So the essence of your suggestion, then, is that you'd like to dilute the ML talent pool in an effort to retain people who may simply just not like the game or have time for it while diminishing the returns of those owners who do like the game and spend lots of time on it.

I'm surprised you don't have more people rushing to your support.

Not dilute the talent pool, slightly increase it. Your attitude perfectly exemplifies why there is a retention problem. Let's not solve the problem of people not liking the game...f'em. Not the best business model. I'm guessing WIS wouldn't be rushing to hire you as a consultant. So increasing competition would decrease your enjoyment of the game? That's an interesting insight into where you are coming from.

In this game, all players have value relative to other players. If you increase the number of ML-caliber prospects by any amount, you necessarily diminish the value of similar prospects.

This game is hard, and it's not for everyone. I've seen owners give up on good teams and bad teams alike because they either don't like HBD or it doesn't fit their schedule, so I don't see how giving them an extra ML prospect six weeks into the season is going to do much to change their minds about the game. Quality competition comes from the other owners, not the player talent level.

Also, I think you're confusing "suggestion" with "improvement." They're not synonymous, you know.

So what would you do to increase player retention?

Posted by travisg on 6/22/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
Also, I think you're confusing "suggestion" with "improvement." They're not synonymous, you know.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by this.  Isn't improvement implied in the creation of  suggestion area?  I don't think anyone is going to make a suggestion whose purpose is to make the game worse, nor do I think that WIS is actively seeking ideas to make the game worse.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2010 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Your suggestions suck.  That's why I felt the need to point out that THE PLAYERS ARE FREE.

If you want players who can become big league players, draft them, sign them and develop them.   Don't whine because your FREE PLAYERS, THE ONES YOU DID NOTHING TO GET, aren't BL-quality.

Hope this clears things up.

Remember when I was the "biggest ***** on the site" for posting the above?

Ahh, the good ol' days.

Posted by apollo7 on 6/22/2010 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by travisg on 6/22/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
Also, I think you're confusing "suggestion" with "improvement." They're not synonymous, you know.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by this.  Isn't improvement implied in the creation of  suggestion area?  I don't think anyone is going to make a suggestion whose purpose is to make the game worse, nor do I think that WIS is actively seeking ideas to make the game worse.

Just because you suggested it does not necessarily mean that it will improve anything. In fact, there have been a number of fellow users who've made sound arguments to the contrary. And then you get mad and call us jerks.

Posted by travisg on 6/22/2010 8:02:00 PM (view original):
In this game, all players have value relative to other players. If you increase the number of ML-caliber prospects by any amount, you necessarily diminish the value of similar prospects.

This game is hard, and it's not for everyone. I've seen owners give up on good teams and bad teams alike because they either don't like HBD or it doesn't fit their schedule, so I don't see how giving them an extra ML prospect six weeks into the season is going to do much to change their minds about the game. Quality competition comes from the other owners, not the player talent level.

If I have 5 numbers, lets say 1,3,5,7, and 9.  I change them so I know have 1,3,7,7,9.  I have not decreased the value of the original 7 by raising the 5 to another 7.   However, the 9 now has to beat both 7s, ie:  more competition, but still superior.   The owner of the 5 now has a better "number" and will be more competitive with the other 7, but will still be beat by the 9.   The owner of the new 7 now has a better experience without effecting the value of the 9, or the original 7 versus the 1, 3, or 9.  Have I decreased the value of the original 7?  Only slightly and only against the value of the other 7, roughly half of the time.  A small trade off vs.the potential benefit of increased enjoyment and retention of the new 7's owner.   Now extrapolate this to where you have 50 1's, 50 3's, 25 5's, 20 7's, and 5 9's.  Now take ONE of those 5s and make it a 7.  This is going to destroy the fabric of the game?  

What percentage of owners quit because the game is hard or not for them,  vs the percentage that would have stuck with it if there was more parity, I honestly don't know, but I would guess that the later number is higher than the former.  If you have some success you are more likely to stick around.   If you see you have a team that will take a year or more committment to maybe compete against teams that are loaded through all levels...probably not going to stick around that long.

Posted by travisg on 6/22/2010 8:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by apollo7 on 6/22/2010 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by travisg on 6/22/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
Also, I think you're confusing "suggestion" with "improvement." They're not synonymous, you know.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by this.  Isn't improvement implied in the creation of  suggestion area?  I don't think anyone is going to make a suggestion whose purpose is to make the game worse, nor do I think that WIS is actively seeking ideas to make the game worse.

Just because you suggested it does not necessarily mean that it will improve anything. In fact, there have been a number of fellow users who've made sound arguments to the contrary. And then you get mad and call us jerks.

Only in self defense, after being personally attacked, which last time I checked is kind of jerky.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2010 8:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2010 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Your suggestions suck.  That's why I felt the need to point out that THE PLAYERS ARE FREE.

If you want players who can become big league players, draft them, sign them and develop them.   Don't whine because your FREE PLAYERS, THE ONES YOU DID NOTHING TO GET, aren't BL-quality.

Hope this clears things up.

Remember when I was the "biggest ***** on the site" for posting the above?

Ahh, the good ol' days.

Nice attempt to rewrite history.  I actually called you that after you wrote the following:

"Yes, I recognize that you're a dumbass who hopes someone gives him good players.  I can only assume you can't acquire them by yourself.  If DITR bothers you so, don't even look at them.  Delete the emails without opening them.   You're welcome."

You must have accidentally quoted the wrong post.  And actually you are in second place now. 

Posted by travisg on 6/22/2010 8:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by apollo7 on 6/22/2010 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by travisg on 6/22/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
Also, I think you're confusing "suggestion" with "improvement." They're not synonymous, you know.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by this.  Isn't improvement implied in the creation of  suggestion area?  I don't think anyone is going to make a suggestion whose purpose is to make the game worse, nor do I think that WIS is actively seeking ideas to make the game worse.

Just because you suggested it does not necessarily mean that it will improve anything. In fact, there have been a number of fellow users who've made sound arguments to the contrary. And then you get mad and call us jerks.

Also, to those who have made intelligent sound arguments I have stated that they were intelligent sound arguments.  To quote myself above in response to your post:  " That is a very valid opinion, I respect it, and seems to concisely sum up the status quo arguement."

You state:  "Just because you suggested it does not necessarily mean it will improve anything".  Agreed wholeheartedly.   Your OPINION is that it would not make the game better...I respect your opinion.   My OPINION is that it will.  Some on here have shown a complete lack of respect for my opinion.   I have not called anyone a jerk who didn't resort to making personal attacks instead of presenting their opinion and supporting it with facts.  I can only assume that they resort to personal attacks when they can't argue factually or persuasively.  It must be hard for them since I don't tank and have won consistantly.

Posted by apollo7 on 6/22/2010 4:11:00 PM (view original):
But I would say that the sum total of attribute decreases based on injuries surpasses the sum total of attribute increases based on DITR.  I would say that in fact losing attribute points from injuries is "losing something for nothing"...so to speak.

So according to the "something for nothing" naysayers, I guess we shouldn't have injuries in the game either, since its random...we might as well be playing craps or roulette.  (and don't say its not since you have a medical budget, which impacts the frequency and severity but doesn't completely eliminate).

Oh, and don't forget how its decreasing the total talent pool...which increases the bar for fielding a good team.   Wish there was some way to counteract this game breaking, unbalancing, random and completely unacceptable situation.  After all, this is a STRATEGY game, there is no room for this injury foolishness.

"I would say that the sum total of attribute decreases based on injuries surpasses the sum total of attribute increases based on DITR."

Here's the flaw in this argument (I'm surprised that nobody else has picked up on it):

You state that injuries decrease the total sum of talent in a particular world.  You also state that DITR increases the total sum of talent in a particular world.  You then propose that the total sum of talent lost via injuries outweighs the total sum of talent gained via DITR.

If this was indeed true, then we would be seeing a noticeable decrease in overall talent in worlds over time, since this cumulative loss of talent would get larger from season to season.

Clearly, that's not the case.  Overall, HBD appears to be running at a steady run-rate of talent.  Many worlds are currently in season 15, 16 or even 17.  If overall talent levels were dropping, we would have noticed by now.  In fact, there would have been very loud outcries in the forums stating so.

It therefore follows that an enhanced DITR system, which brings more talent gain into worlds, would see HBD shift from a steady run-rate of talent to an increasing run-rate of talent.  Which I'm pretty sure is not what most people want.

Talent flows in and out of worlds in many different ways

Talent is added to a world pretty much entirely through draft picks that are signed, IFAs, and DITRs (and then of course the subsequent development of these players)

Talent is removed from a world through injuries, age related declines and retirements

If the talent gained through DITRs is outweighed by talent lost through injuries (and it almost certainly is) you won't see a "noticeable decrease in overall talent in worlds as time goes by" because there are so many other avenues through which talent is added or subtracted from a world.  To keep a steady run-rate of talent all you need is for the adding and subtracting of talent from all avenues to be relatively equal.

he was simply saying that their shouldn't be a dilemma about getting something for nothing with DITRs and their random nature because we already have a similar situation on the flipside with injuries, they are essentially "losing something for nothing" and there is a very random nature to them (although, just like DITRs there are things owners can do to better there odds).