yes. Players will have one of the best incentives they've ever had to create and boost new dots. The number of additional free players shouldn't matter, since new free players will be a direct result of additional spending by the player base.

3) Does the cost of devoting the coding time to implementing the suggestion make sense

I'm not too well versed on coding, so I can't say definitively, but I can't see why it wouldn't be.

4) Do the developers feel the suggestion works with their vision of the game

I would assume that the vision of GLB is a game that is going to stand the test of time, and continues to bring in new members and develop the player base. This suggestion would do exactly that.

TLDR - Create and boost players, get more free players.

I like it, and it seems harder and harder to find quality dots.

+1 for the clever quotes from people who will comment, but I think you are ignoring basic laws of supply and demand. this wouldn't necessarily increase the # of dots, it would most likely merely lower the number that are paid for.

if you were to be given one free meal for every two you buy, would you start eating 4 or 5 meals per day instead of 3?

Originally posted by fogie55
if you were to be given one free meal for every two you buy, would you start eating 4 or 5 meals per day instead of 3?

uh yes?

NGTH ever

Originally posted by fogie55
+1 for the clever quotes from people who will comment, but I think you are ignoring basic laws of supply and demand. this wouldn't necessarily increase the # of dots, it would most likely merely lower the number that are paid for.

if you were to be given one free meal for every two you buy, would you start eating 4 or 5 meals per day instead of 3?

I appreciate the sentiment, but I feel like the analogy is off base here. One can't eat 4 or 5 or 6 or however many meals per day, simply based on physical limitations. There are no "physical limitations" in GLB, as we've seen users who manage 100+ dots. (Tautology comes to mind)

A more accurate analogy would be gambling. Let's say that for every two spins on the $1 slot machine, you get a $1 spin for free. The person who spends $50 get an additional 25 rolls, increasing his enjoyment. In addition to that, he is more tempted to spend an extra $10 or $20 more than he usually would, since he knows he has more free spins coming to him.

EDIT: I also forgot to respond to the comment you made regarding supply and demand. We've seen GLB do league reductions and consolidations due to the lack of players. If more players suddenly started coming into the game, is it that hard to imagine them adding more teams again?

Originally posted by coachingubigr
NGTH ever

Why not?

1) More free players

2) More flex back on retirement

3) No boost leagues

...what are things that will never happen? HIOH!

Originally posted by Time Trial
1) More free players

2) More flex back on retirement

3) No boost leagues

...what are things that will never happen? HIOH!

This isn't just a "GIVE ME MORE FREE PLAYERS!!11" thread like they usually exist. I'm suggesting something that ties in free players to spending. I'm a bit annoyed that you would liken this to that.

This does absolutely nothing for someone who would come into GLB and doesn't spend any money. It's not a "begging" thread.

Originally posted by OneGiantLeap
This isn't just a "GIVE ME MORE FREE PLAYERS!!11" thread like they usually exist. I'm suggesting something that ties in free players to spending. I'm a bit annoyed that you would liken this to that.

This does absolutely nothing for someone who would come into GLB and doesn't spend any money. It's not a "begging" thread.

More flex back on retirement is NGTH, this is essentially the same thing (spend more money, get more free flex... I mean players that don't require flex).

Bort makes his money on the cash cows... he doesn't want to give the cash cows free players.

This won't end well. inb4

Let me try to fix this suggestion a bit.

How about the ability to -buy- additional free players. For example for a fee of X you can buy an additional free slot for your agent page. With a max of 2 or 3 free slots.

Only way I could see it working, and it would need to be a price for the slot that makes sense for the game.

As of the start of next season, I'll have taken two entire 55 man rosters through to plateau. Does that mean I get 55 free players AND all of my flex returned from retiring?

Sure I'm totally on board with this idea that makes it so that I will never have to spend money on this game ever again, and I can't see a reason why more people wouldn't want to spend money on this business.

Originally posted by Greywolfmeb
This won't end well. inb4

Thank you for contributing literally nothing to this topic.

Originally posted by AlexSD44
Let me try to fix this suggestion a bit.

How about the ability to -buy- additional free players. For example for a fee of X you can buy an additional free slot for your agent page. With a max of 2 or 3 free slots.

Only way I could see it working, and it would need to be a price for the slot that makes sense for the game.

That's another interesting idea. I don't know what the price would have to be set at but I'd pay a flat fee for another "free" player slot.

Originally posted by Time Trial
As of the start of next season, I'll have taken two entire 55 man rosters through to plateau. Does that mean I get 55 free players AND all of my flex returned from retiring?

Sure I'm totally on board with this idea that makes it so that I will never have to spend money on this game ever again, and I can't see a reason why more people wouldn't want to spend money on this business.

You're making a point against the number I set, not against the suggestion itself. As I said, maybe that number gets changed. It's entirely possible that I set it too low. Maybe it should be three, or four, or five even. Personally, I plan on having 4 "paid" players by next season. If buying a 5th one got me a 6th one for free, I can't see myself not doing it. I'm sure the same is true for many players.

In addition, this suggestion would only be for players going forward. So to do that again, you would need to create 74 new players, giving you 37 free players; enough for two teams + 1 extra dot. Let me emphasize again that this number is left open for debate. Maybe it should be 3:1, or 4:1, or 5:1.

There's no shortage of ways they could discount flex and/or offer more free players--your "solution" solves a problem that doesn't really exist.

Sorry, but -1.

+1