Haradrim

Members
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  1. I respect each of the changes, but I fear the subscription idea will be the end of the road for a lot of the current users. A realistic expectation is that the managers that currently have All-Star accounts will probably pay the subscription and I suppose this will be the starting point. From then on, problems may arise. First of all, the idea of a subscription means that many users will not afford it. What buys an icecream in the US or Sweden will feel far more costly in Eastern Europe, for example. Then there is a difference between choosing to contribute (through a donation or an All-Star account) and having to contribute. Psychologically it is easier to attract paying customers through the first option. The biggest problem is that without a lot of marketing, the game will fail to attract a lot of paying users, so most worlds will be scarcely populated and the game will not be attractive even to those who will choose to pay for a few months. It will not have a community (like it was promising to do) but customers. I may be a sceptic, but I fail to see how new (paying) users will arive in large numbers.
  2. Many thanks for the answer. I am glad you didn't feel attacked by my question. From my point of view this closes the discussion in a civilised manner. As it should.
  3. I can't help it that you stubbornly stick to the same position, misreading what I write. How you got from "important decisions like this" to me making a case about focus groups is really beyond me. I have nothing against the existence of focus groups and the work they do for the good of the community. I am also obviously aware of the existence of "Suggestions" thread. So please stop insisting that you know what the real problem is when somebody wants to start a discussion that you don't like. All I was and am saying is, again, that important decisions should be made taking into consideration the whole community. It's an opinion and I am not in any way trying to impose it. I admit arguments against it, if they are really part of the dialogue. Your aggresivity is not helpful. I am not accusing you of anything and I am not pretending that I know what is really behind what you say.
  4. I respect your opinion. You obviously don't respect anyone else who might not agree with you. I made a comment open to debate, while you try to impose your point of view. There can be no dialogue this way. I'm sorry that people who have other ideas make you livid. In my opinion, this is the problem with your position. And please stop putting words into my mouth. I would actually vote for a reset, this is not the problem in question. It takes you a lot of phrases to legitimize your position. Fine. I throwed an idea that we should perhaps talk more about how the community (on which the game depends) functions, without - at any point - hanging rigidly on a point of view. If the idea of a debate enrages you that much, please accept my apology. It's fine without debate. Have a great game!
  5. I don't think you really understand the question and the principle. It is not a matter of being cheap and, as for me, I would be ok wherever Anders chooses to take the game. It is however worrying to legitimize being part of the decision through money. True, this is the world we live in, but it doesn't mean being so ready to appalud it as you seem to be. For the financial side, the game could be helped through donations and that way it could survive as an equal community as it does happen in some communities on the net. Keep in mind that the amount one pays for the game is - in terms of affordability - different from a country to another, so it is unfair not to take that into consideration. It has always been my impression that the main satisfaction Anders gets out of creating this game is that it could be enjoyed by anyone responsibly on an equal basis. What you support is unfortunately a two-tiered system in which decisions that affect the whole community are reserved for a privileged few. So, again: I want everyone to have a vote, not (just) me and not just you.
  6. So that means that important decisions like this are taken by those having All Star accounts and not by the whole community?
  7. Excellent work! Thanks for all the effort! Just one question: will current leagues be reset to zero or will they be keeping their current players, stats, positions etc?
  8. Congrats! You've done an amazing job!
  9. You're doing fine so far and you surely have a good chance of survival. Balanced team, lots of experience in it and a great winner instinct.
  10. I don't think it needs rephrasing or indeed exacerbating. I am making no accusations. I only think that it's about time for the game to have a detailed and working guide so that all users - and especially new users - can have a chance to understand how the game works much earlier and in a fair way.
  11. The problem is not that some aspects of the game remain "mysterious", it's that members of the inner circle have access to this kind of information and use it for their own profit. Perhaps all this could and should be solved with a detailed explanatory guide to the game that would be available to all users and in which more or less all keys to the game should be - in a way or another - accessible.
  12. These, for example, in Fishbowl: http://www.gameplanhockey.com/player?gpid=46027 http://www.gameplanhockey.com/player?gpid=45951 And these in Clapper: http://www.gameplanhockey.com/player?gpid=58140 http://www.gameplanhockey.com/player?gpid=58097 For some reason those drafted in the 3rd round do not present problems.
  13. In both Clapper and Fishbowl, whenever I go to the Bio page of the 18 year-old players I drafted, the page does not load, it just enters a loading loop that never ends. Surely, a bug.
  14. Most likely a system error. It happened to me before. Sometimes if you add to your shortlist players, they do not get added to the back of your list but to the top. And if you do not check your draft preferences, you may have this surprise.