If you owned Whatifsports... Topic

Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 11/09/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 11/09/2009

I love polo's idea of giving out d2 / d3 reward points based on the fullness of the conference (polo's was based on the world, so I modified it a bit) - 9 or more teams full d1 reward point, 6-8 teams 75% reward points, 5 or fewer, 50%.

I have seen first hand what happens in d3 when some of these vet coaches get motivated to recruit new players. I also have seen first hand how the conference can be far more fun than the game, trumping any of the annoying aspects. I think this would give an immediate boost to paid customers, both in terms of vets (the addicts) taking on more teams and for the tried and true recruitment of new players

By the way, this local franchising concept, is starting to make a comeback real life too, has a long way to go, but I feel it would be very effective in the game.

first thing I would do is give coach's a few tangible FACTS about how the offenses work relative to types of players needed, types of skills needed, etc Even at this stage in my career, I think I'd have trouble convincing most vet coaches that skill X is the most important to offense type Y, with the exception of FB, which obviously needs ATH / SP

I would start with a little info, and see how it worked, and feed us a little more if it worked well.

I also would make the offenses somewhat mirror how we coach, motion might be the best offense to run 3 guards, while flex the best offense to run 3 bigs for example, with triangle best for a shooting forward. of course, a great sf would still be able to function very well (best) in all 3.

I would also set player ratings with far fewer reds and greens, and the greens and blacks would both improve players slightly more with extra practice time, that coupled with slightly lower initial ratings would make practice planning relevant again, with improvement requiring more practice and starting from lower intitial spots, guys would not quit improving.

I have no idea the shape fox is in, I would guess, far worse than they were a few years ago, but still far better than most?

so basically punish coaches who are in less full conferences. quite the marketing ploy for retention
VD, it must be 2-3 years since you've posted something positive.
11/9/2009 10:01 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By supclean on 11/09/2009
i have been at lemoyne in wooden undermy two names since season 6, obviously it is my secision to be there. there is no way i should be penalized just because the conf. is half full.

do you realize a team that goes 0-26 but somehow gets 3 conf. tourney wins wouls get more of a credit than if i get to the 2nd rd. of the nat. tourney.

I don't think anyone wants to penalize anyone anymore then we already are, it is a way to get the reward points up from where they are now. Currently and in the system that OR is talking about you would receive what you do today. If the world got more and more full, your potential to gain RP would increase.
11/9/2009 10:09 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By supclean on 11/09/2009ok oldr please explain how taking reward points away will gain more user's
One thing I would explain, I have new respect for customer service, tarek and seble

full conferences would get extra reward points, empty ones would remain as is, could you please explain what about the idea takes reward points away...

I also would say that the idea would compensate conference users for recruiting players to compete, that is how ADDING reward points would INCREASE play.

But what the heck, why bother, it just sucks anyhow - right
11/9/2009 10:12 AM
alias posting, I love it, been a long time since I posted under ryan, burning a few 'reward' points with a d3 team - LOL
11/9/2009 10:14 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By supclean on 11/09/2009
i have been at lemoyne in wooden undermy two names since season 6, obviously it is my secision to be there. there is no way i should be penalized just because the conf. is half full.

do you realize a team that goes 0-26 but somehow gets 3 conf. tourney wins wouls get more of a credit than if i get to the 2nd rd. of the nat. tourney.



Well, not really, because if he went 0-26 he would actually have to win 4 games in the CT to make the big dance. Just saying....
11/9/2009 10:16 AM
maybe there could be some kind of formal mentorship, where veterans who volunteer for that and do a good job (resulting in retention of new coaches) could be given some reward points...?
11/9/2009 10:20 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By colorblind79 on 11/09/2009maybe there could be some kind of formal mentorship, where veterans who volunteer for that and do a good job (resulting in retention of new coaches) could be given some reward points...
Their current 10% of first purchase that they give out is more or less worthless.
11/9/2009 10:24 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By colorblind79 on 11/09/2009maybe there could be some kind of formal mentorship, where veterans who volunteer for that and do a good job (resulting in retention of new coaches) could be given some reward points...
cb, I suggested that exact idea to TK a couple years ago.
11/9/2009 10:36 AM
when I was starting, several d3 vets answered a bunch of my questions, I was already ok at this, I asked him why he was being so helpful, he answered that he basically plays for free, and posting on the main forums, answering ?'s, is his way of paying HD back - I have stuck with that philosophy - with a few exceptions, that approach has worked out pretty well, don't need extra compensation for mentoring.
11/9/2009 10:47 AM
Good point OR.
11/9/2009 10:54 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 11/09/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 11/09/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 11/09/2009

I love polo's idea of giving out d2 / d3 reward points based on the fullness of the conference (polo's was based on the world, so I modified it a bit) - 9 or more teams full d1 reward point, 6-8 teams 75% reward points, 5 or fewer, 50%.

I have seen first hand what happens in d3 when some of these vet coaches get motivated to recruit new players. I also have seen first hand how the conference can be far more fun than the game, trumping any of the annoying aspects. I think this would give an immediate boost to paid customers, both in terms of vets (the addicts) taking on more teams and for the tried and true recruitment of new players

By the way, this local franchising concept, is starting to make a comeback real life too, has a long way to go, but I feel it would be very effective in the game.

first thing I would do is give coach's a few tangible FACTS about how the offenses work relative to types of players needed, types of skills needed, etc Even at this stage in my career, I think I'd have trouble convincing most vet coaches that skill X is the most important to offense type Y, with the exception of FB, which obviously needs ATH / SP

I would start with a little info, and see how it worked, and feed us a little more if it worked well.

I also would make the offenses somewhat mirror how we coach, motion might be the best offense to run 3 guards, while flex the best offense to run 3 bigs for example, with triangle best for a shooting forward. of course, a great sf would still be able to function very well (best) in all 3.

I would also set player ratings with far fewer reds and greens, and the greens and blacks would both improve players slightly more with extra practice time, that coupled with slightly lower initial ratings would make practice planning relevant again, with improvement requiring more practice and starting from lower intitial spots, guys would not quit improving.

I have no idea the shape fox is in, I would guess, far worse than they were a few years ago, but still far better than most?

so basically punish coaches who are in less full conferences. quite the marketing ploy for retention.
VD, it must be 2-3 years since you've posted something positive.
good post.
11/9/2009 11:06 AM
damnit dalter! VD posts something nice every 2 years and you make him waste it on you. Are you proud of yourself?
11/9/2009 11:21 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 11/09/2009when I was starting, several d3 vets answered a bunch of my questions, I was already ok at this, I asked him why he was being so helpful, he answered that he basically plays for free, and posting on the main forums, answering ?'s, is his way of paying HD back - I have stuck with that philosophy - with a few exceptions, that approach has worked out pretty well, don't need extra compensation for mentoring
Sure, the honor system works okay but I'd say most new guys don't know to ask, or who to ask if they do know. If there were a list of volunteers/assigned mentors, I just think that might be better for retention.
11/9/2009 1:05 PM
I volunteer.
11/9/2009 1:06 PM
I would make several changes.

1) I would create a goup of HD veterans as "elders". They would have the responsibility of testing any changes, communicating with HD senior staff their recommendations, along with helping decide what changes were to be made. This is the most under-appreciated and under-utilized of WIS' assets. Instead of doing my best to ignore this asset, I would utilize it in an organized and directed way.

2) I would restore reward points, based on participation level of specific worlds.

3) I would create a complete user guide, updated with any change. The user guide would not be based on users' assumptions of facts, but would be factual, based on the engine. For example, pointers such as "When running a triangle, the center requires less SPD (than in other offenses) to score, but requires more LP." and "Setting a guard to -1 will create more FTs than 0, especially if the player has high IQ, BH, SPD, and ATH." Tons of stuff like that, well organized in a readable format.

4) I would redesign HD, to make it much deeper, and much more like RL (where RL additions would ADD to customer satisfaction).

5) I would make it much easier to do certain mundane tasks (examples - sending mass calls to recruits, keeping track of info learned re: recruits, achievement of ratings potentials, etc.)

6) I would rid the game of the campy/repetitive communication. All communication would become factual only. For example, instead of getting a recruit response of, "I really enjoyed the home visit. You really impressed my father", such communication would simply be captured within a recruit summary page under "# HVs accepted / # HVs rejected". In short, less words, and more easy-to-understand meaning.

7) I would task all vets with marketing the game, giving generous reward points for high world participation levels (already mentioned) and effective incentives for bringing new users, with incentives based on loyalty of those new users.

I'm sure there are others, but this is off the top of my head.
11/9/2009 1:21 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
If you owned Whatifsports... Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 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.