7/30/2013 1:18 AM
Looking back - knowing that 1.0 was written (as said by WIS) in an out of date code -but  if 1.0 had the depth charts of 3.0 we would probably be done. The biggest complaints of 1.0 being the ability to have completely separate line-ups for each formation. The 3.0 depth charts can still separate many of the skill positions with the special roles, but limits the OL/DL to 5 starters + subs. Probably all we needed was the reworking of the depth charts.
7/30/2013 7:47 AM
Posted by bjaygee on 7/30/2013 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by coach_billyb on 7/29/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope."

One more time, if 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless, then WHY DO CERTAIN COACHES WIN NUMEROUS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AND WIN A HUGE % OF THEIR GAMES????????????????????????????????????????????????
Do me a favor, billster.  Next time, use more caps and question marks.  Everyone knows that the most thoughtful and compelling arguments are made in caps and end with a hailstorm of punctuation.

I believe that in 2.0 the better team may win, especially against SIMs in an essentially empty world.  Plus the level of competition is much, much lower than it was 4 years ago. And that better team that often wins will lose for no discernible reason.  Not because of a talent disadvantage, not because of an inferior game plan, not due to any error on the part of the coach. Just because.

If you want to pay to play a game in which you'll never know when the invisible upset dice will roll a seven and your superior team will lose to an inferior opponent running a default gameplan just 'because", have at it.  

But as we're asking questions, let me ask you a couple.  GD is becoming - has become - a wasteland.  The old coaches, the heart of GD, left and weren't replaced by new blood.  The GD community has voted with its exodus.  Isn't it obvious that the game is strangling to death on 2.0? How empty do the worlds have to become before the light bulb goes off and you understand that 2.0 is simply a terrible mistake and needs replaced?
I don't think anyone is saying that 2.0 doesn't need to be replaced bj. But that doesn't mean that 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless...at all. It makes sense, though, that if 1.0 was around for years, and it was a game based on OL and the running game, that the coaches that stayed with it and enjoyed it were coaches that liked that type of game. Then 2.0 comes around and all of a sudden the coaches that were used to that type of game had a hard time adjusting and bailed. I really believe that if 2.0 were adjusted just a little and was available as long as 1.0 was the worlds would have eventually filled up again.
7/30/2013 10:44 AM (edited)
Posted by coach_deen on 7/30/2013 7:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bjaygee on 7/30/2013 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by coach_billyb on 7/29/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope."

One more time, if 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless, then WHY DO CERTAIN COACHES WIN NUMEROUS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AND WIN A HUGE % OF THEIR GAMES????????????????????????????????????????????????
Do me a favor, billster.  Next time, use more caps and question marks.  Everyone knows that the most thoughtful and compelling arguments are made in caps and end with a hailstorm of punctuation.

I believe that in 2.0 the better team may win, especially against SIMs in an essentially empty world.  Plus the level of competition is much, much lower than it was 4 years ago. And that better team that often wins will lose for no discernible reason.  Not because of a talent disadvantage, not because of an inferior game plan, not due to any error on the part of the coach. Just because.

If you want to pay to play a game in which you'll never know when the invisible upset dice will roll a seven and your superior team will lose to an inferior opponent running a default gameplan just 'because", have at it.  

But as we're asking questions, let me ask you a couple.  GD is becoming - has become - a wasteland.  The old coaches, the heart of GD, left and weren't replaced by new blood.  The GD community has voted with its exodus.  Isn't it obvious that the game is strangling to death on 2.0? How empty do the worlds have to become before the light bulb goes off and you understand that 2.0 is simply a terrible mistake and needs replaced?
I don't think anyone is saying that 2.0 doesn't need to be replaced bj. But that doesn't mean that 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless...at all. It makes sense, though, that if 1.0 was around for years, and it was a game based on OL and the running game, that the coaches that stayed with it and enjoyed it were coaches that liked that type of game. Then 2.0 comes around and all of a sudden the coaches that were used to that type of game had a hard time adjusting and bailed. I really believe that if 2.0 were adjusted just a little and was available as long as 1.0 was the worlds would have eventually filled up again.
2.0 has been around for almost 4 years now. 1.0 was here for I believe 6 years.

When 2.0 was rolled out almost all the worlds were at or in a few cases considerably above 50% pops.

Now the best worlds, a couple are at 35%.  Most are below 30%, some considerably so.

2.0 was adjusted a lot in the first 6 months of its existence. The bottom line is the players who made GD what it was have spoken and are gone and this latest POS is not going to bring them back. I myself am down to 1 team that is hanging by a thread with no intention of getting another.

I am not saying that 1.0 was a perfect game. It was not. But it was far superior to these latest versions. You are wrong in stating that it was a game based on OL and the running game. It was a game based on recruiting to your philosophy of coaching and to win you had to have a long term goal in mind. Whether that was running, passing or defense. The main thing that 1.0 could have used, and this is my opinion, would have been the QB's and paricularly the  new FR QB recruits having had their ratings boosted and a few more stuffs in the running game. Not a huge number, just a few.

Again it was the core group of coaches who made GD what it was more than the game itself and these guys enjoyed the game as it was. This is what you and the people who are running WIS just don't get. In chasing away the great players in hopes of drawing in a few mediocre players the game has been destroyed.

7/30/2013 10:37 AM
jibe is correct. Despite popular revisionist history, 1.0 was about evaluating talent, recruting it successfully, fitting it into your preferred offensive and defensive formations, and then gameplanning well.  It was about looking for mismatches and exploiting them. It was about position changes - the best RB I ever had was a converted TE - and being willing to learn all of the facets the game. Good coaches could and did win with running or passing offenses.   

As I said before, if you want to pay to play a game in which you'll never know when the invisible upset dice will roll a seven and your superior team will lose to an inferior opponent running a default gameplan just 'because", have at it. But the numbers don't lie. GD's a shell of what it was, and that decline is attributable to 2.0.
  
7/30/2013 11:35 AM
The big problem that I see as being nearly inescapable is this: Yes, a ton of people left when it changed to 2.0. I am under the belief currently that if we can't attract those people that left that still hang around on here the numbers will go down regardless of how good of a simulation 3.0 is. People get used to a game, get better and then it changes then they leave. This happens in any game. Its why yearly game makers don't make large sweeping changes every year. they would rather have the game called stale by people purchasing the game, then risk alienating people by changing it substantially. The fact that they are doing this, right now, in the face of all the criticism on 3.0 and saying "its this or nothing" should tell everyone something. They believe v 2.0 will eventually if it is not already be a money drain. CRD got scrapped for that reason. Personally, if it were not for 3.0 I would be playing my last season of 2.0 next season in dobie. All I hated about 1.0 is that it was impossible to come in, get a team, and compete before your fifth season. Its telling that I have played 4 seasons (of 5 I bought) in GD 2.0 but I only bought one season of 1.0 after doing the research on how to get my team to play better. what I found, was that the teams that were good had been good, the teams that came up available every year had always been bad. You should not have to get help by the engine giving bad teams the chance to win for you to be able to improve your team in a couple seasons. 
7/30/2013 11:41 AM
Posted by coach_deen on 7/30/2013 7:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bjaygee on 7/30/2013 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by coach_billyb on 7/29/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope."

One more time, if 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless, then WHY DO CERTAIN COACHES WIN NUMEROUS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AND WIN A HUGE % OF THEIR GAMES????????????????????????????????????????????????
Do me a favor, billster.  Next time, use more caps and question marks.  Everyone knows that the most thoughtful and compelling arguments are made in caps and end with a hailstorm of punctuation.

I believe that in 2.0 the better team may win, especially against SIMs in an essentially empty world.  Plus the level of competition is much, much lower than it was 4 years ago. And that better team that often wins will lose for no discernible reason.  Not because of a talent disadvantage, not because of an inferior game plan, not due to any error on the part of the coach. Just because.

If you want to pay to play a game in which you'll never know when the invisible upset dice will roll a seven and your superior team will lose to an inferior opponent running a default gameplan just 'because", have at it.  

But as we're asking questions, let me ask you a couple.  GD is becoming - has become - a wasteland.  The old coaches, the heart of GD, left and weren't replaced by new blood.  The GD community has voted with its exodus.  Isn't it obvious that the game is strangling to death on 2.0? How empty do the worlds have to become before the light bulb goes off and you understand that 2.0 is simply a terrible mistake and needs replaced?
I don't think anyone is saying that 2.0 doesn't need to be replaced bj. But that doesn't mean that 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless...at all. It makes sense, though, that if 1.0 was around for years, and it was a game based on OL and the running game, that the coaches that stayed with it and enjoyed it were coaches that liked that type of game. Then 2.0 comes around and all of a sudden the coaches that were used to that type of game had a hard time adjusting and bailed. I really believe that if 2.0 were adjusted just a little and was available as long as 1.0 was the worlds would have eventually filled up again.
That's some serious revisionist history coach_deen. 

This is what I remember:

1.0 was a game based on talent and exploiting advantages.  Coaches won running, passing and everything in between.  There were more running teams because people copied successful coaches and running was too deterministic, but there were also passing teams that won NCs.  All you needed was a good gameplan and good recruited talent to fit your system.  Coaches stayed with it and enjoyed it because you knew why you won or lost and there were far fewer random upsets that destroyed seasons.  You could build your team season after season and see the improvement if you recruited well and learned the game to exploit  your advantages.  There were actual dynasties.

2.0 came along, and those same successful coaches in 1.0 still won most of the NCs.  They lost a lot more due to the random upset, but they were still dominant.  They all bailed because they couldn't explain why they won or lost.  It's no fun having the rug yanked from under your season for no reason other than a random upset.  The old guard left.  GD gave out free seasons and those who tried GD left as well.  Many other coaches left as well.  Worlds are empty.  Competition is non existent.  You can now take an all SIM team to an NC in 4 seasons.  Then coaches who never won before started winning NCs and thinking they were great coaches and trumpeting how much better 2.0 is than 1.0.

Bottom line is that people want to know what they have to do to win.  If you're paying to play, people don't want to lose without having a good explanation.  2.0 provided neither and the worlds emptied.  Gone are the days when you had to stay up or wake up to get a team in D3.
7/30/2013 1:27 PM
Posted by slid64er on 7/30/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by coach_deen on 7/30/2013 7:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bjaygee on 7/30/2013 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by coach_billyb on 7/29/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope."

One more time, if 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless, then WHY DO CERTAIN COACHES WIN NUMEROUS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AND WIN A HUGE % OF THEIR GAMES????????????????????????????????????????????????
Do me a favor, billster.  Next time, use more caps and question marks.  Everyone knows that the most thoughtful and compelling arguments are made in caps and end with a hailstorm of punctuation.

I believe that in 2.0 the better team may win, especially against SIMs in an essentially empty world.  Plus the level of competition is much, much lower than it was 4 years ago. And that better team that often wins will lose for no discernible reason.  Not because of a talent disadvantage, not because of an inferior game plan, not due to any error on the part of the coach. Just because.

If you want to pay to play a game in which you'll never know when the invisible upset dice will roll a seven and your superior team will lose to an inferior opponent running a default gameplan just 'because", have at it.  

But as we're asking questions, let me ask you a couple.  GD is becoming - has become - a wasteland.  The old coaches, the heart of GD, left and weren't replaced by new blood.  The GD community has voted with its exodus.  Isn't it obvious that the game is strangling to death on 2.0? How empty do the worlds have to become before the light bulb goes off and you understand that 2.0 is simply a terrible mistake and needs replaced?
I don't think anyone is saying that 2.0 doesn't need to be replaced bj. But that doesn't mean that 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless...at all. It makes sense, though, that if 1.0 was around for years, and it was a game based on OL and the running game, that the coaches that stayed with it and enjoyed it were coaches that liked that type of game. Then 2.0 comes around and all of a sudden the coaches that were used to that type of game had a hard time adjusting and bailed. I really believe that if 2.0 were adjusted just a little and was available as long as 1.0 was the worlds would have eventually filled up again.
That's some serious revisionist history coach_deen. 

This is what I remember:

1.0 was a game based on talent and exploiting advantages.  Coaches won running, passing and everything in between.  There were more running teams because people copied successful coaches and running was too deterministic, but there were also passing teams that won NCs.  All you needed was a good gameplan and good recruited talent to fit your system.  Coaches stayed with it and enjoyed it because you knew why you won or lost and there were far fewer random upsets that destroyed seasons.  You could build your team season after season and see the improvement if you recruited well and learned the game to exploit  your advantages.  There were actual dynasties.

2.0 came along, and those same successful coaches in 1.0 still won most of the NCs.  They lost a lot more due to the random upset, but they were still dominant.  They all bailed because they couldn't explain why they won or lost.  It's no fun having the rug yanked from under your season for no reason other than a random upset.  The old guard left.  GD gave out free seasons and those who tried GD left as well.  Many other coaches left as well.  Worlds are empty.  Competition is non existent.  You can now take an all SIM team to an NC in 4 seasons.  Then coaches who never won before started winning NCs and thinking they were great coaches and trumpeting how much better 2.0 is than 1.0.

Bottom line is that people want to know what they have to do to win.  If you're paying to play, people don't want to lose without having a good explanation.  2.0 provided neither and the worlds emptied.  Gone are the days when you had to stay up or wake up to get a team in D3.
Exactly.

I just don't understand how people don't get this.
of 3

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.