Posted by vandydave on 6/21/2010 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dalter on 6/21/2010 7:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 6/21/2010 2:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 6/20/2010 11:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 6/20/2010 10:15:00 PM (view original):
if wis were to add worlds i bet the overall number of user teams would increase.

what i dont know is what the real cost to them as far as software/hardware/ticket responding each world requires and what the "break even" number would be to make it worth their while overall.

Why are you looking at it from a profit perspective from WIS? First, that's for them to worry about, not us. Second, any calculation would be incomplete because they couldn't possibly factor in the negative repercussions down the road of people dropping a team because the world they are in has become that much less competitive, fun, interesting, etc.

As users, we should be looking at it from what is best for the health of HD and is going to produce the best HD experience.

thanks for telling me how i should look at things, i really needed that.

I asked you why you would be looking at it from a WIS management perspective, rather than a user perspective (since, you know, we're the users and all).

i am able to see things from multiple perspectives, must just be a gift i have.

Extra points for snarkiness, but you till haven't answered the question.

Many of us share that gift. I was simply asking that why, in your final analysis, you'd want to use a bottom line-centered ownership perspective that isn't focused on the best result for us, the users.

Hugs and kisses ...

It looks like this is/could be tongue and cheeky, however I will bite. Its important to look at it from a WIS perspective because if it isn't profitable for the company, it doesn't matter how beneficial it would be to the users, thus why would you sink money into a losing proposition?

Posted by teamkf on 6/21/2010 8:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/20/2010 11:34:00 PM (view original):

ONly long standing?  SO if someone, for example, worked their way up the hard way to division one, finally gets a division one team. . then the world starts over and they have to go back to division three because they only had one season at dI??

 

Well, you could let let any D1 start in D2.  Is that better.  It would have to include more firings, too.  There is no pefect answer, but a 100 season world seems awful silly, don't you think?

I don't think a 100 season world is silly.  Why would it be?  Old timers get tired of playing and quit.  You can move up through the ranks and take any team.  After 5 years, it is totally yours.  You have brought in every player on that team.  From that point moving forward, you are in total control of that team until you leave.

It makes no difference who coached the team before that.

I am fairly new at HD, but I see results where a decent coach has taken a terrible team and had them in the NT by season 3 ... he can move them up to A prestige and maintain them there in a couple years after that.

If you get a school in year 100 ... year 100 to 120 is not really any different from year 10-30.  (I say 10 to let coaches make it to Div-1 and get their teams started).  If you let guys start in Div-1 as well, then that would go back to 3-23 would be like 100-120.

At least, that is my perspective.

I mean, do Rick Pitino, Roy Williams or Bobby Knight need to start over for it to be fair Darrin Horn or Travis Ford?

The only reason to start a new world is if players can not sign up for teams because Div-III is full in the current worlds ... at least that is my opinion

Posted by colonels19 on 6/21/2010 11:03:00 AM (view original):
It looks like this is/could be tongue and cheeky, however I will bite. Its important to look at it from a WIS perspective because if it isn't profitable for the company, it doesn't matter how beneficial it would be to the users, thus why would you sink money into a losing proposition?

It's up to management to evaluate what makes sense from a P&L perspective. It's up to the customer (us) to suggest what we think might improve the game and our actual experience.

As with any business, what the customer wants may not be the best financially for the business. Ownership then needs to decide what ultimately make sense. But you wouldn't go into your neighborhood K-Mart or bank or your hometown baseball team and say, "Gee, I think you might want to/not want to do X because it would/wouldn't be best for your profitability". Tha's absurd, and not what the consumer should be worrying about.

But glad to see VD and colonels are on the same wavelength.

I think it's important to look at issues from both sides of the coin so you can set realistic expectations. Sure we can all have hopes/dreams/thoughts about what WIS should do, but you have to gauge the overall possibility of XYZ happening, and that includes looking at how beneficial (or not) it is for the business....its really a common sense way of looking at things.

Posted by dalter on 6/21/2010 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 6/21/2010 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dalter on 6/21/2010 7:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 6/21/2010 2:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 6/20/2010 11:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 6/20/2010 10:15:00 PM (view original):
if wis were to add worlds i bet the overall number of user teams would increase.

what i dont know is what the real cost to them as far as software/hardware/ticket responding each world requires and what the "break even" number would be to make it worth their while overall.

Why are you looking at it from a profit perspective from WIS? First, that's for them to worry about, not us. Second, any calculation would be incomplete because they couldn't possibly factor in the negative repercussions down the road of people dropping a team because the world they are in has become that much less competitive, fun, interesting, etc.

As users, we should be looking at it from what is best for the health of HD and is going to produce the best HD experience.

thanks for telling me how i should look at things, i really needed that.

I asked you why you would be looking at it from a WIS management perspective, rather than a user perspective (since, you know, we're the users and all).

i am able to see things from multiple perspectives, must just be a gift i have.

Extra points for snarkiness, but you till haven't answered the question.

Many of us share that gift. I was simply asking that why, in your final analysis, you'd want to use a bottom line-centered ownership perspective that isn't focused on the best result for us, the users.

Hugs and kisses ...

some users may think a new world with open d1 opportunities is the best opportunity for them. when it comes down to it unless something changes HD worlds seem to have a common percentage they get filled. another world filled to that same basic level isnt really bottom line detrimental, especially for new HD players.

I for one would be upset if a new world opened up before we get some of these other worlds more full at the DI level.  Seems to me that new worlds mean more coaches drop DI teams for a shot at a run to the top in the new world.  I could be wrong.  I would like to see more teams fill in the non-bcs confs before opening a new world. imo - most coaches can only handle X amount of teams before the game becomes more of a job than it is fun.

i really do miss the HD forums...

if only HD would add an NBA level, i'd come back for sure...

Posted by schuyler101 on 6/21/2010 12:05:00 AM (view original):
I'll come back to HD, how about a 3 game a day world...

I'd buy a 5-pack to try it out.

Posted by moy23 on 6/21/2010 6:49:00 PM (view original):
I for one would be upset if a new world opened up before we get some of these other worlds more full at the DI level.  Seems to me that new worlds mean more coaches drop DI teams for a shot at a run to the top in the new world.  I could be wrong.  I would like to see more teams fill in the non-bcs confs before opening a new world. imo - most coaches can only handle X amount of teams before the game becomes more of a job than it is fun.

The only way non-BCS conferences will fill and stay filled is if WIS adopts a true floating prestige to make taking on of the lower DI schools worthwhile...and that won't ever happen for marketing purposes.  Why not open up a new world?  Maybe those frustrated lower DI coaches who are tired of their moderately successful programs being passed in prestige by underperforming BCS schools will remain in the game by joining new world rather than drop HD altogether.  Just random thoughts...

I believe that there is more than one way to fill the non-bcs schools. Take advertising for one. With proper advertising the ranks could fill. Also, although newer players might not feel this way from the get go, the elite schools do open up quite often. Ucla was just open in tark. If you click on duke and others they've had multiple coaches so overall I don't think the argument of "the best schools are taken and I'll never get one" holds up. Not saying that's what you are suggesting. What I'd hate to see is d1 coaches exiting existing worlds for another shot at "the race". D1 is already half simai

The product is already pretty diluted, no need to make it worse.  Look at the problem HBD had when they opened too many worlds.

PeteC will dominate any new world, as he is prone to do.

Hail Hail!!

d1 recruits are now pretty ugly as compared to pre-new engine once you get beyond the elites, as someone who has teams in a couple mid-majors, the thought of trying to recruit these awful looking players and be competitive with them, especially against big conference teams looks pretty bleak, i predict we see lots of lower d1 coaches start bailing from the game

Posted by dalter on 6/21/2010 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 6/21/2010 11:03:00 AM (view original):
It looks like this is/could be tongue and cheeky, however I will bite. Its important to look at it from a WIS perspective because if it isn't profitable for the company, it doesn't matter how beneficial it would be to the users, thus why would you sink money into a losing proposition?

It's up to management to evaluate what makes sense from a P&L perspective. It's up to the customer (us) to suggest what we think might improve the game and our actual experience.

As with any business, what the customer wants may not be the best financially for the business. Ownership then needs to decide what ultimately make sense. But you wouldn't go into your neighborhood K-Mart or bank or your hometown baseball team and say, "Gee, I think you might want to/not want to do X because it would/wouldn't be best for your profitability". Tha's absurd, and not what the consumer should be worrying about.

But glad to see VD and colonels are on the same wavelength.

Why shouldn't the consumer worry about the profitability of a local company, or why shouldn't we worry about the profitability of WIS?  Our gaming enjoyment is tied to their profitability.  In the example of a local company, we would worry about their profitability because they employ local residents and better the community the more profitable they are.  In the case of WIS, they can continue to make enhancements to their games thus increasing our enjoyment in their products.  While I don't think worrying about their profitabilty should stop us from coming up with suggestions, I do think it is something that concerns me considering I invest my $ into this company to continue to enjoy their games.  If they fold, then it is wasted $.

And on a side note, A new World is a horrible idea for overall competitiveness of the existing HD worlds, but it would bring interest to that New World for a period of time and will probably bring some users who have stopped playing HD out of the woodwork

And on another side note, I thought dalter retired.