1. Need more of a DFS format, that pays out a much larger share. If $720 is the amount paid in at least half should be paid out. That may increase volume and make up for any losses in the margins.

2. Advertising is severely lacking. Most people aren't aware that sim leagues even exist. Internet marketing is pretty cheap.

Advertise and increase the payout and the new owners would flood in.

Also the number of leagues should be limited to a number that corresponds with the number of players.

Posted by GoldieGamma on 10/24/2018 9:37:00 PM (view original):
1. Need more of a DFS format, that pays out a much larger share. If $720 is the amount paid in at least half should be paid out. That may increase volume and make up for any losses in the margins.

2. Advertising is severely lacking. Most people aren't aware that sim leagues even exist. Internet marketing is pretty cheap.

Advertise and increase the payout and the new owners would flood in.

Also the number of leagues should be limited to a number that corresponds with the number of players.

I don't think the payout should be more, I just think the buy in should be less. $25/season is a lot.

Posted by Sportsbulls on 10/24/2018 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 10/24/2018 9:37:00 PM (view original):
1. Need more of a DFS format, that pays out a much larger share. If $720 is the amount paid in at least half should be paid out. That may increase volume and make up for any losses in the margins.

2. Advertising is severely lacking. Most people aren't aware that sim leagues even exist. Internet marketing is pretty cheap.

Advertise and increase the payout and the new owners would flood in.

Also the number of leagues should be limited to a number that corresponds with the number of players.

I don't think the payout should be more, I just think the buy in should be less. $25/season is a lot.

Provide options, cheaper leagues and more expensive leagues, I would pay $100 for a chance to win $1500

Posted by GoldieGamma on 10/24/2018 10:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 10/24/2018 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 10/24/2018 9:37:00 PM (view original):
1. Need more of a DFS format, that pays out a much larger share. If $720 is the amount paid in at least half should be paid out. That may increase volume and make up for any losses in the margins.

2. Advertising is severely lacking. Most people aren't aware that sim leagues even exist. Internet marketing is pretty cheap.

Advertise and increase the payout and the new owners would flood in.

Also the number of leagues should be limited to a number that corresponds with the number of players.

I don't think the payout should be more, I just think the buy in should be less. $25/season is a lot.

Provide options, cheaper leagues and more expensive leagues, I would pay $100 for a chance to win $1500

True, that's a smart idea. But there needs to be advertising for that to be implicated. This game would be so great if it was updated and advertised. So much potential wasted. But, let's figure out what WE can do right now.

A ton of this excellent points, guys. A recurring theme I'm picking up is "WIS, you have such a fine game here. A seven on the scale of ten. Why don't you care enough to invest the resources to make it the 10 we know it can be? If you build it we/they will come."

Posted by Sportsbulls on 10/24/2018 10:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 10/24/2018 10:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 10/24/2018 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 10/24/2018 9:37:00 PM (view original):
1. Need more of a DFS format, that pays out a much larger share. If $720 is the amount paid in at least half should be paid out. That may increase volume and make up for any losses in the margins.

2. Advertising is severely lacking. Most people aren't aware that sim leagues even exist. Internet marketing is pretty cheap.

Advertise and increase the payout and the new owners would flood in.

Also the number of leagues should be limited to a number that corresponds with the number of players.

I don't think the payout should be more, I just think the buy in should be less. $25/season is a lot.

Provide options, cheaper leagues and more expensive leagues, I would pay $100 for a chance to win $1500

True, that's a smart idea. But there needs to be advertising for that to be implicated. This game would be so great if it was updated and advertised. So much potential wasted. But, let's figure out what WE can do right now.

WE need to hit twitter, fb, IG, maybe we do a youtube channel to showcase the leagues. Spam comment sections on baseball articles.

Not many new owners will join and remain active without an update to the game and how the website looks.

Posted by bruinsfan911 on 10/24/2018 5:16:00 PM (view original):
This might be an impossible question to answer, but how many active owners are there currently in HBD? I believe that solving the imbalance of owners/worlds is certainly the biggest problem...if we knew how many owners there are, it could help in figuring out an "ideal" number of worlds. Once that is established, answering these questions would likely be a lot easier.

I'd guess around 1950 active logins.

If increasing demand is a near-term goal, then game updates (CBA, ballparks, social interface) would likely freshen the game up to the degree that you'd get past users returning. That would also require someone dumping money into development without guaranteed return. In the meantime, commissioner recruiting and users pushing for world merges are the near term "solutions."

Just speaking for myself but I have simply lost interest in the game. I regularly was in 3 to 6 worlds and right now I am going down to 1. My main reason is wins floors that don't get enforced. I'm a play by the rules kind of guy so leagues give exceptions or say "well they almost made it so we will just shake our finger at them" just ruined the game for me because it puts me at a competitive disadvantage. That's not something that can be laid at the doorstep of WIS but lands squarely on the people playing the game.

Im guessing ghost teams would act like abandoned teams right? So the hope would be to allow worlds to roll with a small number of ghost teams with the expectation that a real life caretaker will eventually run that team.

I have always thought that low preforming teams should be cheap, for simplicitybsake rate teams as challange, normal, and title chasers. Teams classified in challenge tier are teams that will take 2-3 seasons to get right, normals are middle of the road teams that are competitive or can be conpetitive this season, and title chasere are teams that are expected to go deep in the playoffs. Set the pay tier to 7, 18, and 30 (exceptio for title chaser teams with same owner)

Posted by crickett13 on 10/25/2018 12:07:00 AM (view original):
Just speaking for myself but I have simply lost interest in the game. I regularly was in 3 to 6 worlds and right now I am going down to 1. My main reason is wins floors that don't get enforced. I'm a play by the rules kind of guy so leagues give exceptions or say "well they almost made it so we will just shake our finger at them" just ruined the game for me because it puts me at a competitive disadvantage. That's not something that can be laid at the doorstep of WIS but lands squarely on the people playing the game.

I agree. Since replacing owners can be a drag, some commissioners get lazy -- and some actually prefer perpetually poor teams in their worlds, as they are less competition. I can say that MWRs are strictly enforced in Cooperstown and Moonlight Graham. Owners that miss MWR typically move on peacefully.

That's another idea for WIS, Sermonauthor: MWR Support. Built-in functionality where MWRs are entered by Commissioners. MWRs would then appear (and be sortable) in World listings. And the system could prevent MWR misses from renewing the following season. Alternatively, financial/budget penalties could be entered and automatically deployed should worlds prefer that route.

I like that a lot.

I like that too, opie. Once this thread runs its course, and I think it may still have some steam left in the engine, I plan to contact CS and alert them to it. Many of these ideas,seems to me, can be implemented with minimal effort. Keep 'em coming gents.

Posted by sermonauthor on 10/25/2018 1:56:00 PM (view original):
I like that too, opie. Once this thread runs its course, and I think it may still have some steam left in the engine, I plan to contact CS and alert them to it. Many of these ideas,seems to me, can be implemented with minimal effort. Keep 'em coming gents.

I personally don’t like the ghost idea and wouldn’t want to be in a world with a ghost team. If ghosts were in every league I’d leave the game.

I am certainly a relative newcomer to Hardball Dynasty but I think if we could get more new players engaged it would be an important element in improving the game. It would first off show interest in the game which I hope would encourage more investment from the developers. If we can increase interest via social media I think that it would be a low cost way of increasing traffic. Other things to help new owners would be the ability to manipulate the budgets a little more. Sometimes starting with default or past owner budgets handcuffs a new owner into poor allocation of resources and lowering overall satisfaction in game play. More granularity in what the ratings mean and how they impact performance could help lower barriers to entry of people who may not understand how ratings in their first couple seasons hopefully resulting in fewer bad trades or ill-advised contracts. Bad contracts and trades hurt worlds in general and this could mitigate the likelihood. I may be off base here being new but I wanted to at least try to improve the game. I only found out about it from listening to a fangraphs podcast that talked about the BBWAA league.