Posted by girt25 on 4/30/2013 1:29:00 PM (view original):
OR has said this forever, and it's been echoed here: A totally full world would not be a good thing. People need to feel like they have a better chance to win. No one wants to be the 3-13 team in their conference. That doesn't mean it's catering to those who need "instant gratification", it's just a basic understanding of how humans interact. Having a certain # of sims in each world serves a valuable purpose.
Fuller worlds would be good. Totally full worlds would not.
(And that of course doesn't address the massive collateral damage caused by trying to eliminate worlds, which is the bigger problem.)
Don't really care who has been stating it forever (like one person's "opinion" counts any more than another's), or who is echoing what, but the fact that coaches are constantly gravitating towards full conferences, and the fact that newer coaches are almost always advised to find full conferences due to it being a "better experience", leads me to believe that echo is not only false, but flat out wrong.
You say nobody wants to be that 3-13 team in a conference and yet we see all the time, coaches advertising to fill their conferences, or vets advising new coaches towards joining a fuller conference, telling them that it's much better to play in a conference full of humans than a conference full of Sims. A better experience, they tell them. Much funner, and much easier to learn the game. Vet coaches banding together to form twelve team super conferences. Well, guess what? Someone is going to be that 3-13 team in a full conference. Happens ALL the time, those coaches steering newbies towards the full conferences, and it's got nothing to do with how humans interact. So tell me, how does that work? How does advising new coaches to go to full conferences help anyone avoid being that 3-13 team? It doesn't and you know it. Save the sociology lesson for somewhere else, because it doesn't apply here.
Really, has it come to this, that we're worried about hurting someone's feelings because they couldn't be immediately successful and then successful every year thereafter? Really? Are we really that worried about someone having a losing record? That doesn't sound like human interaction to me, that sounds like the pussification of HD. Maybe WIS should mail everyone a blue ribbon after the season is over, just so they don't feel quite so bad about having that 3-13 record.
Of course WIS isn't going to contract worlds at this point. There's no good way to do it without ******* off too many coaches. That was a "wish" of mine. But for you to sit there and say that full worlds are not a good thing is just your opinion stated as fact, and one that I think happens to be untrue. The first couple seasons of Tark showed that. A full D3 for each of (at least) the first three seasons, and guess what, coaches LOVED it. If a coach can't handle being that 3-13 team, let them quit. Replace them with a coach who doesn't mind, simply because they know if they work at it
, they'll improve and someone else will be that 3-13 team. THOSE
are the type of coaches we need, not the ones that get their feelings hurt the first time they run into any kind of difficulties. Get a world full of coaches like THAT
, and you'll have the funnest, most competitive world ever. Now, realistically that will probably never happen, simply because WIS doesn't advertise enough to bring in enough new faces, but a world like THAT
would be the best world HD has ever had. One where all the coaches are competitive in nature, don't run at the first sign of trouble, and are willing to work through their difficulties. THAT'S
the kind of world I want to be a part of.
Bottom line is this, just because OR has said something forever, doesn't make it right, just as my disagreeing with that doesn't make my opinion right or wrong. Neither is more or less valid than the other. But for you to sit there and try to state as fact, that a full world wouldn't be good because of a "basic understanding of human interaction" smacks of an ego the size of Rhode Island. You say it wouldn't be good, I say it would. Prove me wrong.