I know HD isn't anywhere near capacity so there isn't any need for a new world. It would be nice to have a fresh start though. 

New World Ever?


Nope.

The only way theres a new world, is if theres like a complete engine redsign or someting that makes it very different from what HD is now, so like dac said no.  On a scale of 0-100% chance of it happening, there's not a number low enough to describe the chances.

which, in a way, may be silly. But maybe not - I know nothing about information systems and servers and all that ****. 

What would it cost HD to operate an 11th world? At the very least, it would be likely to be popular for the first calendar year or so while coaches try to get to the coveted top jobs...that would burn seasons on people's accounts, theoretically making them repurchase seasons sooner, meaning more income. Would the increased cost (if any) of running 11 worlds instead of 10 be less than this?

Posted by dacj501 on 6/29/2015 4:05:00 PM (view original):
which, in a way, may be silly. But maybe not - I know nothing about information systems and servers and all that ****. 

What would it cost HD to operate an 11th world? At the very least, it would be likely to be popular for the first calendar year or so while coaches try to get to the coveted top jobs...that would burn seasons on people's accounts, theoretically making them repurchase seasons sooner, meaning more income. Would the increased cost (if any) of running 11 worlds instead of 10 be less than this?

i mean I would still totally join and 11th world, especially if it was a 2x, I'd join with both my accounts so i could build a D3 legacy with 1 school and rush to D1 and get my dream school.  But would that spread the worlds out even more I assume a lot of newer coaches would join the new world as well as those who would leave their current worlds to be able to have a new account in the new world and build a school from the early seasons.

some coaches would drop other teams to add the new, but that's probably a wash. Some I am sure would add an additional team, at least for a few seasons. 

It'd be terrible long term of course by diluting the coaching pool even further probably...

I think you nail it at the end there dac, yes it would mean a short term spike because of people purchasing new seasons in the new world, but over the course of time I think it would just lower the human coaching percentages in the other worlds.  And those are already quite low to begin with.

I think the better solution would be contraction of worlds, but that's never going to happen either just due to the logistics of how they would handle moving money, favorite teams, etc.

I'm completely content with where things are now (at least amount of world wise), but I'm sure they're happy with that, I've been giving them money since 2012 lol

I've given this some thought.  It seems to me that the expectations of world participation at WIS and among this community are far too high.  The answer is that WIS should create another 2-a-day world immediately.  It is utterly and completely wrong-minded not to do it.  

Here's the thing: this game is, relative to any similar online game, expensive to play.   Given the current structure of payment and credits, it is incorrect to think that each world would settle out at more than a coached population of ~96 per division per world.  Everyone can complain about the worlds being empty, but the reality is that if you suck at this game, you pay through the nose to continue sucking!  I suppose I could be persuaded that the natural number might drift up to ~125 per world division on irrational optimism, but there is no question that the cost structure penalizes the decision to stay in.  The solutions are simple (one popular, the other not so much):

1. Create another 2-a-day to see whether I am right (I am); and 
2. Announce that on January 1, 2016, coaches that have been at a particular D3 school for more than 15 seasons, or in that world for an aggregate of 25, will see their WIS credits halved (not the recruiting bonus cash, but the WIS credits).  No changes to the D2 or D1 coaches (or for the D3 coaches when they opt to move up).

The 1st needs to opened alongside a few, possibly simply cosmetic, updates and probably timed to coincide with the start of College Basketball in the fall.   With minimal web-advertising, email spam to current and former coaches and internal notices, this would generate additional income for the site.  

The 2nd would need to be telegraphed loudly to the existing customer base.  The point of it would be to remove the barrier to entry for new coaches or at least the perceived barrier to entry.  I understand that a coach that wanted to coach a particular dynasty, would simply create an alt-ID and take the team, but at least that would generate the appearance that new coaches stood a chance.   In reality, if you still wanted to coach that team you could, but you'd have to pay a bit more to do so.

Rog, I must not be getting it, coz D3 is a barren wasteland in most worlds already, isn't it? why punish the guys at D3?

Posted by dacj501 on 6/30/2015 1:52:00 PM (view original):
Rog, I must not be getting it, coz D3 is a barren wasteland in most worlds already, isn't it? why punish the guys at D3?

When you say "barren wasteland", I say conforming to expectations.  I did some quick math: the worlds average 99.6 humans at DIII.   That is a rational choice.  Big random groups of people tend to make more rational decisions than any particular individual; even an expert.

The problem is that the clearly superior coaches create a barrier to entry for new coaches.  If you want to reach out to new customers, then they need to perceive that they are not being taken advantage.  The rational decision, if their are 20 - 30 coaches that live in the 2nd round to S16 region, is to quit.  I am saying precisely, that those averages might drift up to that ~125 level of expectation, but only if the new coaches were not getting beaten down so badly.

Most coaches and probably Fox/WIS have the wrong expectation about the population levels that are likely to be achieved in this game.  I think there is more money to be made, but it requires re-thinking those expectations.  I know coaches won't like being incentivized to move up to D2 and many will create Alt-IDs to achieve the same result, but Fox/WIS needs to believe they can attract the right number of customers to the game before they will put any effort into significant upgrades that the game deserves. 

I respect you a hell of a lot Roger, but I don't think I agree with this - but I have no practical experience upon which to base my perception.

There are tons of D3 teams available in all worlds, and, for the most part they are relatively similar to coach (with a few geographical outliers), so finding a team isn't a barrier to coaches - so what you are suggesting is that WiS should punish long term D3 coaches in an attempt to "encourage" them to either move up, or I suppose, quit playing. 

Those that quit so that another can join offers no net gain. Those who decide to move up, I suppose it might work, but why? Because it is hard for new coaches to win NT games? All this would do is make it easier (perhaps, if it worked as you say) to win NT games at D3...so then these coaches get an inflated sense of their value as coaches, then move up to a D2 (theoretically) more crowded with former D3 talented coaches, and they get slaughtered... would we then have to push the better and more experienced coaches out of D2 to keep this new breed happy once again?

Coaches should learn how to get better. If they can't and they still play, that's great for WiS. If they can't and they bail, that's ok too, I think, but maybe I'm not getting it...

I still think that if a coach really prefers D3 for any reason he ought to enjoy the same experience (or opportunities for the experience, based on talent, etc.) as anyone else (credits, etc)

They used to do something like this, when there were more points instead of credits (I suspect coz points can be used for things like Amazon gift cards and too much money was flowing off site). I didn't like it then, and even though I only have 1 recently added D3 team, I don't like it now for the same reason. 

I don't feel coaches should be forced to choose between a 2nd class reward system or be forced to move up if they are happy doing what they do, just because the game is hard to learn how to excel at...perhaps that's not what you mean, and I'm not trying to straw-man you or anything, but that's how it comes across to me...

Have you ever played bar pool?  You know, those short bar tables that were a little out of level and some of the bumpers didn't work just right (due to beer spills, fights, god-wishes-(s)he-didn't-know-what-bodily fluids).  You put quarters up to reserve the next game and got to play the winner of the previous game.  Great system.  I used to play that (and win) until I had gotten too drunk and had to switch over to play foosball (and god help you when you are too drunk for foosball!). 

Anyhow, that system depends upon people desiring to prove they are good at something so badly that they make weird financial decisions.  It also requires that you forget that the person winning might know perfectly well how to play that particular table.  I could beat much more talented and motivated players until they too learned the table.   But imagine that due to my hogging of the table, they never learned how to play the table?   They would play once, maybe twice, and then quit.   Their perception would be that the game was tilted against them (it was).  If they had stuck it out, then, although it was a bad decision financially, they would eventually beat me as either they would learn the table or I would get bored or drunk or all three (this is decades ago people).

That's how the current system of incentives works at D3 in this game.  If you don't interrupt it, then the marks...er...customers...er...new coaches...will simply decide that it is in their interest to leave, unless they happen to be extremely motivated.   For those that are motivated (i.e. the coaches that have been here a long time), it appears to be a fair system, but for new coaches you either push through that with $20 or $30 before seeing any benefit or you make the more rational choice and quit.

The question is creating a field where the moderately interested can spend their money with a better perception of the possibility that they will be good and thereby subsidize the rest of us.  See?

Posted by rogelio on 6/30/2015 1:27:00 PM (view original):
I've given this some thought.  It seems to me that the expectations of world participation at WIS and among this community are far too high.  The answer is that WIS should create another 2-a-day world immediately.  It is utterly and completely wrong-minded not to do it.  

Here's the thing: this game is, relative to any similar online game, expensive to play.   Given the current structure of payment and credits, it is incorrect to think that each world would settle out at more than a coached population of ~96 per division per world.  Everyone can complain about the worlds being empty, but the reality is that if you suck at this game, you pay through the nose to continue sucking!  I suppose I could be persuaded that the natural number might drift up to ~125 per world division on irrational optimism, but there is no question that the cost structure penalizes the decision to stay in.  The solutions are simple (one popular, the other not so much):

1. Create another 2-a-day to see whether I am right (I am); and 
2. Announce that on January 1, 2016, coaches that have been at a particular D3 school for more than 15 seasons, or in that world for an aggregate of 25, will see their WIS credits halved (not the recruiting bonus cash, but the WIS credits).  No changes to the D2 or D1 coaches (or for the D3 coaches when they opt to move up).

The 1st needs to opened alongside a few, possibly simply cosmetic, updates and probably timed to coincide with the start of College Basketball in the fall.   With minimal web-advertising, email spam to current and former coaches and internal notices, this would generate additional income for the site.  

The 2nd would need to be telegraphed loudly to the existing customer base.  The point of it would be to remove the barrier to entry for new coaches or at least the perceived barrier to entry.  I understand that a coach that wanted to coach a particular dynasty, would simply create an alt-ID and take the team, but at least that would generate the appearance that new coaches stood a chance.   In reality, if you still wanted to coach that team you could, but you'd have to pay a bit more to do so.

#2 = Stupid Idea

In fact WIS tried to implement a stupid idea such as this by reducing the credits DII and DIII coaches received in the post season depending on the number of previous appearances that coach had in that division.

Not only did it not cause more people to play the game, it alienated enough coaches to make them drop teams.

You want to create a new world? Increase demand thru advertising.
If they don't want to spend the marketing dollars then so be it.

Posted by rogelio on 6/30/2015 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Have you ever played bar pool?  You know, those short bar tables that were a little out of level and some of the bumpers didn't work just right (due to beer spills, fights, god-wishes-(s)he-didn't-know-what-bodily fluids).  You put quarters up to reserve the next game and got to play the winner of the previous game.  Great system.  I used to play that (and win) until I had gotten too drunk and had to switch over to play foosball (and god help you when you are too drunk for foosball!). 

Anyhow, that system depends upon people desiring to prove they are good at something so badly that they make weird financial decisions.  It also requires that you forget that the person winning might know perfectly well how to play that particular table.  I could beat much more talented and motivated players until they too learned the table.   But imagine that due to my hogging of the table, they never learned how to play the table?   They would play once, maybe twice, and then quit.   Their perception would be that the game was tilted against them (it was).  If they had stuck it out, then, although it was a bad decision financially, they would eventually beat me as either they would learn the table or I would get bored or drunk or all three (this is decades ago people).

That's how the current system of incentives works at D3 in this game.  If you don't interrupt it, then the marks...er...customers...er...new coaches...will simply decide that it is in their interest to leave, unless they happen to be extremely motivated.   For those that are motivated (i.e. the coaches that have been here a long time), it appears to be a fair system, but for new coaches you either push through that with $20 or $30 before seeing any benefit or you make the more rational choice and quit.

The question is creating a field where the moderately interested can spend their money with a better perception of the possibility that they will be good and thereby subsidize the rest of us.  See?

I guess I see, but I'm not sure A. how many new users would join/stay just from this, and B. I guess I'm a dick coz I wouldn't be willing to be punished just so a new group of less motivated coaches than I was/am could have an easier time of it - its not that I want everyone to "suffer what I went through" like us crotchety old men sometimes say, and there are things that ought to perhaps be done to retain users, but I really think attracting many more users from even modest advertising would be a better solution... but you may be right... 

Posted by mullycj on 6/30/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 6/30/2015 1:27:00 PM (view original):
I've given this some thought.  It seems to me that the expectations of world participation at WIS and among this community are far too high.  The answer is that WIS should create another 2-a-day world immediately.  It is utterly and completely wrong-minded not to do it.  

Here's the thing: this game is, relative to any similar online game, expensive to play.   Given the current structure of payment and credits, it is incorrect to think that each world would settle out at more than a coached population of ~96 per division per world.  Everyone can complain about the worlds being empty, but the reality is that if you suck at this game, you pay through the nose to continue sucking!  I suppose I could be persuaded that the natural number might drift up to ~125 per world division on irrational optimism, but there is no question that the cost structure penalizes the decision to stay in.  The solutions are simple (one popular, the other not so much):

1. Create another 2-a-day to see whether I am right (I am); and 
2. Announce that on January 1, 2016, coaches that have been at a particular D3 school for more than 15 seasons, or in that world for an aggregate of 25, will see their WIS credits halved (not the recruiting bonus cash, but the WIS credits).  No changes to the D2 or D1 coaches (or for the D3 coaches when they opt to move up).

The 1st needs to opened alongside a few, possibly simply cosmetic, updates and probably timed to coincide with the start of College Basketball in the fall.   With minimal web-advertising, email spam to current and former coaches and internal notices, this would generate additional income for the site.  

The 2nd would need to be telegraphed loudly to the existing customer base.  The point of it would be to remove the barrier to entry for new coaches or at least the perceived barrier to entry.  I understand that a coach that wanted to coach a particular dynasty, would simply create an alt-ID and take the team, but at least that would generate the appearance that new coaches stood a chance.   In reality, if you still wanted to coach that team you could, but you'd have to pay a bit more to do so.

#2 = Stupid Idea

In fact WIS tried to implement a stupid idea such as this by reducing the credits DII and DIII coaches received in the post season depending on the number of previous appearances that coach had in that division.

Not only did it not cause more people to play the game, it alienated enough coaches to make them drop teams.

You want to create a new world? Increase demand thru advertising.
If they don't want to spend the marketing dollars then so be it.

I agree that reducing D2 credits would be a bad idea, but there is a substantial cost to letting very experienced coaches so obviously dominate the entry level of the game.  You'd have to be a flaming idiot not to see it?  (Does the invective add anything to the discussion?)

If new coaches feel like they are battling that far uphill, then the game will not experience growth even if Fox/WIS did invest in advertising.  Here's a great slogan "Come give us your money and get your *** kicked by scrub-pounder123!"