Good idea to add new worlds? Topic

crickett13
Posts: 2396 (0)
Hall of Famer
398 74 25 145
Prospect
I would define a "bad" customer as one who constantly ******* about worlds they are not in.
5/16/2010 6:52 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
That's really just an "annoying" customer, crickett.
5/16/2010 7:13 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By grivfmd1 on 5/16/2010
I know nothing about Bo Jackson but

Retorically(sp?) - is "a large amount of one and done owners" good for WIS's business

I have no issue with WIS looking at a league and saying "there is nothing wrong here" and leaving it alone for one or two years to see if it heals itself. WIS Administration is as capable (I hope) as we are of seeing when a league has been FUBARed (f**ked up beyond all recognition) and should act on it. What the posters here seem to disagree on is whether it is in WIS's business interest to act. I believe it is, Mike apparently does not. Not the 1st time he is wrong.

Mike and I apparently agree that WIS's definition of "bad behavior" is inadequate. We have both encourage more stringent "rules" in the leagues we commish than WIS's "fair play" rules. Apparently we both feel that encouraging "bad behavior" results in more "bad behavior". I feel "bad behavior is bad for business and WIS needs to take "bad behavior" more seriously if they wish to improve business.



Now you're letting someone decide who as a "super" team. And you're putting it into the hands of the same folks who think winning 41 games and not using fatigued pitchers for 10 straight games is good enough to not be violating any fair play guidelines.

That doesn't seem like a smart thing to do. At all.
5/16/2010 7:15 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/16/2010 8:14 PM
timb116
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
321
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by plague on 5/16/2010Every time I see a world move to public(open) they fill up very quickly. I have no problem recruiting the needed owners for my world and have the world filled the first day its available. I wonder if worlds do not fill because the effort given by many commish does not go beyond putting a ad in the forums.

We needed five and after 10+ days we need 3. 10 days for a private world ranked in the top half of all private words....ridiculous
5/16/2010 8:42 PM
FishNasty
Posts: 409 (0)
Hall of Famer
143 1 30 25
Prospect
You have TWO total posts!

Maybe you should help advertise your league, rather then complain about it here!
5/16/2010 9:54 PM
mitchrapp
Posts: 807 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 20 14 109
Prospect
Lol.
5/17/2010 2:35 AM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Leaving a world isn't always the result of being a bad customer. If it's a choice between being in a low quality world and leaving that world, I'd rather leave. I don't think that qualifies as being a bad customer.

IMO, new worlds are no problem; a lack of quality worlds might be.
5/17/2010 2:58 AM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by timb116 on 5/16/2010
Quote: Originally posted by plague on 5/16/2010Every time I see a world move to public(open) they fill up very quickly. I have no problem recruiting the needed owners for my world and have the world filled the first day its available. I wonder if worlds do not fill because the effort given by many commish does not go beyond putting a ad in the forums.
We needed five and after 10+ days we need 3. 10 days for a private world ranked in the top half of all private words....ridiculous

I am not sure what or where you are basing your rankings, but I bet Caray world is not ranked in the top half of all private worlds and our world rolls over in less than 24 hours every season and I have never gone public. I also don't allow just anyone into the world..

If your world is in the top half why is your world having problems taking 10 plus days but I can roll over Caray world in less than 24 hours.
5/17/2010 3:42 AM
grivfmd1
Posts: 946 (0)
Hall of Famer
159 174
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By nfet on 5/17/2010
Leaving a world isn't always the result of being a bad customer. If it's a choice between being in a low quality world and leaving that world, I'd rather leave. I don't think that qualifies as being a bad customer.

IMO, new worlds are no problem; a lack of quality worlds might be.
FWIW - the bad customers are not the owners leaving low quality worlds - it is the owner who has built a juggarnaut by preying on the continual supply of newbies in these worlds, while ignoring the damage that is being done. When this becomes "bad" enough the turnover in these worlds becomes so high the world should be sent back to "dynasty central", "adjusted", and recycled as a new world. As an introduction/advertisement to HBD there can be no worse experience than being in one of these worlds. It is not in WIS's best interest to keep them "alive".
5/17/2010 7:36 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/16/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By grivfmd1 on 5/16/2010

I know nothing about Bo Jackson but

Retorically(sp?) - is "a large amount of one and done owners" good for WIS's business

I have no issue with WIS looking at a league and saying "there is nothing wrong here" and leaving it alone for one or two years to see if it heals itself. WIS Administration is as capable (I hope) as we are of seeing when a league has been FUBARed (f**ked up beyond all recognition) and should act on it. What the posters here seem to disagree on is whether it is in WIS's business interest to act. I believe it is, Mike apparently does not. Not the 1st time he is wrong.

Mike and I apparently agree that WIS's definition of "bad behavior" is inadequate. We have both encourage more stringent "rules" in the leagues we commish than WIS's "fair play" rules. Apparently we both feel that encouraging "bad behavior" results in more "bad behavior". I feel "bad behavior is bad for business and WIS needs to take "bad behavior" more seriously if they wish to improve business.




Now you're letting someone decide who as a "super" team. And you're putting it into the hands of the same folks who think winning 41 games and not using fatigued pitchers for 10 straight games is good enough to not be violating any fair play guidelines.

That doesn't seem like a smart thing to do. At all.


Not sure why you ignored this.
5/17/2010 7:50 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, for the record, saying "I don't have a problem fillng MY world" doesn't mean there isn't a problem. I know I've said it before, just to be an ***, but when there are dozens of worlds posting "Just need two to roll today", there is a problem.

I said long ago that HBD was going to develop into 3-4 different types of worlds. It has. The quality worlds with aggressive commissioners aren't going to have a problem filling. People want to be in these worlds because they know they won't have to wait to play and that the competition is good. But that's not the majority of the worlds.
5/17/2010 7:54 AM
soxfan121
Posts: 82 (0)
Hall of Famer
61
Prospect
WifS has proven that they are not going to return worlds to "dynasty central for adjustment". They are going to wait for users to fix the problem. As a business strategy, it's borderline brilliant. Managing a complex system is tricky at best, but here they have the white knights on horseback who will organize a posse and ride to the rescue. It's not like this is a new problem...it's been a problem since I've been around and I've got 30 seasons of reading these boards. And the rescue efforts keep happening - so at this point, WifS has no motivation to do anything other than answer tickets and process CC#'s. (and work on an update, hopefully)

There are a couple different levels of HBD worlds:
1A. The aggressively managed private worlds that roll quickly and make a lot of noise about being elite because they are (Cooperstown, etc)
1B. The strong core private worlds that have highly loyal membership, formal or infomal rules, little drama and stable, long term ownership (MLB, Kinsella, etc) with few openings, quick rollovers and elite competition
2. The broad middle class of private worlds that take a few days to fill, have decent competitive balance and quiet commissioners (Puckett, etc)
3. The newer private worlds from merges or competitive balance issues or past drama that need 8-12 or more at each rollover
4. The top tier public worlds heavy with vets and long-timers (Aaron?, etc)
5. Public worlds

New users almost always end up in #3 or #5. Leagues in group 2 are wary of upsetting a developing world with a disruptive n00b or alias; Group 1A. won't even consider players without specific experience requirements, Group 1B very rarely do and only on strong references. Group 4 rarely has an opening that isn't coveted or planned for.

Which leaves the low-tier private worlds who always need ~8 and the public pool. Both are rife with predators - either super teams, aliases or both. And both are where new users are funneled.

That's why WifS is giving 'trusted' customers the chance to recruit 8 new owners and opening new worlds. Because they're starting to see that one and done is the most frequent result of being confined to groups 3 and 5. WifS sees new worlds as a chance to admit new users to the Group 2 experience - which is where they make their money.
5/17/2010 10:33 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Are you taking over the Cheaters in Foxx? If so, send a ticket so WifS will quit telling me you haven't requested the team.
5/17/2010 11:01 AM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
Here is a fun idea that WiS would never do:

You can open a new world whenever you want, but there can be no change of the 32 owners for 5 seasons ... can't keep your 32 owners for 5 season, the world folds ... obviously it wouldn't work for any number of reasons, most notably that any one owner could hold the world "hostage" if he decided

But in general I've always thought that WiS should let private worlds be formed by anyone for any reason ... but let it be known that 1) they can never go public, 2) that WiS takes no ownership in them being able to have 32 owners to play the next season, and 3) that all owners are in the league soley at the commish's request and can be kicked out at any time ... and obviously they would never do this because they are so scared of the whine-fest tickets they will get from disgruntled owners, but that is the only way to respect the "private" aspect of private worlds and let supply and demand seek its own level
5/17/2010 11:23 AM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...7 Next ▸
Good idea to add new worlds? Topic
△Top△Bottom

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.