Posted by pkoopman on 11/29/2016 10:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

What about the imbalance at D3 then?

I was told you could move to D2 regardless of success. Of course, imbalance might be found there too.

But, in my opinion, the vast majority of people join to coach at D1. At schools they see in March. Coaching at W Conn St is just something you have to do to move up.

And the same imbalance for brand new coaches is there at D2. If you move to D2 in your 2nd season of HD, you are at a ddisadvantage.

how many seasons are new coaches going to struggle through in order to get to a place where they are going to be competitive and have fun winning. moving up is just slowing down the process due to the changes that have been made.

That imbalance has always existed at D3 and (to a lesser extent) D2. And as long as the game allows veteran coaches to park in the division that new players must start with, it always will. I know you suspect the imbalance will get worse. I suspect it won't. It's way too early to say which of us has it right.

Why dont you think its worse in 3.0 for brand new coaches? Im talking their first 1-3 seasons.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

What about the imbalance at D3 then?

I was told you could move to D2 regardless of success. Of course, imbalance might be found there too.

But, in my opinion, the vast majority of people join to coach at D1. At schools they see in March. Coaching at W Conn St is just something you have to do to move up.

And the same imbalance for brand new coaches is there at D2. If you move to D2 in your 2nd season of HD, you are at a ddisadvantage.

how many seasons are new coaches going to struggle through in order to get to a place where they are going to be competitive and have fun winning. moving up is just slowing down the process due to the changes that have been made.

From personal experience, it took me 4 seasons in the ACC to realize I'd never break that wall and have fun winning. That was under the old system.

Do you have a suggestion? Do you think new owners should win automatically? Do you think owners should be forced to move up?

Poor, poor new coaches, they're going to get trampled. That has been a theme for as long as I can remember. I haven't been around for long, still consider myself a learner here, so took a D3 team just to see what it is like in HD 3.0. It went fine.

If there are a few super D3 teams, that is no different than it has ever been, and it doesn't impact new coaches for at least their first few seasons, if even then. Same at D2. It will be less of a problem at D1 than it used to be. Nothing new there.

So the fear that those poor sheep new coaches are going to get eaten by the wolves seems mighty overblown to me.

Edited to add that the notion that top teams are somehow mystically being "punished" is ridiculous.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

We are missing a few key points-
1- EVERY REDRUITING CHANGE was designed to level the playing field. We do not need to further artificially punish top teams! That's ridiculous!
What is not marketable to the public is a game where we punish winners! The
Last you said, we will see more parity w the changes. Why punish teams with great players. Ridiculous.
Youve said yourself we will not see these types of teams any more, so you see this. Why not fix ee? And yes, I will be ticked because they knew a potential problem and wanted an unfair solution which punishes those at the top in addition to other changes

2- do you think teams at the top just got a free ride there?
Do you think most of them have not spent much money?
The reality is, we worked hard, spent plenty, and we are the most loyal and longstanding customers.
Do you think a better business model is to make a competition... and then punish those who do the best? Is that your great business model?
Truth is, d2&d3 teams at the top get just as many free teams without putting in the work D1 owners have put in. They also face lesser competition. D1 winners spend plenty and should be rewarded.

This game is a sports sim.
It is a competition.
Any competition that punishes winners is a horrible business model. what is wrong with people?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 11/29/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

I don't think most are mad that it would be harder to be at the top, but most don't like the idea of being punished for actually being good at the game. Sure that looks nice to a new guy who might stay for a couple seasons before he's bored and leaves, but it serves the opposite effect for retention of guys who might stay years.

I also don't understand why people think purging the game of the good users helps, because they are not paying. They seem to forget that someone is still going to get those free credits. There will just be less paying customers in the end.

Punished seems harsh. The game evolved to level the playing field. The top coaches that stick around will be the top coaches. They'll just have to achieve it differently.

Non-paying customers aren't really customers. No one opens a coffee shop and gives away coffee. New users will have a learning curve. SIMAI will win more games. And then, maybe, another changes is made when the new customers stop being paying customers.

We'll have to disagree here Mike. Punishment is exactly what it is. Artificially leveling the playing field by saying "you're too good, lets place a handicap against you" is a punishment. It's one thing if they changed the mechanics of the game to not be able to get 4-5 EE enrollee guys that will effect good and bad teams, but the EE issue literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game. The new recruiting system is meant to "level the playing field", but now you've leveled the playing field and created an additional handicap with EEs.

As far as non paying customers, they are still paying customers. The entire point of the credits earned is to reward those who succeed and encourage you to play toward that reward. I don't understand how people are not seeing that the subtraction of a user who essentially plays for free actually equals less money for the company. Subtracting that free playing user only equals a shift in who is the free playing user. If the best user in the game quits, the #2 guy now becomes the #1 and free playing, #3 becomes #2 and so on. The only way to offset that is to have more sims who make deep tourney runs, and the only way that is going to happen is if so many people quit that there are just not enough humans to fill the tournament.

When new customers stop being paying customers, what do you have left? You have the same original problem, except you are making less money, because the original loyal customers are no longer playing.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/29/2016 8:15:00 PM (view original):
"I don't think most are mad that it would be harder to be at the top, but most don't like the idea of being punished for actually being good at the game."

Aw, c'mon, man. I think everybody who has looked at it with open eyes realizes that the conclusion of an advantage (NBA-worthy players on your roster) does not constitute punishment. The false idea that the conclusion of an advantage is somehow "punishment" is really getting threadbare.

Spud, let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say in real life you were better at basketball than everyone else. You were the MJ of your basketball peers. As a result to level the playing field you now have to play with only one shoe.

If you're coach Calipari, and everyone is tired of you recruiting the #1 class, because you have a bunch of 1 and done players. As a result, you are not allowed to recruit additional players until your current players have declared for the draft.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Each of these scenarios "level the playing field", by taking away your ability to compete on an even playing field. Neither scenario is fair to be applied just because you're better than the others.

Now if you wanted to properly level the playing field, everyone in the league has to play with one shoe, or no one is allowed to recruit until their players have declared. Yes it's ridiculous, but do you see the difference?

"...the EE issue literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game."

That's so bogus, poncho. You might as well say that the length of the season "literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game," because if the season were longer they could win more games but a poor coach couldn't win more anyway. You might as well say that not playing with two basketballs in play at the same time "literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game," because they can only score one basket at a time. You might as well say that limiting the top end of player attributes to 100 "literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game."

You did your chores so your mama gives you an ice cream cone, your favorite flavor. You enjoy the ice cream cone. You finish the ice cream cone. Do you then wail that you are given a "punishment" because it didn't last forever? Well, I guess a lot of D1 coaches would do exactly that, because that's what they're doing here.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The expiration of an advantage (NBA-worthy players on your roster) does not constitute punishment, it is merely the end of an advantage over other coaches.

You should argue that EE's only negatively affect dinosaurs who cannot or will not change with the times. Then you would have something. "Someone who's good at the game" will adapt their first period recruiting AND for that matter even their roster management and continue to succeed. Some of those guys have posted on the forums. They may not even like me pointing it out, because as long as some of their opponents wail instead of adapt, they are at an advantage. Smart coaches, ""someone who's good at the game," will see this and stop wailing and continue winning. Remember, there's a winner in every basketball game.

Posted by stewdog on 11/29/2016 11:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

We are missing a few key points-
1- EVERY REDRUITING CHANGE was designed to level the playing field. We do not need to further artificially punish top teams! That's ridiculous!
What is not marketable to the public is a game where we punish winners! The
Last you said, we will see more parity w the changes. Why punish teams with great players. Ridiculous.
Youve said yourself we will not see these types of teams any more, so you see this. Why not fix ee? And yes, I will be ticked because they knew a potential problem and wanted an unfair solution which punishes those at the top in addition to other changes

2- do you think teams at the top just got a free ride there?
Do you think most of them have not spent much money?
The reality is, we worked hard, spent plenty, and we are the most loyal and longstanding customers.
Do you think a better business model is to make a competition... and then punish those who do the best? Is that your great business model?
Truth is, d2&d3 teams at the top get just as many free teams without putting in the work D1 owners have put in. They also face lesser competition. D1 winners spend plenty and should be rewarded.

This game is a sports sim.
It is a competition.
Any competition that punishes winners is a horrible business model. what is wrong with people?

1. I understand EE is a problem. I think it will go away without adjustments as the talent will be spread out. I'm not sure why, if you have a bunch of great players, you don't expect them to leave early.

2. If you can find any post where I even IMPLIED that the owner at the top got a free ride, please quote it. I have said, under the old model, that it was virtually impossible to unseat them. That certainly does not mean they didn't put in effort and, quite frankly, got better at the game than anyone else.

It was no longer a competition under the old program. If you were entrenched at a top school, your only competition came from other entrenched owners at top schools. I firmly believe "punish" is a pretty harsh word for a simgame.

Posted by poncho0091 on 11/30/2016 12:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 11/29/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

I don't think most are mad that it would be harder to be at the top, but most don't like the idea of being punished for actually being good at the game. Sure that looks nice to a new guy who might stay for a couple seasons before he's bored and leaves, but it serves the opposite effect for retention of guys who might stay years.

I also don't understand why people think purging the game of the good users helps, because they are not paying. They seem to forget that someone is still going to get those free credits. There will just be less paying customers in the end.

Punished seems harsh. The game evolved to level the playing field. The top coaches that stick around will be the top coaches. They'll just have to achieve it differently.

Non-paying customers aren't really customers. No one opens a coffee shop and gives away coffee. New users will have a learning curve. SIMAI will win more games. And then, maybe, another changes is made when the new customers stop being paying customers.

We'll have to disagree here Mike. Punishment is exactly what it is. Artificially leveling the playing field by saying "you're too good, lets place a handicap against you" is a punishment. It's one thing if they changed the mechanics of the game to not be able to get 4-5 EE enrollee guys that will effect good and bad teams, but the EE issue literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game. The new recruiting system is meant to "level the playing field", but now you've leveled the playing field and created an additional handicap with EEs.

As far as non paying customers, they are still paying customers. The entire point of the credits earned is to reward those who succeed and encourage you to play toward that reward. I don't understand how people are not seeing that the subtraction of a user who essentially plays for free actually equals less money for the company. Subtracting that free playing user only equals a shift in who is the free playing user. If the best user in the game quits, the #2 guy now becomes the #1 and free playing, #3 becomes #2 and so on. The only way to offset that is to have more sims who make deep tourney runs, and the only way that is going to happen is if so many people quit that there are just not enough humans to fill the tournament.

When new customers stop being paying customers, what do you have left? You have the same original problem, except you are making less money, because the original loyal customers are no longer playing.

Yes, we'll disagree. The elite owners will be "punished" one time with the 4-6 EE leaving and no legit way to replace them(which isn't what the developers want anyway). So, do they have another 4-6 great players on their roster now? I would hope not. If not, the problem is resolved. The band-aid was ripped off quickly.

I guess I'm not being clear enough. The population of HD players has been dwindling. I don't know this to be fact but I read the forums. Just for simplification, let's say there are 100 at each level. D1 are the best of the best. They can't be dethroned. D2 are the guys learning and hoping to join D1. D3 are the n00bs. D2 and D3 eventually get better and move up. Old D2 guys reach D1 and realize they can't win at D1. They quit. Fortunately, the old D3 owners have moved to D2 and D3 has repopulated with n00bs. The process repeats itself season after season after season. 300 users for eternity. By leveling the playing field, more will stay at D1. IMO, that's where WifS can add owners. D2 should remain somewhat constant. Users content to stay there and D3 guys moving up. D3 will always have owners who check in, play a few seasons and call it a day. There is just no way to convince me, under the old program, that the force field surrounding the top owners could be penetrated. So WifS changed the program to create competition.

Just a thought : maybe when you lose a vh roll, you get 1/2 recruiting money back, a h roll 1/3. I lost two rolls in Tark Penn State (practice team), all-in both, lost Vh to Cornell, lost H to Clemson ( i don't mind this one, i gambled).

I don't mind 2 recruiting cycles. Just move them to after the season/declaring and job changes have occurred. That or allow people to recruit for new jobs mid season (but continue to gameplan for the current) and state EEs mid season. It was pretty obvious that these were going to be issues. I and others brought up reasonable solutions in beta but spud and his slew of false equivalencies disagreed.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/30/2016 6:05:00 AM (view original):
"...the EE issue literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game."

That's so bogus, poncho. You might as well say that the length of the season "literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game," because if the season were longer they could win more games but a poor coach couldn't win more anyway. You might as well say that not playing with two basketballs in play at the same time "literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game," because they can only score one basket at a time. You might as well say that limiting the top end of player attributes to 100 "literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game."

You did your chores so your mama gives you an ice cream cone, your favorite flavor. You enjoy the ice cream cone. You finish the ice cream cone. Do you then wail that you are given a "punishment" because it didn't last forever? Well, I guess a lot of D1 coaches would do exactly that, because that's what they're doing here.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The expiration of an advantage (NBA-worthy players on your roster) does not constitute punishment, it is merely the end of an advantage over other coaches.

You should argue that EE's only negatively affect dinosaurs who cannot or will not change with the times. Then you would have something. "Someone who's good at the game" will adapt their first period recruiting AND for that matter even their roster management and continue to succeed. Some of those guys have posted on the forums. They may not even like me pointing it out, because as long as some of their opponents wail instead of adapt, they are at an advantage. Smart coaches, ""someone who's good at the game," will see this and stop wailing and continue winning. Remember, there's a winner in every basketball game.

This is by far, the stupidest post you've ever had. you have no concept of making a relatable statement.

My examples give a scenario where under the rules given on a level playing field one does better than others, so a handicap is put in place to limit them. your scenario gives an example of one who is better than the others under a given set of rules on an already level playing field complaining, because they are missing opportunities to be even better than everyone else.

if you get resources to fill 5 scholarships to fill 5 scholarships while I get resources to fill 2 with 5 scholarships to fill, plus I get only the 2nd half to recruit when most respectable (I didn't say elite or good) recruits are gone, then how is that a level playing field? yes there is risk in signing an elite player that he will leave, but I should still be on a level playing field to compete to replace them and fill my roster line everyone else, not watch everyone get a head start before I can even try to compete.

Your ice cream cone assessment is another poor one. Noone is complaining that there EE left early (their advantage). your assessment only works if your next statement is they wail because they now have to do twice as much work in order to get the next ice cream, while watching his siblings do less to get one.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/29/2016 10:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

What about the imbalance at D3 then?

I was told you could move to D2 regardless of success. Of course, imbalance might be found there too.

But, in my opinion, the vast majority of people join to coach at D1. At schools they see in March. Coaching at W Conn St is just something you have to do to move up.

And the same imbalance for brand new coaches is there at D2. If you move to D2 in your 2nd season of HD, you are at a ddisadvantage.

how many seasons are new coaches going to struggle through in order to get to a place where they are going to be competitive and have fun winning. moving up is just slowing down the process due to the changes that have been made.

That imbalance has always existed at D3 and (to a lesser extent) D2. And as long as the game allows veteran coaches to park in the division that new players must start with, it always will. I know you suspect the imbalance will get worse. I suspect it won't. It's way too early to say which of us has it right.

Why dont you think its worse in 3.0 for brand new coaches? Im talking their first 1-3 seasons.

Because I haven't been presented with any evidence for it. Championship level players recruited by championship level D3s have always looked like mid-major D1 starters after a couple years of development. Veteran coaches have always had an advantage in procuring those players. You could argue that D3s now have access to players who may be a little better out of the gate. But at the same time, recruiting at that level involves more risk now, because if a local D1 shows up with some resources, you're screwed. And those players are going to be available to all levels of D3, not just the elite; whereas before, A+ D3s had access to a level of drop downs that C D3s couldn't touch.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/30/2016 6:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 11/30/2016 12:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 11/29/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

I don't think most are mad that it would be harder to be at the top, but most don't like the idea of being punished for actually being good at the game. Sure that looks nice to a new guy who might stay for a couple seasons before he's bored and leaves, but it serves the opposite effect for retention of guys who might stay years.

I also don't understand why people think purging the game of the good users helps, because they are not paying. They seem to forget that someone is still going to get those free credits. There will just be less paying customers in the end.

Punished seems harsh. The game evolved to level the playing field. The top coaches that stick around will be the top coaches. They'll just have to achieve it differently.

Non-paying customers aren't really customers. No one opens a coffee shop and gives away coffee. New users will have a learning curve. SIMAI will win more games. And then, maybe, another changes is made when the new customers stop being paying customers.

We'll have to disagree here Mike. Punishment is exactly what it is. Artificially leveling the playing field by saying "you're too good, lets place a handicap against you" is a punishment. It's one thing if they changed the mechanics of the game to not be able to get 4-5 EE enrollee guys that will effect good and bad teams, but the EE issue literally only negatively effects someone who's good at the game. The new recruiting system is meant to "level the playing field", but now you've leveled the playing field and created an additional handicap with EEs.

As far as non paying customers, they are still paying customers. The entire point of the credits earned is to reward those who succeed and encourage you to play toward that reward. I don't understand how people are not seeing that the subtraction of a user who essentially plays for free actually equals less money for the company. Subtracting that free playing user only equals a shift in who is the free playing user. If the best user in the game quits, the #2 guy now becomes the #1 and free playing, #3 becomes #2 and so on. The only way to offset that is to have more sims who make deep tourney runs, and the only way that is going to happen is if so many people quit that there are just not enough humans to fill the tournament.

When new customers stop being paying customers, what do you have left? You have the same original problem, except you are making less money, because the original loyal customers are no longer playing.

Yes, we'll disagree. The elite owners will be "punished" one time with the 4-6 EE leaving and no legit way to replace them(which isn't what the developers want anyway). So, do they have another 4-6 great players on their roster now? I would hope not. If not, the problem is resolved. The band-aid was ripped off quickly.

I guess I'm not being clear enough. The population of HD players has been dwindling. I don't know this to be fact but I read the forums. Just for simplification, let's say there are 100 at each level. D1 are the best of the best. They can't be dethroned. D2 are the guys learning and hoping to join D1. D3 are the n00bs. D2 and D3 eventually get better and move up. Old D2 guys reach D1 and realize they can't win at D1. They quit. Fortunately, the old D3 owners have moved to D2 and D3 has repopulated with n00bs. The process repeats itself season after season after season. 300 users for eternity. By leveling the playing field, more will stay at D1. IMO, that's where WifS can add owners. D2 should remain somewhat constant. Users content to stay there and D3 guys moving up. D3 will always have owners who check in, play a few seasons and call it a day. There is just no way to convince me, under the old program, that the force field surrounding the top owners could be penetrated. So WifS changed the program to create competition.

Mike, I don't disagree with your assessment of DI needing to change to keep more interested. My original statement is the change needed was much simpler than the full revamp they implemented, but that's a different discussion. there are a few assumptions you're making that have yet to be seen. will it be possible for the elite coaches to get another group of EE again fairly regularly. if so, now you're punishing people for nothing, not to mention setting a team back for multiple seasons.

you're also making an assumption of the amount of new users coming into the game. currently there is only a bit of an influx because FREEHD was running, some of which is already existing coaches. FREEHD brought new coaches under the old game too. most of which quit after 1 season, not because of DI.

ultimately, one should not be forced to compete on an uneven playing field simply because they successfully outplayed other coaches. at no point should someone have less of an opportunity (less time and resources here) to sign someone simply because they did good. the current system does that. spud keeps saying budget better, but maybe we should give him 5 open scholarships with 2 scholarships worth of resources and see how well he does.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/30/2016 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/29/2016 10:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

What about the imbalance at D3 then?

I was told you could move to D2 regardless of success. Of course, imbalance might be found there too.

But, in my opinion, the vast majority of people join to coach at D1. At schools they see in March. Coaching at W Conn St is just something you have to do to move up.

And the same imbalance for brand new coaches is there at D2. If you move to D2 in your 2nd season of HD, you are at a ddisadvantage.

how many seasons are new coaches going to struggle through in order to get to a place where they are going to be competitive and have fun winning. moving up is just slowing down the process due to the changes that have been made.

That imbalance has always existed at D3 and (to a lesser extent) D2. And as long as the game allows veteran coaches to park in the division that new players must start with, it always will. I know you suspect the imbalance will get worse. I suspect it won't. It's way too early to say which of us has it right.

Why dont you think its worse in 3.0 for brand new coaches? Im talking their first 1-3 seasons.

Because I haven't been presented with any evidence for it. Championship level players recruited by championship level D3s have always looked like mid-major D1 starters after a couple years of development. Veteran coaches have always had an advantage in procuring those players. You could argue that D3s now have access to players who may be a little better out of the gate. But at the same time, recruiting at that level involves more risk now, because if a local D1 shows up with some resources, you're screwed. And those players are going to be available to all levels of D3, not just the elite; whereas before, A+ D3s had access to a level of drop downs that C D3s couldn't touch.

Removing drop downs would have easily fixed that issue with minimal change.