FYI, I've been going round and round with CS for the last few days, mainly talking about EEs and firing logic. I'm getting lots of 'thanks for your feedback' and reasons why things can't be done, along with vague statements about 'we're working on stuff'. I also just got this zinger, when I suggested they make and try out changes with just a few worlds or even one world, to test effectiveness in the game, get customer feedback, and see if revenue changes over a period of time, then roll out successful changes to all worlds. They responded, "We can't easily target changes to certain worlds. They all share the same code base. We would have to create a separate 'game' to do that. It would be a nice thing to be able to do, but as of now we can't do that."

So the comprehensive code rewrite by seble did NOT include the ability to change specific worlds, if management deems it necessary. Just thought I'd share.

not sure where you are trying to go with this post...i don't see much of a 'zinger'...only a 'no duh' by CS

Where I'm trying to "go with this post" is that if the HD code rewrite (which was supposed to make changes easier) would've included the ability to try different settings in different worlds, they'd be able to take risks on changes with parts of simulations models, such as recruiting, EEs, firing logic and so on, without losing too many customers or too much revenue, if the change proved unpopular. They'd be able to make a more consistent thrust to improve the game, with a lessened fear of causing too much damage to their business model in the short term. It's fairly disappointing (to me at least) they didn't include such a function in the code rewrite, because this confirms there's no reasonable way for them to try improvements without affecting all worlds at once. More risk equals less incentive to change the status quo, especially in a business that seems to be struggling. It was certainly news to me when CS told me, and I bet there are many vets who when reading this, will share the same sort of disappointment.

Posted by jskenner on 2/6/2013 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Where I'm trying to "go with this post" is that if the HD code rewrite (which was supposed to make changes easier) would've included the ability to try different settings in different worlds, they'd be able to take risks on changes with parts of simulations models, such as recruiting, EEs, firing logic and so on, without losing too many customers or too much revenue, if the change proved unpopular. They'd be able to make a more consistent thrust to improve the game, with a lessened fear of causing too much damage to their business model in the short term. It's fairly disappointing (to me at least) they didn't include such a function in the code rewrite, because this confirms there's no reasonable way for them to try improvements without affecting all worlds at once. More risk equals less incentive to change the status quo, especially in a business that seems to be struggling. It was certainly news to me when CS told me, and I bet there are many vets who when reading this, will share the same sort of disappointment.

How would they choose a world? For people who have teams in just one world, they could leave the game altogether if unhappy. I know losing one customer isn't a huge deal, but I'd imagine if they were to test with changes they would create a beta world.

They have made test worlds repeatedly in the past.  Why on earth would you run your tests on a paid world?  That's about the stupidest thing I've heard today...  And I've been in the Non-Sports forum and read some swamphawk22 gems.  Every world costs the same, they should operate under the same rules.  If you were going to start a new world you could change something, but it would absolutely be unfair to the customers to test game changes on certain worlds that coaches joined under the assumption that they would be operating under the same rules as the rest of the worlds.  That would be horrible business.

This is a moot point, so I'm going to stop defending my position to those opposed to it.

I first read this on my phone and was confused at best...it ended up being worth the re-read, lol

Posted by jskenner on 2/6/2013 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Where I'm trying to "go with this post" is that if the HD code rewrite (which was supposed to make changes easier) would've included the ability to try different settings in different worlds, they'd be able to take risks on changes with parts of simulations models, such as recruiting, EEs, firing logic and so on, without losing too many customers or too much revenue, if the change proved unpopular. They'd be able to make a more consistent thrust to improve the game, with a lessened fear of causing too much damage to their business model in the short term. It's fairly disappointing (to me at least) they didn't include such a function in the code rewrite, because this confirms there's no reasonable way for them to try improvements without affecting all worlds at once. More risk equals less incentive to change the status quo, especially in a business that seems to be struggling. It was certainly news to me when CS told me, and I bet there are many vets who when reading this, will share the same sort of disappointment.

well, id share your disappointment reading this, if i hadnt already went through a similar cycle when i found out myself.

i think its absolutely ridiculous, but for a slightly different reason (although yours are good reasons). its fricken insane from a software development lifecycle, to expect to update 10 worlds together. you should never change the sim engine during the season. dead QA people are rolling over in their graves, all over the country! they've totally screwed people in the NT in the past pulling that crap. its pretty damn obvious, change it in the off season.

however, i will say that simply rewriting the engine probably doesnt solve the problem. in fact, it probably has nothing to do with it. its really an architecture limitation, most likely, either a systems side or high level application integration issue. i honestly cannot conceive what convoluted system they have where you cant fairly easily change it to roll out in parts, but it is what it is. i mean, i can see having like, a server where you collect all the settings for all teams in all worlds, and run the sim engine. but why the hell is it so hard to go to that server, and change the job to run a sim engine with a specific version based on a field stored in a DB table or something? i dont know. in general, IT generalists are terrible systems architecture people, and you cant expect application guys to know that stuff (i guess, grumble grumble grumble), so maybe its just a personnel limitation at its core. actually, i have a guess whether it is or not... and id bet quite a lot on that theory if there was a way to confirm it :)

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/7/2013 12:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jskenner on 2/6/2013 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Where I'm trying to "go with this post" is that if the HD code rewrite (which was supposed to make changes easier) would've included the ability to try different settings in different worlds, they'd be able to take risks on changes with parts of simulations models, such as recruiting, EEs, firing logic and so on, without losing too many customers or too much revenue, if the change proved unpopular. They'd be able to make a more consistent thrust to improve the game, with a lessened fear of causing too much damage to their business model in the short term. It's fairly disappointing (to me at least) they didn't include such a function in the code rewrite, because this confirms there's no reasonable way for them to try improvements without affecting all worlds at once. More risk equals less incentive to change the status quo, especially in a business that seems to be struggling. It was certainly news to me when CS told me, and I bet there are many vets who when reading this, will share the same sort of disappointment.

well, id share your disappointment reading this, if i hadnt already went through a similar cycle when i found out myself.

i think its absolutely ridiculous, but for a slightly different reason (although yours are good reasons). its fricken insane from a software development lifecycle, to expect to update 10 worlds together. you should never change the sim engine during the season. dead QA people are rolling over in their graves, all over the country! they've totally screwed people in the NT in the past pulling that crap. its pretty damn obvious, change it in the off season.

however, i will say that simply rewriting the engine probably doesnt solve the problem. in fact, it probably has nothing to do with it. its really an architecture limitation, most likely, either a systems side or high level application integration issue. i honestly cannot conceive what convoluted system they have where you cant fairly easily change it to roll out in parts, but it is what it is. i mean, i can see having like, a server where you collect all the settings for all teams in all worlds, and run the sim engine. but why the hell is it so hard to go to that server, and change the job to run a sim engine with a specific version based on a field stored in a DB table or something? i dont know. in general, IT generalists are terrible systems architecture people, and you cant expect application guys to know that stuff (i guess, grumble grumble grumble), so maybe its just a personnel limitation at its core. actually, i have a guess whether it is or not... and id bet quite a lot on that theory if there was a way to confirm it :)

For your second paragraph Im pretty sure most of the time they will roll out an update at once but it normally doesn't take effect until after the season if over for each world.

hmm that kind of rings a bell, but i dont understand how they could update the version world by world like you describe and not like jskenner describes... i remember them changing things in the NT and stuff too, and breaking ****. it might be a difference between a "sim engine change" and a "game change". i think if they change something in the sim engine, it hits everywhere, immediately. if they change something in recruit generation, i think it only runs once a season, so effectively, it takes impact at the end of the season - probably same goes for job and prestige related crap.