11/8/2013 2:45 PM
Posted by katzphang88 on 11/7/2013 9:37:00 PM (view original):
Biggest problem that happened for this roll-out was that we gave Norbert about a year of input and he worked on the engine. It rolled out in Feb and we gave 4 months to beta test 3.0. Then blewie! Norbert is gone and oriole starts. Takes him a month to get up to speed, he starts a re-write and 4 months later - total - he rolls out the current 3.1 engine. If oriole would have had the same time Norbert did this would be running more smoothly. I like it better now than 2.0 - it is more like 1.0 - but it hadn't quite been beta tested enough. Most of the better testers gave up on this game because it took so long to get to this point. So 3.1 isn't quite ready yet, it is as playable as 2.0 was after 3 years. You have a choice - as we all stated when we went from 1.0 to 2.0 - play or quit. But please - don't start multiple threads on why you are quitting. Just quit.
Not posting a thread on quitting -- I have spent 8 years on this site and want to make it better.
11/8/2013 4:44 PM
Posted by hazing on 11/7/2013 8:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by starfinder77 on 11/7/2013 8:25:00 PM (view original):
This poll is great, but its useless since the only things that the programmers want to hear is how 3.0 is just peaches & cream. Since they ran both versions for beta, I don't understand why they don't run both versions which gives the players a choice, hence maybe more revenues. I've got one season left as it stands and I'm done
What do you mean "they ran both versions for beta"-that's a complete crock of shiite.
Actually, no, it's not. He's referring to the rumor that WIS couldn't run 2.0 worlds and 3.0 worlds at the same time because of platform incompatibilities. To be fair, that's the excuse WIS gave when 2.0 initially faceplanted, and coaches were clamoring for them to at least run some 1.0 worlds for the old timers.

They ran 2.0 and the 3.0 beta at the same time, and now I've got 2.0 with my Rockne team, and 3.0 with my Warner team, so it's obviously not the case now. I'm pretty sure they're running multiple servers now. Maybe that's the difference?
11/8/2013 5:31 PM
Posted by bhazlewood on 11/8/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):

I suspect that most people who voted worse or much worse did so because of the increase complexity of initial setup.  I can empathize, because it does take a lot of time.  But after the initial set up, it really doesn't take any more time than previous engines.
 

If I carve out some time this weekend, I'm going to put together a "project plan" for how to deploy a game plan, starting with position roles, then to custom formations, and finally into the playbooks.

 

Is this something you are going to post to share with those of us who are next to absolutely totally confused?
11/8/2013 10:43 PM
Posted by scrodz on 11/8/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hazing on 11/7/2013 8:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by starfinder77 on 11/7/2013 8:25:00 PM (view original):
This poll is great, but its useless since the only things that the programmers want to hear is how 3.0 is just peaches & cream. Since they ran both versions for beta, I don't understand why they don't run both versions which gives the players a choice, hence maybe more revenues. I've got one season left as it stands and I'm done
What do you mean "they ran both versions for beta"-that's a complete crock of shiite.
Actually, no, it's not. He's referring to the rumor that WIS couldn't run 2.0 worlds and 3.0 worlds at the same time because of platform incompatibilities. To be fair, that's the excuse WIS gave when 2.0 initially faceplanted, and coaches were clamoring for them to at least run some 1.0 worlds for the old timers.

They ran 2.0 and the 3.0 beta at the same time, and now I've got 2.0 with my Rockne team, and 3.0 with my Warner team, so it's obviously not the case now. I'm pretty sure they're running multiple servers now. Maybe that's the difference?
No I'm referring to the fact that some worlds are on 2.0 and others are on 3.0.  There is no reason why WIS shouldnt do this as apparently some of us prefer 2.0 to 3.0.  From a business point, it only makes sense to  offer as much as they can to the customers.  If 3.0 is ur "cup of tea" then thats great, while others may prefer the 2.0 over this 3.0.  But alas we'll never get the "bozos" at WIS to figure that out.
11/8/2013 10:45 PM
From a business point it really makes no sense. Overhead, manpower, cohesion.
11/9/2013 6:32 AM
Posted by noah23 on 11/8/2013 10:45:00 PM (view original):
From a business point it really makes no sense. Overhead, manpower, cohesion.
Could you expand on each of the above - because I am having a hard time seeing the addt outlay in manpower? Cohesion --- wis has about 3 folks running the whole operation - and 2.0 is fully baked without the need for future rework.
11/9/2013 11:00 AM
Am I the only one who sees where this thread is heading?
11/9/2013 12:00 PM
Posted by noah23 on 11/8/2013 10:45:00 PM (view original):
From a business point it really makes no sense. Overhead, manpower, cohesion.

Never understood how any company that doesnt make a "physical" product can justify not doing more by "hiding" behind overhead and manpower?  Course it would help if Oriole, Norbert, or anybody that is associated with WIS would give us an answer.  As usual that will never happen.  Does anybody find it ironic that in the 3 polls above, that nothing positive is in the lead>

11/9/2013 12:16 PM
I only answered one of these polls. I can't give good answers when the comparison is to 2.0. WIS ruined their product when they gave up 1.0. I was hoping that I could muster up the desire to get into 3.0 but its not there. Setting up is a nightmare and the same BS that has been happening in 2.0 has carried over to this version. Just that now you have to spend hours setting up to see the same BS.

WIS this is a horrible product.

11/9/2013 12:18 PM
For whatever it is worth, I voted for "better."

I agree with much of what Harris said above. The additional control on offense and the increased reliance on ratings as the primary determinant of outcomes are both welcome and big improvements over prior iterations. I can't go all the way to "much better" ... what is happening on defense and why it works, or doesn't is still too much of enigma for me to go that far. And, the initial set up in advanced mode is too much for any but the most dedicated folks.
11/9/2013 1:19 PM
Posted by starfinder77 on 11/9/2013 12:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by noah23 on 11/8/2013 10:45:00 PM (view original):
From a business point it really makes no sense. Overhead, manpower, cohesion.

Never understood how any company that doesnt make a "physical" product can justify not doing more by "hiding" behind overhead and manpower?  Course it would help if Oriole, Norbert, or anybody that is associated with WIS would give us an answer.  As usual that will never happen.  Does anybody find it ironic that in the 3 polls above, that nothing positive is in the lead>

Because making money is the name of the game. A stagnate product creates apathy. Apathy leads to less money being spent. Having two separate versions costs more. Computer programs go wrong, you can't just let something go without any staff involvement. On the polls, the important part is not one individual result. 42% like 3.0 better then 2.0. 48% (to 11%) believe it is better then it was when it was first done. It is better then 2.0. 2.0 was stale and was leading to apathy. A slow decay. Will 3.0 be good enough to save the franchise? I don't know. But by allowing 2.0 to stick around they would be saying point blank that they know this game is going to fail. I wouldn't stick around if they didn't even believe in the new product. As the son of a business owner, this would be like using a competitors product to do your job and selling a competitors product for home use while building your whole business around what you sell and use. It just does not make business sense. And norbert actually did answer this specific claim.
11/9/2013 2:57 PM
I voted it is better.   I voted the engine is the strong point.  I don't really understand how anyone could not appreciate the new engine.  It works far better than version 2 which made no sense!  The engine in version 2 was flat out broken. 

With that said, I understand some of the complaints about version 3 as the setup is monotonous.  I have yet to set my team up and i am in week 6.   Eventually I hope to get my settings from the Beta world into my team in Yost, but so far I have lost interest each time I have tried and/or ran out of time or a combo of both.   I can see why some coaches crave the simplicity of version 2.   

Overall, this was rushed and I think it will cost Wis a lot of coaches.  Had they waited and ironed out the kinks, all these new faces in game might have stuck around.  Not sure they will as it stands right now even though version 3 seems to be a better product.   
11/9/2013 10:09 PM
I'm 5-0 so I'm not complaining.
11/9/2013 11:43 PM
I won my first game, Sim , today but I still can't form an opinion yet. The game was a little on the strange side though.
11/10/2013 11:55 AM
Posted by noah23 on 11/9/2013 1:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by starfinder77 on 11/9/2013 12:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by noah23 on 11/8/2013 10:45:00 PM (view original):
From a business point it really makes no sense. Overhead, manpower, cohesion.

Never understood how any company that doesnt make a "physical" product can justify not doing more by "hiding" behind overhead and manpower?  Course it would help if Oriole, Norbert, or anybody that is associated with WIS would give us an answer.  As usual that will never happen.  Does anybody find it ironic that in the 3 polls above, that nothing positive is in the lead>

Because making money is the name of the game. A stagnate product creates apathy. Apathy leads to less money being spent. Having two separate versions costs more. Computer programs go wrong, you can't just let something go without any staff involvement. On the polls, the important part is not one individual result. 42% like 3.0 better then 2.0. 48% (to 11%) believe it is better then it was when it was first done. It is better then 2.0. 2.0 was stale and was leading to apathy. A slow decay. Will 3.0 be good enough to save the franchise? I don't know. But by allowing 2.0 to stick around they would be saying point blank that they know this game is going to fail. I wouldn't stick around if they didn't even believe in the new product. As the son of a business owner, this would be like using a competitors product to do your job and selling a competitors product for home use while building your whole business around what you sell and use. It just does not make business sense. And norbert actually did answer this specific claim.
Ok so more people have voted.  All I'm saying is that WIS is banking on the fact that the number of coaches that leave becasue they prefer 2.0 will be significantly less than the number of coahces who join or return that like 3.0.  Remember when we started the testing and the beta worlds were full, 2 months later you heard crickets, I think that will be the same that happens here.
of 2

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.