Posted by kcsundevil on 10/17/2018 4:56:00 PM (view original):
www.whatifsports.com/hoops still seems to be active. Are the Fanball guys being told about that link for a free HD team?

Also, it's time to either get rid of D2 and D3 or make qualifying for D1 MUCH easier. Most people come to HD because they want to play D1. Why persist with this stupid long-term D2 training model?

Yes. Make D3 a free to play, no credit sandbox, let paying customers start at D2 (for half-price, and half-credits available) and move to D and under prestige D1 after a season, if they’d like to jump right in. C level Mid-majors within 3 seasons, B level Big 6 within 5.

You could even add a world or two then, which would certainly be popular for a while as people race to the prime positions, which is essentially the only way to get something reasonably close to full worlds. But then you have to accept that attrition will settle in, and those populations will normalize to roughly the same as everything else.

Not that any of this has anything to do with considering credit.

Really, shoe3? I guess if you define better as “whether shoe3 likes it more” then 3.0 is an unmitigated success! However, a significant upgrade whose stated goal was to help stem the ongoing slow but steady drop in player population and re-fill the worlds which has resulted in the population declines that Benis posted can only be described objectively as an unmitigated failure. It does appear as if the massive drop after he initial launch has stabilized, and is once again slowly and steadily bleeding users just as before 3.0, and there were going to be a significant number of uses who left regardless of the quality of the upgrade just because it was something new. Revitalized, however, the game is not.
You may have an argument about DI. The shift in the populations does appear to indicate that DI has gotten more attractive relative to DII and DIII than in the past, which could mean either that DI got better in the eyes of the playing population (or at least less worse), DII and DIII got worse, or both.
Personally, I don’t actually know whether I think 2.0 or 3.0 is better overall, as I only played DIII in 2.0. I know I enjoy the game much less because the upgrade caused the three friends I joined the game with to quit. I know I thought 2.0 was much better for DIII, as I personally think the way recruiting works for DIII now is awful (targeting the same class of players as DII and DI waiting around till the last day to hope no DI sweeps in on your players at the last second is not fun in my book). DII I personally enjoyed quite a bit in 3.0, and I have been enjoying DI quite a bit too, but I am unable to compare to how they were before.
What is unfortunate is that I think that 3.0, with just a little more effort (more time in beta, actual maintenance and adjustments to issues post launch) could have been much more successful without fundamentally changing the concept behind the changes that were implemented. However, that attention has not been paid, and given the continued lack of willingness to even address something so simple as the considering list, does not look like it will in the future.
I love playing this game, and had been hoping that 3.0 would revitalize it as, frankly, when I joined, it kind of looked like a dying game. Unfortunately, it still does.
Talk about digression...

If you can disincentivize parking without taking those teams away from users who are attached, I think that’s probably preferable. But whatever. I won’t cry if Stevens Tech is retired, and I won’t even complain as long as I get access to a D1 team with a chance to be competitive. But the rub is that this is a commodity game, and commodity games get significantly less fun with over saturation. So as long as getting recruits is primarily about resource allocation, I don’t think there is anything they can do to get usership consistently up over about 50% at D1, even if you lop off the other two divisions. In the long run, there’s still going to be attrition when the world gets too full.

8-10 in the power conferences, 5-8 in a handful of mid-major conferences, and 3-5 in the rest. That ends up being around 160 D1 uses in a world. More than that is probably unsustainable.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/17/2018 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Really, shoe3? I guess if you define better as “whether shoe3 likes it more” then 3.0 is an unmitigated success! However, a significant upgrade whose stated goal was to help stem the ongoing slow but steady drop in player population and re-fill the worlds which has resulted in the population declines that Benis posted can only be described objectively as an unmitigated failure. It does appear as if the massive drop after he initial launch has stabilized, and is once again slowly and steadily bleeding users just as before 3.0, and there were going to be a significant number of uses who left regardless of the quality of the upgrade just because it was something new. Revitalized, however, the game is not.
You may have an argument about DI. The shift in the populations does appear to indicate that DI has gotten more attractive relative to DII and DIII than in the past, which could mean either that DI got better in the eyes of the playing population (or at least less worse), DII and DIII got worse, or both.
Personally, I don’t actually know whether I think 2.0 or 3.0 is better overall, as I only played DIII in 2.0. I know I enjoy the game much less because the upgrade caused the three friends I joined the game with to quit. I know I thought 2.0 was much better for DIII, as I personally think the way recruiting works for DIII now is awful (targeting the same class of players as DII and DI waiting around till the last day to hope no DI sweeps in on your players at the last second is not fun in my book). DII I personally enjoyed quite a bit in 3.0, and I have been enjoying DI quite a bit too, but I am unable to compare to how they were before.
What is unfortunate is that I think that 3.0, with just a little more effort (more time in beta, actual maintenance and adjustments to issues post launch) could have been much more successful without fundamentally changing the concept behind the changes that were implemented. However, that attention has not been paid, and given the continued lack of willingness to even address something so simple as the considering list, does not look like it will in the future.
I love playing this game, and had been hoping that 3.0 would revitalize it as, frankly, when I joined, it kind of looked like a dying game. Unfortunately, it still does.
Talk about digression...

You like the product. You like D1, you liked D2. You don’t like D3, that’s fair, although I’d argue you don’t like the way you thought you had to play, which is neither the only, nor necessarily the best way to play D3.

If you like the product, buy it. If you don’t, find something else.

As I’ve said multiple times now, if usership is the problem, there are good ways to address it, focused around reducing the time and money it takes to get people to their intended destination school. Just throwing out the population numbers in a topic like considering credit, something that used to exist and doesn’t anymore, is intentionally misleading. Removing considering credit is not the reason the game has been leaking users since long before 3.0, and putting it back in the game is not a step toward reversing that leak.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 6:01:00 PM (view original):
If you can disincentivize parking without taking those teams away from users who are attached, I think that’s probably preferable. But whatever. I won’t cry if Stevens Tech is retired, and I won’t even complain as long as I get access to a D1 team with a chance to be competitive. But the rub is that this is a commodity game, and commodity games get significantly less fun with over saturation. So as long as getting recruits is primarily about resource allocation, I don’t think there is anything they can do to get usership consistently up over about 50% at D1, even if you lop off the other two divisions. In the long run, there’s still going to be attrition when the world gets too full.

8-10 in the power conferences, 5-8 in a handful of mid-major conferences, and 3-5 in the rest. That ends up being around 160 D1 uses in a world. More than that is probably unsustainable.

Not for the first time, you're showing your ignorance here. There was a fairly extended period during which worlds were full. New worlds filled up (obviously D3 only in season 1) within a few hours of opening. That's why we have as many worlds as we have.

For a lot of us the game is actually more fun when the worlds are mostly full. But it is different. Figuring out how to win with players that look a lot less "perfect" is basically a necessity. So in some sense, aspects of D1 start to look slightly more like D2. But I certainly don't particularly like that I don't have to try at all right now. I can basically fall into the S16 in D3 unless I get a bad tournament draw.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/17/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 6:01:00 PM (view original):
If you can disincentivize parking without taking those teams away from users who are attached, I think that’s probably preferable. But whatever. I won’t cry if Stevens Tech is retired, and I won’t even complain as long as I get access to a D1 team with a chance to be competitive. But the rub is that this is a commodity game, and commodity games get significantly less fun with over saturation. So as long as getting recruits is primarily about resource allocation, I don’t think there is anything they can do to get usership consistently up over about 50% at D1, even if you lop off the other two divisions. In the long run, there’s still going to be attrition when the world gets too full.

8-10 in the power conferences, 5-8 in a handful of mid-major conferences, and 3-5 in the rest. That ends up being around 160 D1 uses in a world. More than that is probably unsustainable.

Not for the first time, you're showing your ignorance here. There was a fairly extended period during which worlds were full. New worlds filled up (obviously D3 only in season 1) within a few hours of opening. That's why we have as many worlds as we have.

For a lot of us the game is actually more fun when the worlds are mostly full. But it is different. Figuring out how to win with players that look a lot less "perfect" is basically a necessity. So in some sense, aspects of D1 start to look slightly more like D2. But I certainly don't particularly like that I don't have to try at all right now. I can basically fall into the S16 in D3 unless I get a bad tournament draw.

Gee, what happened to those full worlds? 3.0? No.

Attrition. Because you can’t consistently get people to pay to play a game long term where they’ve been locked out of competitiveness.

Or as I said literally at the top of this page:
“You could even add a world or two then, which would certainly be popular for a while as people race to the prime positions, which is essentially the only way to get something reasonably close to full worlds. But then you have to accept that attrition will settle in, and those populations will normalize to roughly the same as everything else.”

Posted by shoe3 on 10/16/2018 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/15/2018 11:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 10/15/2018 8:44:00 AM (view original):
it is painful when you lose when very high 65% ish.....but that is now the system

Recruiting should never be that random. Relying on that dice roll, or whatever you want to call it, is probably at least 75-80% of your success. There are a lot of good things about 3.0, but this isn't one of them.

Yeah it is. In fact it’s the only change that really matters. The “roll” simulates a choice that coaches don’t make. When 50.1 beats 49.9 for recruits 100% of the time, the end result is that no one battles; instead, people feel compelled to spend stupid amounts of time and energy on things that should never matter in a recruiting simulation, like trying to figure out how much all their rivals can spend.

Bid what he’s worth to you. Move on to other guys if you need to. That’s how recruiting works in real life, it’s how it should work in a simulation.

Real recruiting wouldn't work like that in real life, hate to say.

If you look at all the preferences, playing time, HV's, CV, offense, defense, long term coach, those are some of the most important things on which a recruit coming to your school decides upon. If I'm making a decision, there is nothing that's going to lean me towards that school that's 25-35% of what I'm looking for. It doesn't make any sense. There's nothing random about it.

25-35% of what you’re looking for isn’t an accurate depiction of how it works in HD. The percentages don’t tell you how much he likes you. Nothing tells you that. This is another instance of people taking a tool and making it into the outcome. He isn’t saying “man, I like this other school 65%, and I only 35% like you, but my gut just says I should randomly come to your school.” The considering list only tells you how much effort credit you had amassed, relative to other schools. And the odds (which shouldn’t even be shown, IMO, huge mistake to reveal them) tell you what that effort translated into in terms of how likely he was to pick you. That’s it. The odds are best understood as a 3rd party publication’s best guess as to how likely he was to pick you. There is nothing that tells you what he’s thinking. The considering list tells you how much relative interest the school has in the recruit, not the other way around. I know it’s presented poorly, and yes the wording should be more clear, but that’s exactly the way it’s designed. You don’t know his decision until he decides. The odds are not the outcome. The categories on the list are not the outcome. You make the best pitch you can make, offer him what you think he’s worth, in terms of promises and attention and effort, and then the recruit decides. That is exactly how it works in real life. The RNG simulates the choice that you, the coach, do not make.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/17/2018 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Really, shoe3? I guess if you define better as “whether shoe3 likes it more” then 3.0 is an unmitigated success! However, a significant upgrade whose stated goal was to help stem the ongoing slow but steady drop in player population and re-fill the worlds which has resulted in the population declines that Benis posted can only be described objectively as an unmitigated failure. It does appear as if the massive drop after he initial launch has stabilized, and is once again slowly and steadily bleeding users just as before 3.0, and there were going to be a significant number of uses who left regardless of the quality of the upgrade just because it was something new. Revitalized, however, the game is not.
You may have an argument about DI. The shift in the populations does appear to indicate that DI has gotten more attractive relative to DII and DIII than in the past, which could mean either that DI got better in the eyes of the playing population (or at least less worse), DII and DIII got worse, or both.
Personally, I don’t actually know whether I think 2.0 or 3.0 is better overall, as I only played DIII in 2.0. I know I enjoy the game much less because the upgrade caused the three friends I joined the game with to quit. I know I thought 2.0 was much better for DIII, as I personally think the way recruiting works for DIII now is awful (targeting the same class of players as DII and DI waiting around till the last day to hope no DI sweeps in on your players at the last second is not fun in my book). DII I personally enjoyed quite a bit in 3.0, and I have been enjoying DI quite a bit too, but I am unable to compare to how they were before.
What is unfortunate is that I think that 3.0, with just a little more effort (more time in beta, actual maintenance and adjustments to issues post launch) could have been much more successful without fundamentally changing the concept behind the changes that were implemented. However, that attention has not been paid, and given the continued lack of willingness to even address something so simple as the considering list, does not look like it will in the future.
I love playing this game, and had been hoping that 3.0 would revitalize it as, frankly, when I joined, it kind of looked like a dying game. Unfortunately, it still does.
Talk about digression...

You like the product. You like D1, you liked D2. You don’t like D3, that’s fair, although I’d argue you don’t like the way you thought you had to play, which is neither the only, nor necessarily the best way to play D3.

If you like the product, buy it. If you don’t, find something else.

As I’ve said multiple times now, if usership is the problem, there are good ways to address it, focused around reducing the time and money it takes to get people to their intended destination school. Just throwing out the population numbers in a topic like considering credit, something that used to exist and doesn’t anymore, is intentionally misleading. Removing considering credit is not the reason the game has been leaking users since long before 3.0, and putting it back in the game is not a step toward reversing that leak.

"If you like the product, buy it. If you don't, find something else."
That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Obviously, both you and I like the product, and we both still play. My point is that I want to keep playing, and my concern is that the game is at risk of dying because of the failure of 3.0 to revitalize interest and stem the tide in attrition. User participation is obviously a problem, regardless of how it affects game play, as eventually if the user base declines enough, there's no reason for SportsHub to continue operating a non-profitable product. 3.0 has exacerbated the problem you mention about the time and money it takes to reach a destination job by making the trek through DII and DIII less attractive, in the eyes of the playing populace at large based on the user statistics, than it was before. DI may or may not be a more attractive game overall than it was before, but unless something is done to stop the user bleeding at some point (and I have no idea what that point is), DI won't be around for anyone to play. As you say, there are ways to address the issue, but unfortunately it doesn't look like there is any plan to do so anytime soon.
Also, it's rather disingenuous for you to say that the inclusion of population numbers in this thread is intentionally misleading. You fully embraced the digression of this thread, and the use of those statistics was a completely valid factual data point to use as a counter to some of the arguments you raised, as well as actually being potentially supportive of your argument regarding your opinion that DI at the higher levels is an improved product.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 7:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/17/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 6:01:00 PM (view original):
If you can disincentivize parking without taking those teams away from users who are attached, I think that’s probably preferable. But whatever. I won’t cry if Stevens Tech is retired, and I won’t even complain as long as I get access to a D1 team with a chance to be competitive. But the rub is that this is a commodity game, and commodity games get significantly less fun with over saturation. So as long as getting recruits is primarily about resource allocation, I don’t think there is anything they can do to get usership consistently up over about 50% at D1, even if you lop off the other two divisions. In the long run, there’s still going to be attrition when the world gets too full.

8-10 in the power conferences, 5-8 in a handful of mid-major conferences, and 3-5 in the rest. That ends up being around 160 D1 uses in a world. More than that is probably unsustainable.

Not for the first time, you're showing your ignorance here. There was a fairly extended period during which worlds were full. New worlds filled up (obviously D3 only in season 1) within a few hours of opening. That's why we have as many worlds as we have.

For a lot of us the game is actually more fun when the worlds are mostly full. But it is different. Figuring out how to win with players that look a lot less "perfect" is basically a necessity. So in some sense, aspects of D1 start to look slightly more like D2. But I certainly don't particularly like that I don't have to try at all right now. I can basically fall into the S16 in D3 unless I get a bad tournament draw.

Gee, what happened to those full worlds? 3.0? No.

Attrition. Because you can’t consistently get people to pay to play a game long term where they’ve been locked out of competitiveness.

Or as I said literally at the top of this page:
“You could even add a world or two then, which would certainly be popular for a while as people race to the prime positions, which is essentially the only way to get something reasonably close to full worlds. But then you have to accept that attrition will settle in, and those populations will normalize to roughly the same as everything else.”

This is revisionist history.

World 1 maintained 180+ D1 players for over 30 seasons. They had over 200 D3 human players for over 35 seasons. Really, what crashed world populations initially was 2.0, and the game never really rebounded from that first big engine overhaul. But it's not like the current world populations are as high as they're going to be because more users couldn't have fun. They held at much higher numbers for years and years of real time.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/18/2018 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/17/2018 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Really, shoe3? I guess if you define better as “whether shoe3 likes it more” then 3.0 is an unmitigated success! However, a significant upgrade whose stated goal was to help stem the ongoing slow but steady drop in player population and re-fill the worlds which has resulted in the population declines that Benis posted can only be described objectively as an unmitigated failure. It does appear as if the massive drop after he initial launch has stabilized, and is once again slowly and steadily bleeding users just as before 3.0, and there were going to be a significant number of uses who left regardless of the quality of the upgrade just because it was something new. Revitalized, however, the game is not.
You may have an argument about DI. The shift in the populations does appear to indicate that DI has gotten more attractive relative to DII and DIII than in the past, which could mean either that DI got better in the eyes of the playing population (or at least less worse), DII and DIII got worse, or both.
Personally, I don’t actually know whether I think 2.0 or 3.0 is better overall, as I only played DIII in 2.0. I know I enjoy the game much less because the upgrade caused the three friends I joined the game with to quit. I know I thought 2.0 was much better for DIII, as I personally think the way recruiting works for DIII now is awful (targeting the same class of players as DII and DI waiting around till the last day to hope no DI sweeps in on your players at the last second is not fun in my book). DII I personally enjoyed quite a bit in 3.0, and I have been enjoying DI quite a bit too, but I am unable to compare to how they were before.
What is unfortunate is that I think that 3.0, with just a little more effort (more time in beta, actual maintenance and adjustments to issues post launch) could have been much more successful without fundamentally changing the concept behind the changes that were implemented. However, that attention has not been paid, and given the continued lack of willingness to even address something so simple as the considering list, does not look like it will in the future.
I love playing this game, and had been hoping that 3.0 would revitalize it as, frankly, when I joined, it kind of looked like a dying game. Unfortunately, it still does.
Talk about digression...

You like the product. You like D1, you liked D2. You don’t like D3, that’s fair, although I’d argue you don’t like the way you thought you had to play, which is neither the only, nor necessarily the best way to play D3.

If you like the product, buy it. If you don’t, find something else.

As I’ve said multiple times now, if usership is the problem, there are good ways to address it, focused around reducing the time and money it takes to get people to their intended destination school. Just throwing out the population numbers in a topic like considering credit, something that used to exist and doesn’t anymore, is intentionally misleading. Removing considering credit is not the reason the game has been leaking users since long before 3.0, and putting it back in the game is not a step toward reversing that leak.

"If you like the product, buy it. If you don't, find something else."
That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Obviously, both you and I like the product, and we both still play. My point is that I want to keep playing, and my concern is that the game is at risk of dying because of the failure of 3.0 to revitalize interest and stem the tide in attrition. User participation is obviously a problem, regardless of how it affects game play, as eventually if the user base declines enough, there's no reason for SportsHub to continue operating a non-profitable product. 3.0 has exacerbated the problem you mention about the time and money it takes to reach a destination job by making the trek through DII and DIII less attractive, in the eyes of the playing populace at large based on the user statistics, than it was before. DI may or may not be a more attractive game overall than it was before, but unless something is done to stop the user bleeding at some point (and I have no idea what that point is), DI won't be around for anyone to play. As you say, there are ways to address the issue, but unfortunately it doesn't look like there is any plan to do so anytime soon.
Also, it's rather disingenuous for you to say that the inclusion of population numbers in this thread is intentionally misleading. You fully embraced the digression of this thread, and the use of those statistics was a completely valid factual data point to use as a counter to some of the arguments you raised, as well as actually being potentially supportive of your argument regarding your opinion that DI at the higher levels is an improved product.

What makes you think it’s dying? They are still running FC Dynasty every night, and it’s completely free. I think people vastly overestimate how dire the situation is. It’s not like they have a full time crew working on this day and night. It’s basically server costs and seble’s FTE devoted to this single game. There are still 2000+ teams, most of them being paid for. In any case, I’m not obligated, or even slightly compelled to argue for things I think will make the game worse, even if I did think we were on death’s door. My life is not so bland that I could not stand to lose this one diversion.

The world data numbers are relevant to none of the arguments I raised. I’ve never pretended that I’m speaking about anyone’s preference other than my own. I’d love for more people to see the game the way I do, and in lots of cases, little perception shifts like the one above - the considering list being about school’s relative interest in the recruit - have helped folks understand and enjoy the game a little more. That’s what I’m told, anyway. This forum isn’t a popularity contest for anyone other than Benis. Enjoy the game or don’t. Agree with me or don’t.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/18/2018 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 7:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/17/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 6:01:00 PM (view original):
If you can disincentivize parking without taking those teams away from users who are attached, I think that’s probably preferable. But whatever. I won’t cry if Stevens Tech is retired, and I won’t even complain as long as I get access to a D1 team with a chance to be competitive. But the rub is that this is a commodity game, and commodity games get significantly less fun with over saturation. So as long as getting recruits is primarily about resource allocation, I don’t think there is anything they can do to get usership consistently up over about 50% at D1, even if you lop off the other two divisions. In the long run, there’s still going to be attrition when the world gets too full.

8-10 in the power conferences, 5-8 in a handful of mid-major conferences, and 3-5 in the rest. That ends up being around 160 D1 uses in a world. More than that is probably unsustainable.

Not for the first time, you're showing your ignorance here. There was a fairly extended period during which worlds were full. New worlds filled up (obviously D3 only in season 1) within a few hours of opening. That's why we have as many worlds as we have.

For a lot of us the game is actually more fun when the worlds are mostly full. But it is different. Figuring out how to win with players that look a lot less "perfect" is basically a necessity. So in some sense, aspects of D1 start to look slightly more like D2. But I certainly don't particularly like that I don't have to try at all right now. I can basically fall into the S16 in D3 unless I get a bad tournament draw.

Gee, what happened to those full worlds? 3.0? No.

Attrition. Because you can’t consistently get people to pay to play a game long term where they’ve been locked out of competitiveness.

Or as I said literally at the top of this page:
“You could even add a world or two then, which would certainly be popular for a while as people race to the prime positions, which is essentially the only way to get something reasonably close to full worlds. But then you have to accept that attrition will settle in, and those populations will normalize to roughly the same as everything else.”

This is revisionist history.

World 1 maintained 180+ D1 players for over 30 seasons. They had over 200 D3 human players for over 35 seasons. Really, what crashed world populations initially was 2.0, and the game never really rebounded from that first big engine overhaul. But it's not like the current world populations are as high as they're going to be because more users couldn't have fun. They held at much higher numbers for years and years of real time.

Pre-potential was a different game, and would have been much less of a commodity game, and more open ended. I wholeheartedly agree that scoutable potential was a massive mistake. If that’s the 2.0 overhaul you’re talking about, I think we’re on the same page. I’m saying this current game, with recruiting being a resource allocation commodity game, it has a ceiling. Most people are going to want to feel like they’re within 2-3 seasons of competitiveness. Being a doormat in a full conference in a commodity game where you have limited resources, and are at a disadvantage for getting value, it’s not a good game experience for most players.

shoe3: The world data numbers are relevant to none of the arguments I raised.
Prior shoe3 post: I play in full or mostly full D1 conferences. Tell us more.

You asked for more, and in response the numbers were given, which both supported mully's contention that the site's popularity has dropped dramatically, but also supported that DI's popularity has not been affected in the same way as DII or DIII.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/18/2018 5:22:00 PM (view original):
shoe3: The world data numbers are relevant to none of the arguments I raised.
Prior shoe3 post: I play in full or mostly full D1 conferences. Tell us more.

You asked for more, and in response the numbers were given, which both supported mully's contention that the site's popularity has dropped dramatically, but also supported that DI's popularity has not been affected in the same way as DII or DIII.

Too bad there’s no sarcasm button to press. Maybe this could have been avoided.

I have no trouble finding full-enough conferences to play in, when I care to look. That’s the point of what I said to mully. Hope that clarifies things.