The bottom line is that the changeover is going to happen, regardless of the continued posts on the topic.

Does anyone ACTUALLY think that HD 3.0 is not going to happen if they continue to post about how the sky is falling?
Why continue complain about something that's clearly going to happen?
Do anyone truly expect that continuing to complain will suddenly change seble's mind?

I think as a Paying Customer one has the Right to complain about a product that Is not what they paid for. I don't see WIS offering to Refund anyone's money?

Posted by joco45215 on 8/12/2016 10:18:00 AM (view original):
I played a lot of the NCAA video games back in the day, they seemed to have a good thing going with early and late signing periods.... The set up was nice to use. Obviously apples and oranges....

I agree, literally every PS or Xbox college basketball game I've owned has had a more realistic and fun recruiting process than old HD. The eBay bidding for recruits is horrible, and the spreadsheet scan scouting is beyond tedious (and as unrealistic as eBay recruiting). And most importantly to me, the 4-day recruiting binge is needlessly stressful and sleep-depriving. I don't want to ever feel like I need to wake up in the middle of the night for 2 or 3 days in order to put a competitive team on the court. 3.0 is a good step in the right direction, if player attraction and retention is the goal.

I dont want to be insensitive to the people who had a lot of success - as trentonjoe says, the folks who knew the back doors and secret handshakes - I understand why this change upsets people, and why a certain segment was never going to accept a change to the system that recognized and rewarded their successes. But big picture, none of those little tweaks were going to improve attraction or retention.

Posted by pkoopman on 8/12/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by joco45215 on 8/12/2016 10:18:00 AM (view original):
I played a lot of the NCAA video games back in the day, they seemed to have a good thing going with early and late signing periods.... The set up was nice to use. Obviously apples and oranges....

I agree, literally every PS or Xbox college basketball game I've owned has had a more realistic and fun recruiting process than old HD. The eBay bidding for recruits is horrible, and the spreadsheet scan scouting is beyond tedious (and as unrealistic as eBay recruiting). And most importantly to me, the 4-day recruiting binge is needlessly stressful and sleep-depriving. I don't want to ever feel like I need to wake up in the middle of the night for 2 or 3 days in order to put a competitive team on the court. 3.0 is a good step in the right direction, if player attraction and retention is the goal.

I dont want to be insensitive to the people who had a lot of success - as trentonjoe says, the folks who knew the back doors and secret handshakes - I understand why this change upsets people, and why a certain segment was never going to accept a change to the system that recognized and rewarded their successes. But big picture, none of those little tweaks were going to improve attraction or retention.

Good post. I don't think a lot of people would disagree with it on either side of the aisle.

Posted by pkoopman on 8/12/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by joco45215 on 8/12/2016 10:18:00 AM (view original):
I played a lot of the NCAA video games back in the day, they seemed to have a good thing going with early and late signing periods.... The set up was nice to use. Obviously apples and oranges....

I agree, literally every PS or Xbox college basketball game I've owned has had a more realistic and fun recruiting process than old HD. The eBay bidding for recruits is horrible, and the spreadsheet scan scouting is beyond tedious (and as unrealistic as eBay recruiting). And most importantly to me, the 4-day recruiting binge is needlessly stressful and sleep-depriving. I don't want to ever feel like I need to wake up in the middle of the night for 2 or 3 days in order to put a competitive team on the court. 3.0 is a good step in the right direction, if player attraction and retention is the goal.

I dont want to be insensitive to the people who had a lot of success - as trentonjoe says, the folks who knew the back doors and secret handshakes - I understand why this change upsets people, and why a certain segment was never going to accept a change to the system that recognized and rewarded their successes. But big picture, none of those little tweaks were going to improve attraction or retention.

But the new scouting leads to the same spreadsheet scanning process, it just take additional time and clicks (although thankfully fewer than originally in beta) to get there.

Ultimately we won't know for several months if this update will improve attraction or retention either, but we do know that it will drive down the number of current users, by people dropping teams or leaving altogether.

One thing that stands out for me is how punitive this feels. It is reducing the advantages of being successful; prestige is much less important, there is less incentive to be in a full, extremely competitive conference, etc. Since this plan was first presented, people have asked about a solution to mitigate the problems presented by the current early entry system, but (perhaps because it is only a problem of elite D1 schools), nothing was done to address that, either through development or three seasons of beta testing.

This isn't a fix of the game.

Its changes made to the game based upon the arbitrarily decided new values of the game by one person in charge, who literally neglected the game for years before implementing their vision.

In the real world that's called a dictator and people who are upset/unvalued would revolt.

The only revolt the unheard voices here can take is with our money, so many are walking. If a coup toward the existing leadership was possible I'd take part.

Posted by acn24 on 8/12/2016 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 8/12/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by joco45215 on 8/12/2016 10:18:00 AM (view original):
I played a lot of the NCAA video games back in the day, they seemed to have a good thing going with early and late signing periods.... The set up was nice to use. Obviously apples and oranges....

I agree, literally every PS or Xbox college basketball game I've owned has had a more realistic and fun recruiting process than old HD. The eBay bidding for recruits is horrible, and the spreadsheet scan scouting is beyond tedious (and as unrealistic as eBay recruiting). And most importantly to me, the 4-day recruiting binge is needlessly stressful and sleep-depriving. I don't want to ever feel like I need to wake up in the middle of the night for 2 or 3 days in order to put a competitive team on the court. 3.0 is a good step in the right direction, if player attraction and retention is the goal.

I dont want to be insensitive to the people who had a lot of success - as trentonjoe says, the folks who knew the back doors and secret handshakes - I understand why this change upsets people, and why a certain segment was never going to accept a change to the system that recognized and rewarded their successes. But big picture, none of those little tweaks were going to improve attraction or retention.

But the new scouting leads to the same spreadsheet scanning process, it just take additional time and clicks (although thankfully fewer than originally in beta) to get there.

Ultimately we won't know for several months if this update will improve attraction or retention either, but we do know that it will drive down the number of current users, by people dropping teams or leaving altogether.

One thing that stands out for me is how punitive this feels. It is reducing the advantages of being successful; prestige is much less important, there is less incentive to be in a full, extremely competitive conference, etc. Since this plan was first presented, people have asked about a solution to mitigate the problems presented by the current early entry system, but (perhaps because it is only a problem of elite D1 schools), nothing was done to address that, either through development or three seasons of beta testing.

I agree with this too. The new system punishes top-level success, and I found new scouting a tedious annoyance.

The long-term competitive ramifications of the changes went entirely untested in beta, which is beyond weird for a game that is designed to be played over a long term.

There appears to be an Underpants Gnomes plan for replacing legacy users. Should be interesting.

Posted by acn24 on 8/12/2016 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 8/12/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by joco45215 on 8/12/2016 10:18:00 AM (view original):
I played a lot of the NCAA video games back in the day, they seemed to have a good thing going with early and late signing periods.... The set up was nice to use. Obviously apples and oranges....

I agree, literally every PS or Xbox college basketball game I've owned has had a more realistic and fun recruiting process than old HD. The eBay bidding for recruits is horrible, and the spreadsheet scan scouting is beyond tedious (and as unrealistic as eBay recruiting). And most importantly to me, the 4-day recruiting binge is needlessly stressful and sleep-depriving. I don't want to ever feel like I need to wake up in the middle of the night for 2 or 3 days in order to put a competitive team on the court. 3.0 is a good step in the right direction, if player attraction and retention is the goal.

I dont want to be insensitive to the people who had a lot of success - as trentonjoe says, the folks who knew the back doors and secret handshakes - I understand why this change upsets people, and why a certain segment was never going to accept a change to the system that recognized and rewarded their successes. But big picture, none of those little tweaks were going to improve attraction or retention.

But the new scouting leads to the same spreadsheet scanning process, it just take additional time and clicks (although thankfully fewer than originally in beta) to get there.

Ultimately we won't know for several months if this update will improve attraction or retention either, but we do know that it will drive down the number of current users, by people dropping teams or leaving altogether.

One thing that stands out for me is how punitive this feels. It is reducing the advantages of being successful; prestige is much less important, there is less incentive to be in a full, extremely competitive conference, etc. Since this plan was first presented, people have asked about a solution to mitigate the problems presented by the current early entry system, but (perhaps because it is only a problem of elite D1 schools), nothing was done to address that, either through development or three seasons of beta testing.

Nah, it's not the same process. It does involve some spreadsheet scanning, yes; but it's not limited to that. It's not an unteneble amount of extra clicks to select a few camps, go on a few searches, and see what comes back in, then filter from there. And that process is more realistic and intuitive, compared to some exhaustive national database with intricately defined numerals representing actual attributes, accurately scouted, and free of charge to every school available. I suspect a lot of the people who feel like it's taking so much more time and so many more clicks are trying to play 3.0 the way they played 2.0. That is, they feel obligated to try to get all that same information on all those players they had access to before, because they don't want to miss anyone. If you can let go of that, and accept that this is going to be a new game - or at least a new function of the game - it's a pretty fun process, IMO.

And I think we should recognize that the clunky, spreadsheet-data-heavy method, while acceptable to those of us who stuck around and had some success and enjoyment in a game we are used to, is hurting overall retention. I know that's true from friends of mine that I've tried to recruit for the game, and WIS has no reason to lie about the feedback they've gotten from players who tried it and quit. 3.0 doesn't feel clunky in that way. It's partly expectations, because I'm not trying to see all the prospects, 99% of whom I'm not going to recruit anyway. With the added filters (once fully functional - that's my personal biggest concern, some are saying sometimes it's buggy), I don't find the scouting process extra clicky or time consuming.

On the punitive thing, again I think this is a matter of perspective and expectation. It's true that it will probably be more rare now for a program to be able to recruit more than a couple elite players in any given class. But I don't think this is punishing success, as much as declining *some* of the reward for success. Prestige is still a factor. 2.0 can feel like there are cartels. Obviously, those of us who have stayed either like it (because we benefitted from it) or tolerate it, some in hopes of joining. But the question is how many players that turns off. I'd imagine quite a few are not really interested in playing a NCAA simulation modeled on "winner's ball".

Posted by pkoopman on 8/12/2016 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 8/12/2016 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 8/12/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by joco45215 on 8/12/2016 10:18:00 AM (view original):
I played a lot of the NCAA video games back in the day, they seemed to have a good thing going with early and late signing periods.... The set up was nice to use. Obviously apples and oranges....

I agree, literally every PS or Xbox college basketball game I've owned has had a more realistic and fun recruiting process than old HD. The eBay bidding for recruits is horrible, and the spreadsheet scan scouting is beyond tedious (and as unrealistic as eBay recruiting). And most importantly to me, the 4-day recruiting binge is needlessly stressful and sleep-depriving. I don't want to ever feel like I need to wake up in the middle of the night for 2 or 3 days in order to put a competitive team on the court. 3.0 is a good step in the right direction, if player attraction and retention is the goal.

I dont want to be insensitive to the people who had a lot of success - as trentonjoe says, the folks who knew the back doors and secret handshakes - I understand why this change upsets people, and why a certain segment was never going to accept a change to the system that recognized and rewarded their successes. But big picture, none of those little tweaks were going to improve attraction or retention.

But the new scouting leads to the same spreadsheet scanning process, it just take additional time and clicks (although thankfully fewer than originally in beta) to get there.

Ultimately we won't know for several months if this update will improve attraction or retention either, but we do know that it will drive down the number of current users, by people dropping teams or leaving altogether.

One thing that stands out for me is how punitive this feels. It is reducing the advantages of being successful; prestige is much less important, there is less incentive to be in a full, extremely competitive conference, etc. Since this plan was first presented, people have asked about a solution to mitigate the problems presented by the current early entry system, but (perhaps because it is only a problem of elite D1 schools), nothing was done to address that, either through development or three seasons of beta testing.

Nah, it's not the same process. It does involve some spreadsheet scanning, yes; but it's not limited to that. It's not an unteneble amount of extra clicks to select a few camps, go on a few searches, and see what comes back in, then filter from there. And that process is more realistic and intuitive, compared to some exhaustive national database with intricately defined numerals representing actual attributes, accurately scouted, and free of charge to every school available. I suspect a lot of the people who feel like it's taking so much more time and so many more clicks are trying to play 3.0 the way they played 2.0. That is, they feel obligated to try to get all that same information on all those players they had access to before, because they don't want to miss anyone. If you can let go of that, and accept that this is going to be a new game - or at least a new function of the game - it's a pretty fun process, IMO.

And I think we should recognize that the clunky, spreadsheet-data-heavy method, while acceptable to those of us who stuck around and had some success and enjoyment in a game we are used to, is hurting overall retention. I know that's true from friends of mine that I've tried to recruit for the game, and WIS has no reason to lie about the feedback they've gotten from players who tried it and quit. 3.0 doesn't feel clunky in that way. It's partly expectations, because I'm not trying to see all the prospects, 99% of whom I'm not going to recruit anyway. With the added filters (once fully functional - that's my personal biggest concern, some are saying sometimes it's buggy), I don't find the scouting process extra clicky or time consuming.

On the punitive thing, again I think this is a matter of perspective and expectation. It's true that it will probably be more rare now for a program to be able to recruit more than a couple elite players in any given class. But I don't think this is punishing success, as much as declining *some* of the reward for success. Prestige is still a factor. 2.0 can feel like there are cartels. Obviously, those of us who have stayed either like it (because we benefitted from it) or tolerate it, some in hopes of joining. But the question is how many players that turns off. I'd imagine quite a few are not really interested in playing a NCAA simulation modeled on "winner's ball".

So there is some spreadsheet scanning, but you have to do multiple steps prior before you get it, and some of the tools you can use might not work until some undetermined update down the road. I'm also not sure about your other idea, that coaches accept not seeing a player who could really help their team, and whose preferences line up.

Your anecdotes and WIS's survey information aside - there is still no way to say that this will improve retention. You can guess, and you can hold out hope, but nobody knows. Attraction may increase, but that won't be from the changes, that'll be from WIS actually advertising the game. What we know, is that there will be a short term nose dive in terms of users.

On the punitive thing we agree - a history of success is less important in HD3 than HD2. I'll even go ahead and use your language - they just removed some of the rewards for success. While prestige may still be important, it seems as though preferences are now a major driver. That's just another way to increase the impact of luck on the game. You have to hope to find a player who is good enough to help your team and have their preferences line up. And even then, you can do everything right have an advantage, and then see them sign with a rival, just because. Maybe it will be rare for a school to sign multiple elite recruits, and maybe that will make the EE concerns go away without seble actually having to accept a plan. But maybe we should have rolled beta until at least one class of Freshmen recruited under the new system graduated.

I'm not saying that you can't be super excited about it, but there are significant concerns among people who did play the beta, and folks who should be able to hear from a difference of opinions.

There are very few bugs remaining in the BETA. What there are lots of are balancing issues (ex. are EEs too hard to replace).

With balancing issues (which typically involves two or more humans controlling something), doing a trial of anything you get huge biases in the data so even if you ran the BETA for months, you still wouldn't have a clear picture of anything until you actually put it out into the world.

Coaches didn't have any vested interest

Lots of coaches signed up and never participated (and loads left after 1 or 2 seasons). Others who stayed operated differently than they would normally do (D- prestige battling A+ schools) and ended up talking huge walk on classes (they just didn't care and had nothing at stake).

WIS needed to do something

Staying status quo would likely result in the user base slowly dying off. You can't market old products very well (who buys something that they haven't changed in years no matter how much they advertise). Complaints of recruit generation, job firings/hiring while those would be great for the existing user base and maybe convince some of the departed to return, would be just delaying the bleed out.

Seble is just a software programmer and an employee of WhatIfSports. He doesn't set product requirements, nor does he set project deadlines, or gets to dictate what he works on. Maybe he's like myself who's a 1 man product software programmer otherwise he's just part of a team so ease up on pushing any blame on him for ignoring HD for all these years.

WIS needed to change things up, make it mobile friendly and try and keep these Millennials/Generation Y engaged (and boy do they want instant gratification).

Will it help in the long run? Nobody knows. Will people leave? Most definitely (no matter what WIS did or did not). Will HD survive? No clue, but I'll likely be around to see it if it does and help anyone who wants it enjoy this game as much as I do.

acn24

Those "multiple steps" aren't time sucks, nor are they complicated. Choose some camps, wait for results. Run some searches. Filter your pool (for the record, I had no problem with the filter, just going on what other people said looked wonky). Then you have a pool of remaining recruits that you can pick through. That pool can be as big or small as you want, so people like me who look at enough spreadsheets in the real world don't feel obligated to look at all those multitudes of players we're not going to recruit just because. Keep in mind, to get those players in some sort of pool in 2.0, you also have to go through multiple steps; or rather the same step, multiple times, to search for every combo of attributes you want filtered. There are a lot of steps we go through in 2.0 we just don't think about in comparison, because it's a process we're used to now. So I'd say the reason some coaches don't feel comfortable not seeing every possible recruit that could help them is because they're used to 2.0. That doesn't imply that the current system is inherently good or fun for most people.

Of course there's never any way to predict what the long term effect on attraction and retention will be. But along with the "nosedive" in current coaches, at least among a vocal portion of them, we also know that the current model fails to retain players following big ad pushes. This past March madness saw a huge influx in a couple worlds, for a season. Then back to status quo.

I dont call it luck, I call it ambiguity and realism. It's still a matter of perspective and expectation. If increasing the user base is the goal, I think we have to look beyond what suits the preferences of the ultra successful long time coaches (some of whom don't actually pay much for the game). From a gameplay standpoint, does it make sense that programs are getting 3 or 4 or more top 100 players every year? Probably not if you want robust leagues of paying customers. For better or worse, that's likely what this boils down to.

Posted by pkoopman on 8/12/2016 5:09:00 PM (view original):
acn24

Those "multiple steps" aren't time sucks, nor are they complicated. Choose some camps, wait for results. Run some searches. Filter your pool (for the record, I had no problem with the filter, just going on what other people said looked wonky). Then you have a pool of remaining recruits that you can pick through. That pool can be as big or small as you want, so people like me who look at enough spreadsheets in the real world don't feel obligated to look at all those multitudes of players we're not going to recruit just because. Keep in mind, to get those players in some sort of pool in 2.0, you also have to go through multiple steps; or rather the same step, multiple times, to search for every combo of attributes you want filtered. There are a lot of steps we go through in 2.0 we just don't think about in comparison, because it's a process we're used to now. So I'd say the reason some coaches don't feel comfortable not seeing every possible recruit that could help them is because they're used to 2.0. That doesn't imply that the current system is inherently good or fun for most people.

Of course there's never any way to predict what the long term effect on attraction and retention will be. But along with the "nosedive" in current coaches, at least among a vocal portion of them, we also know that the current model fails to retain players following big ad pushes. This past March madness saw a huge influx in a couple worlds, for a season. Then back to status quo.

I dont call it luck, I call it ambiguity and realism. It's still a matter of perspective and expectation. If increasing the user base is the goal, I think we have to look beyond what suits the preferences of the ultra successful long time coaches (some of whom don't actually pay much for the game). From a gameplay standpoint, does it make sense that programs are getting 3 or 4 or more top 100 players every year? Probably not if you want robust leagues of paying customers. For better or worse, that's likely what this boils down to.

You do understand the "nosedive" in current coaches is because of HD 3.0, correct? You do understand that with a new game, the result of new users sticking is going to be exactly the same? The new game is not going to make any material number of new users stick around more than current HD. New users don't stick, because it's not their thing. You talk about the clicks in a different mindset, but that's not true at all. Scouting in current HD, I FSS and look at the results. Done. I honestly don't do a lot of additional scouting visits unless I'm trying to decide between 2 recruits, but most of the time I set my board and move forward. Is there some guess work with scouting? Yes. What's an easier fix though, creating a whole new scouting and recruiting system, or adjusting the current system to allow a more refined ability to scout?

If increasing the user base is the goal, you advertise more, not scrap a system that people like (especially after ignoring them for years). You understand, for better or worse, that the cost of a new acquisition is more than the cost of retaining a current customer. Now multiply that when that one customer has 3-4 or even more teams. Each one of those teams generated revenue that will no longer exist (and yes, some guys win a lot and play nearly free, but those rewards are going to go to someone else, so the revenue is still lost.

We understand that the game is rolling out whether we like it or not, but where is the game going to be when the short timers who wanted a new game finally get tired and quit and the old timers who have been around 10 plus years and long past the "tired of the game" phase also quit? They are going to need to spend more on marketing than ever before to match the attrition.

"You do understand that with a new game, the result of new users sticking is going to be exactly the same? The new game is not going to make any material number of new users stick around more than current HD. New users don't stick, because it's not their thing. "

I don't think that is true Ponch. You can change the game so that it retains new users at a higher rate.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 8/12/2016 9:59:00 PM (view original):
"You do understand that with a new game, the result of new users sticking is going to be exactly the same? The new game is not going to make any material number of new users stick around more than current HD. New users don't stick, because it's not their thing. "

I don't think that is true Ponch. You can change the game so that it retains new users at a higher rate.

That would be the idea. The plain truth is that 2.0 did not retain players. It was very bad at retaining players - case in point, the March Madness push. Why advertise if the product is not attractive? "It's not their thing". Exactly. So they're going to try to make it something that more people can call "their thing".

I want to give an example with my business which kind of ties in with this point.

HD has been losing users slowly for years.

I own 3 magazines, and we were encountering sales dropping as well, due to the recession, and of course because so much has gone digital now. But we still had solid sales and people still really liked to read the magazine. We had a core group of advertisers that have been with us for 16 years some less, but many for 10 years. However, every once in a while one would drop out for one reason or another.

But I felt like things were heading in the wrong direction, albeit slowly, and we needed to do something. There were customers that used to advertise but stopped for some reason or another. It's hard to get those customers back, once they quit without offering something new. We would call on them, but all we could really say was "Would you like an ad this month". But the core product was the same as it was when they left, so there was no compelling reason to come back.

So, we made a pretty major overhaul, just like HD is doing now. For Chapel Hill News & Views (which is why my ID is chaplhillne), we increased the circulation from 39,000 to 45,000. We started delivering to every business in Douglas County. We added an area that we mail it to. We added a much improved online version. We enlarged the magazine from 8.25 inches wide to 9 inches wide. We added a writer. We went from 2 columns to 3 columns. Because of that, and with that as an excuse, we changed all of the ad sizes because for some customers we had not increased the rates since 2008 and the rest since 2010. By having new sizes, we were able to get more $$$ for the same space. We also designed a new logo for the magazine. We did the same type thing with Villa Rica News & Views.

By doing this, our sales are up about 15%, whereas our costs have risen, by just a fraction of that. We were able to approach advertisers (which in HD's case would be old customers) with "Look at all of these changes - this is a great reason to start advertising again" in so many words. And it worked.

I suspect HD is doing something like this in terms of their strategy - at least I hope so.

Many people have left HD over the years for one reason or another, and some of those reasons have been addressed. Some left because it was no longer a challenge. Some left because they were sick of getting poached in a system in which it is impossible to compete with schools that have more open scholarships. Some quit because they kept experiencing the scenario where they get in a battle or two, and then get piled on because they are weak. Some left because having 2 hours to do the first cycle was impossible with their schedule, or having 36 hours to scout was too demanding. The point is that they left.

So, I think it makes sense from a marketing standpoint, to try to get those users back, if they handle it right, which remains to be seen.

And it's definitely worth a gamble to see if you can come out with a product that is able to retain users more than you lose users. HD was on a slow path downward. Obviously, there will be initial losses of current users who are not happy, which is a shame. Hopefully some of them will miss the game, come back, and give the new system a fair shot.

But most importantly, the current game is not retaining users, so something has to change.

I find the new system to be much more challenging and strategic, and engaging. I also think that by having recruiting take place during the season, there is going to be a natural inclination of new users to want to stick around to see the players they just recruited play next year. That could be a big deal.

Good thoughts, chapel. If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that WIS had to do something different with HD.