My suggestion to help alleviate idle worlds. Topic

Currently each owner is paying about $.28 a day to play in a World. If the world is idle you pay nothing. Each world is making about $8 (I took a dollar off as my estimate for free credits) a day among the 32 owners, while owners have already paid for the current idle season, each day the world is idle that delays the start of future seasons, and also delays the collection of future money.

WIS is currently offering $4.95 for new owners. That by itself may help introduce new owners to the game, but that does nothing to retain current owners, and it does very little for most worlds, as most worlds do not consider it healthy for the long term success of their world to have a influx of new owners with no past history. 

In my opinion I would like to see WIS offer something along the lines of what fantasy games are offering but more suited to WIS. 

MY SUGGESTION.

Every time a world starts a new season each owner is given a certain amount of points that can only be used for a new team in a world they currently do not have a team.  WIS can vary the amount of points it takes to join a new world  based on the current situation in WIS. More available teams, less points needed to join a new world. It can move kind of like the stock market moves.

The possible negative outcome would be a lot of 1 and done owners, but I am thinking a lot of worlds wouldn't mind a couple 1 and done owners each season just so they can move on to the next season, plus how many times does someone take on a abandon team and then find they are now attached to the team and desire to stay for multiple seasons....

This idea would bring in money as owners would have to pay for their current team to gain points, it would help reward long term owners, and it would pay for itself by speeding up the start of a season. I estimate that for every 4 days a world is idle it would of been cheaper to give away a free team in comparison to letting the world be idle for those 4 days.
9/26/2015 5:27 PM (edited)
League size options of 20, 24, 28, 32.   A world can contract up to three times, never expand, and, once it gets to 20 teams, it has 30 days to fill or it will be disbanded.
9/26/2015 9:34 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/26/2015 9:34:00 PM (view original):
League size options of 20, 24, 28, 32.   A world can contract up to three times, never expand, and, once it gets to 20 teams, it has 30 days to fill or it will be disbanded.
This is the most appealing option I've heard. This has the dual benefit of limiting supply across worlds and weeding out the weaker franchises in any given league.

Every world has a core of committed, long-term owners (well above half in good worlds) and another group of quality owners who stick around for about 5 seasons each. In a good world, that second group is also pretty large. But many -- maybe even most -- worlds have franchises that change hands every two or three seasons. Contraction would eliminate these "unwanted" franchises, which would be good for individual worlds (better competition and shorter rollovers) and HBD, in general (supply and demand).

No idea whether this is practical from a programming standpoint, though.
9/27/2015 8:44 AM
I think it is.   It's simply a matter of laying out three more formats.    I could set up schedules in a matter of minutes(not program).  Obviously the number of divisions/playoff teams would be altered but that's a minor issue that can easily be resolved(28 is the most cumbersome). 

At the end of the day, the owners in the double digit opening worlds aren't leaving.  If they were considering just taking another team, they'd have done it.   So, in their minds, their options are:  1.  Wait it out  2. Give up HBD.     Waiting it out isn't so bad.   Giving up HBD weakens the game even further.
9/27/2015 8:52 AM

Truth is, if WifS wants to keep HBD viable, they need to explore other options than $4.95 buy-ins.    As much as I hate to say it, SIM teams might be better than worlds sitting for months on end.

9/27/2015 9:17 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/27/2015 9:17:00 AM (view original):

Truth is, if WifS wants to keep HBD viable, they need to explore other options than $4.95 buy-ins.    As much as I hate to say it, SIM teams might be better than worlds sitting for months on end.

I'd much rather choose fewer teams than one run by SIMMY (that's why I enjoy this game more than others I've tried), but that's a better option than letting owners realize they don't miss HBD after sitting idle for 6 weeks.
9/27/2015 11:34 AM
Just out of curiosity, though, what would happen to contracted teams' players? Dispersal draft sounds the most fair (and fun), but possibly the most difficult to implement. Turning them loose in free agency is the second-best option, and deleting them is (IMO) by far the worst option.
9/27/2015 11:36 AM
I'd release all to FA but, honestly, deleting them is probably the easiest. 
9/27/2015 12:01 PM
Another option is "travel teams".   Owners take their entire team with them from one league to another.   I'd never let one join one of my worlds but it would allow an owner in a world that isn't filling to keep his team and join a world that is.   I expected we'd see roving bands of owners jumping from this world to the next time and time again but they'd be playing.
9/27/2015 1:49 PM
Part of the problem in filling worlds is the attraction of the available teams. The less attractive the team is too incoming owners the harder that team is too fill. There is not that many worlds out there that are so attractive that owners will take on a bad team just to get into that world.

The other problem as a commish is the longer it takes to fill worlds the more work that needs to be put into filling that world. Once upon a time I could fill a world in 1-4 hours of work. I personally would not take on another commish job in the current state of HBD.  I think last season I probably put in 15-25 hours of work in filling that world.

9/28/2015 12:04 AM (edited)
Downsizing would rid worlds of those teams.   However, when a world puts itself in that position once, odds are they'll do it again. 
9/28/2015 9:40 AM
Sim teams seems like the best route to go. As long as the sim is programmed to sign legit coaches and sign their draft picks... which is truthfully better than most owners playing.
9/30/2015 10:43 AM
Sim coached teams would slowly lower the quality of the team until they have nothing. Long term sim teams in any of the other WIS games are undesirable.

WIS collects no money from it being a sim team. I think letting someone have the team for free with the hope they get attached for future seasons is the better path for the world and for WIS compared to letting the team be a sim team..
10/3/2015 1:14 AM
My suggestion to help alleviate idle worlds. Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.