Posted by mullycj on 12/3/2020 11:06:00 PM (view original):
Here is how I see it :
Step 1 : Open new DI world
Step 2 : 324 anxious users apply for their jobs in hope if making it to their dream job
Step 3 : 30 users actually get their dream job
Step 4 : 1 year later the new DI world has 100 users
Step 5 : 5 years later people post on the forum for a new world to be created to generate excitement for their "new opportunities"

Don't believe me? What's the current population % of the newest two a day world?

Open a d1 world only? Huh.

But yeah I disagree totally with this.

D1 populations:

Tark- 131
Phelan - 118
Allen - 118
Rupp - 118

Total teams:
Tark- 273
Phelan - 292
Allen - 267
Rupp - 257

There is no noticeable difference between the 1x and 2x world populations. In fact, Rupp is much lower than Phelan overall.

Posted by Benis on 12/4/2020 9:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/3/2020 11:06:00 PM (view original):
Here is how I see it :
Step 1 : Open new DI world
Step 2 : 324 anxious users apply for their jobs in hope if making it to their dream job
Step 3 : 30 users actually get their dream job
Step 4 : 1 year later the new DI world has 100 users
Step 5 : 5 years later people post on the forum for a new world to be created to generate excitement for their "new opportunities"

Don't believe me? What's the current population % of the newest two a day world?

Open a d1 world only? Huh.

But yeah I disagree totally with this.

D1 populations:

Tark- 131
Phelan - 118
Allen - 118
Rupp - 118

Total teams:
Tark- 273
Phelan - 292
Allen - 267
Rupp - 257

There is no noticeable difference between the 1x and 2x world populations. In fact, Rupp is much lower than Phelan overall.

I'm actually really really in favor of a new world. Maybe that's because I wasn't around for the crazy full world heyday of this game, but I think the short term benefits far exceed any possible long term drawbacks.

Do we really want new users to make 0 NTs in their first 10 seasons with their own players?

I actually really don't think 3.0 recruiting would function well at all with more people.

Also, this game hasn't had a new world in 10 years. That's a ridiculously long time. I think 1 new world would infuse a serious influx of passion and excitement into the game as new users would be much more likely to have a shot at building a dynasty/getting a dream job without having to climb the totem pole with coaches already at the top trying to knock them down. If WIS does decide to put some $$ into marketing, a new world should definitely coincide with that.

Benis - my point is everyone was so excited about the new two day worlds, Then the excitement quickly wears off and the populations fall in line with the existing worlds. Plus you probably cannabalized some of the users for those worlds.

Until WIS con figure out how to bring in and retain new users, a new world seems a waste of time.

A DI only world would be really interesting... I’d certainly play in that.

Posted by mullycj on 12/4/2020 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Benis - my point is everyone was so excited about the new two day worlds, Then the excitement quickly wears off and the populations fall in line with the existing worlds. Plus you probably cannabalized some of the users for those worlds.

Until WIS con figure out how to bring in and retain new users, a new world seems a waste of time.

Yeah, I think this is probably true.

People are mislead by how the game operated when it started, in thinking that it was sustainable. You can’t just keep opening new worlds to give people upward mobility the current worlds don’t have, and expect to keep users in the existing worlds. That’s just masking the problem, that’s a shell game. Not sustainable. That’s not to say I’m opposed to opening a new world, per se. It’s just not going to generate any long-term, sustainable new business.

Fix jobs. Let people get to the division they want to play without spending a year+ and $100+ to get there. Then the people who like the challenge of D1, who don’t mind the volatility of EEs and battling for the best of the best year after year, they can play at that level; folks who aren’t interested in dealing with those ambiguities can play lower levels. Then you’ll see what the demand actually is for this product.

Posted by cubcub113 on 12/4/2020 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/4/2020 9:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/3/2020 11:06:00 PM (view original):
Here is how I see it :
Step 1 : Open new DI world
Step 2 : 324 anxious users apply for their jobs in hope if making it to their dream job
Step 3 : 30 users actually get their dream job
Step 4 : 1 year later the new DI world has 100 users
Step 5 : 5 years later people post on the forum for a new world to be created to generate excitement for their "new opportunities"

Don't believe me? What's the current population % of the newest two a day world?

Open a d1 world only? Huh.

But yeah I disagree totally with this.

D1 populations:

Tark- 131
Phelan - 118
Allen - 118
Rupp - 118

Total teams:
Tark- 273
Phelan - 292
Allen - 267
Rupp - 257

There is no noticeable difference between the 1x and 2x world populations. In fact, Rupp is much lower than Phelan overall.

I'm actually really really in favor of a new world. Maybe that's because I wasn't around for the crazy full world heyday of this game, but I think the short term benefits far exceed any possible long term drawbacks.

Do we really want new users to make 0 NTs in their first 10 seasons with their own players?

I actually really don't think 3.0 recruiting would function well at all with more people.

Also, this game hasn't had a new world in 10 years. That's a ridiculously long time. I think 1 new world would infuse a serious influx of passion and excitement into the game as new users would be much more likely to have a shot at building a dynasty/getting a dream job without having to climb the totem pole with coaches already at the top trying to knock them down. If WIS does decide to put some $$ into marketing, a new world should definitely coincide with that.

I'm ok with a new world. I'd get a team. But it doesn't excite me much. I'd do just because everybody else is joining.

But I responded because of the 3.0 recruiting part you mentioned. I think it would still work fantastic if worlds were full. But all of us as coaches would have to curb our expectations down some. Seasons would roll and we'd feel disappointed in our team numbers...... until we realized all team numbers are down across the world. I think it would still work well

Can someone who was around when a new world was created explain how it happens? Are teams at all 3 levels just populated with random rosters and you still have to work your way to D1, or can you join wherever?

1st season join at DIII. Everything else is SIM coached.
And yes, everyone takes over a random roster. Although you get to see it before applying for the job.

Posted by jfoges on 12/4/2020 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Can someone who was around when a new world was created explain how it happens? Are teams at all 3 levels just populated with random rosters and you still have to work your way to D1, or can you join wherever?

yes. simai is the coach of every team and registration opens for d3 on a first come, first serve basis, which tends to be pandemonium (not saying it should be different!). the entire d3 world gets full, and basically its a rush to the a+ d1 schools. some folks decide to stay in d3 or d2 to build dynasties where they are the only coach in history (or only human coach in the d2 case where you have to have a d2 simai season).

Craziness! I'm all for it! Let's get this plan into action...

I would wait until the new devs figure out how to make the experience better for new users. Otherwise, the same old coaches will fly through D3 and D2 on their way to the elite jobs. New users will be mostly frustrated, and may not hang around long-term. Let the new guys try to fix some stuff first, and then use something like a new world to help show off the improved HD.

What about world where it hard reset after x amount of seasons? Other games have done this for a while to create that excitement of rushing the ladder after every reset. The amount would have to be long enough for the coaches who reach the top spots to stay there for a little bit, but short enough so that people would still look forward to a reset/rush all over again. Probably would make the most sense with a x2 a day world.

Posted by Basketts on 12/4/2020 2:26:00 PM (view original):
What about world where it hard reset after x amount of seasons? Other games have done this for a while to create that excitement of rushing the ladder after every reset. The amount would have to be long enough for the coaches who reach the top spots to stay there for a little bit, but short enough so that people would still look forward to a reset/rush all over again. Probably would make the most sense with a x2 a day world.

Yeah, I'd be down for that if we got 1 new world. But I think the number should be closer to 40 or 50 or so.

Posted by cubcub113 on 12/4/2020 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Basketts on 12/4/2020 2:26:00 PM (view original):
What about world where it hard reset after x amount of seasons? Other games have done this for a while to create that excitement of rushing the ladder after every reset. The amount would have to be long enough for the coaches who reach the top spots to stay there for a little bit, but short enough so that people would still look forward to a reset/rush all over again. Probably would make the most sense with a x2 a day world.

Yeah, I'd be down for that if we got 1 new world. But I think the number should be closer to 40 or 50 or so.

8.5.5

This is way down the road thinking, IMO, but I like this idea a lot better if it’s linked to a user’s career, not a world’s seasons. So a user gets a certain number of seasons in a world (50-60 are preferable currently I think, but I’d say 40 would be fine if we could start at D1), and then must start over at the bottom wrung, wherever that is set in the world. But the rest of the world goes on. That keeps continuity, records, history all intact. If a user did want consecutive careers, they could simply be delineated by (1), (2), or they could use abbreviations of teams involved in the career (ex - shoe3[LU, OSU, KU, WI]).

I don’t think the game should be using the “rush” model, personally. I think it was bad long term design to start with, unsustainable. This gives the benefit of continual upward mobility without relying on that quick fix mentality.

+1