I gotta look them up again... only quickly did ath and def... might take a bit...

Posted by Benis on 7/14/2017 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 7/14/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):
In 2.0, the talent gap between D-3 teams was just as extreme as today in 3.0... i was in Crum D-3 in the 60's Seasons... jsajsa at Delaware Valley, the Dickinson team under myers, Maryville with tarvolon, MacMurray, Fisk, LeTourneau, Eastbay, etc... all those top level teams had D-1 quality rosters. My first NT in s67 i lost to ggallagh at Southwestern by 35. Next year in s68 i lost to Hamline by 55.

So noobs got crushed back then too. In my 6 years in Crum D-3, the same 10 owners competed for championships each year. Probably every Elite 8 school came from a pool of 16 owners tops if i were to guess.

My recommendation would be for D-3 recruits to be unlocked to Level 4 as soon as you scout a particular state. Simplify it for new owners, and allow them to see a wide range of recruits.

Ignore the self-serving backward idea of first-session signings that Zorzii keeps peddling.

No. Gap is wider now.

and deeper. You had some elite coaches before who had great teams but now even average coaches have teams as good as those guys back in the day.

The gap between the top teams and the SIM controlled AI teams that many new users take over when first joining is definitely wider, as the top D3 teams now are stocked with lower level DI talent instead of DII talent. That being said, it isn't as if these same new teams had any chance of beating the elite teams anyway, and it is now possible to catch up to the elite teams much more quickly than in the past because there is not the prestige advantage of having extra access to better players. On the other hand, the new system appears much more daunting to learn, so it is much more effort to figure out how to recruit on a semi-competent level (although I think a lot easier to master).

I agree with a lot of what is said here. I actually don't get the reason for the long long delay between seasons. Do we really need a 2nd job period? If so, why not let it overlap with 2nd recruiting session? Also I think the absolute WORST thing they changed in 3.0 is making it impossible to rebuild year 1. You are essentially screwed the first season taking over these rebuilds. It has literally deterred me from taking more teams. I've rebuilt enough. I don't enjoy doing it anymore, especially in a one a day world where it might literally be months before I could get a winning team. That's just not fun. But to take over a team and be stuck with bad players for a full season makes zero sense. Give coaches the team during the 2nd recruiting period so there's time to cut and recruit some players to start the rebuild.

I like a lot of the changes in the game but the difficulty in moving up to D1 and the slow pace of the game (even in two a day worlds) is frustrating to me and I've been playing it for four years. While we are at it, why is there not more functionality to make inter-conference interaction more interesting? Why not an ability to schedule a non-conference tournament or conference challenges? All the things you see in real life college basketball to make the game more interesting would also be more interesting in HD. The more complexity and encouragement of interaction to the game the better.

They should stop the not doing 2 games a day at the end of the NT (I think it's like the last 2 games are split into 2 days), it's a 2 a day world, the two coaches in the finals have defiantly set their lineups for the game by 8 AM if not by 3 AM. That would get rid of a day for 2 a day worlds.

They should get rid of the day of to renew teams, coaches have the whole season to do that.

They should make 1 Job period, and if they don't do that make it only 2 days instead of 3 for the first one.

I dont know if it's possible logistacly, but if it is they should get rid of the two off days in conference play.

I love how everyone spends all their energy telling you how it 'should' be. How often are those ideas actually implemented? Seems like an awful waste of breath.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 7/14/2017 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 7/14/2017 9:11:00 AM (view original):
The current version of the game is not going to attract new users. Enter at D3, get beat down by teams recruiting D1 players, not even with players you recruited, in which you feel any investment, and leave.

WIS had feedback from disgruntled new users that complained that, in their first recruiting session, they had no idea how to recruit. WIS decided that the fix was that no one would be able to recruit in season 1. The mistake in that is believing that the new users making that complaint were ever going to stick with this game. Those are not WIS target consumers.

The reality, that I even read proponents of 3.0 admit, is that D2 is not a great game now. That makes the above problem even worse! You first season in D3 is awful; your next 7 seasons in D2 will be tedious. However, D1 is kinda ok...no chance at growth unless some changes are made.

Right on. Cap D2, D3, let them recruit during first session, make first job a recruiting one.

Terrible idea that you keep repeating.

n00b vs 110 season vet in close quarter recruiting. That should end well for the n00b, right?

Actually it's significantly preferred over the current model of DIII recruiting where n00b recruits DIII players and gets stuck with a bad scholarship for 4 seasons, or wastes all his resources on DI players that he never had a shot at, all while the vets are stacking low end DI rosters. At least in the old system, you took your lumps in recruiting season 1 and if you take on a bad player, odds are the guys who are good don't have significantly better players.

I have a DII team that just went to S16 and only lost 1 guy, and there are multiple DIII teams that I would not currently beat.

Posted by rogelio on 7/14/2017 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 10:39:00 AM (view original):
I enjoy D3. A lot. So let's be careful with the use of "everyone".

I'll tell you the same thing I told benis. If your business plan is no new users, so why bother making/keeping the game somewhat manageable?, you have a failed business plan.

You want to cap D2/D3? Fine. Move people out of D3 after 3 seasons(abandoned team is SIM-controlled for a full season in order to prevent aliases from taking them) and do the same at D2. Don't let vets park, build dynasties and destroy new users.

Mike is being hyperbolic, but I basically agree with the outline of this plan. I have always said the same thing and have never heard anything else that made sense. Experienced D3 users (after, say 4 NT appearances) should see their bonus cash diminish with each successive season. You want to dominate D3, pay for the privilege! It would not be necessary to force sim-control for a season.

All the same, none of that would eliminate the need to cap recruiting into D1. It just makes no sense that obvious D1 talent is paying any attention to D3 effort.

i am not sure on the d3 thing, capping seasons, but i think you have to either do that or have a rookie world, like they do in lots of other games (beginner games or lounges etc). i loved walking into a d3 where OR was also a coach, where i could immediately look to what the best were doing - and i see a lot of value in the "meet a mentor" aspect of mixing rookies and vets in d3. but i think a lot of the vets get caught up in their own experience - i certainly did - i long argued you had to keep it mixed - that's the experience that worked for me. but i don't think it makes sense to appeal to a wider audience. make a d3-only beginner world (teams and players both), give people a 5pack to start for like 10 bucks, that they can transfer to a regular world (the remainder) at any time... and i think that would work well. if you make all d3s beginner worlds, you lose the people who prefer d3, and i think it would feel kind of ghost town-ish. let people stay like 10 seasons max and transfer their team out to a real world any time... i don't really see a downside, keep just enough beginner worlds that most humans are making the NT, hell make the sims even shittier if that is what it takes. let people get hooked before it gets tough... society these days doesn't have the patience for old-style games where you get destroyed for a long time before you start to turn it around.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 7/14/2017 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/14/2017 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 7/14/2017 11:34:00 AM (view original):
In 2.0, the talent gap between D-3 teams was just as extreme as today in 3.0... i was in Crum D-3 in the 60's Seasons... jsajsa at Delaware Valley, the Dickinson team under myers, Maryville with tarvolon, MacMurray, Fisk, LeTourneau, Eastbay, etc... all those top level teams had D-1 quality rosters. My first NT in s67 i lost to ggallagh at Southwestern by 35. Next year in s68 i lost to Hamline by 55.

So noobs got crushed back then too. In my 6 years in Crum D-3, the same 10 owners competed for championships each year. Probably every Elite 8 school came from a pool of 16 owners tops if i were to guess.

My recommendation would be for D-3 recruits to be unlocked to Level 4 as soon as you scout a particular state. Simplify it for new owners, and allow them to see a wide range of recruits.

Ignore the self-serving backward idea of first-session signings that Zorzii keeps peddling.

No. Gap is wider now.

and deeper. You had some elite coaches before who had great teams but now even average coaches have teams as good as those guys back in the day.

The gap between the top teams and the SIM controlled AI teams that many new users take over when first joining is definitely wider, as the top D3 teams now are stocked with lower level DI talent instead of DII talent. That being said, it isn't as if these same new teams had any chance of beating the elite teams anyway, and it is now possible to catch up to the elite teams much more quickly than in the past because there is not the prestige advantage of having extra access to better players. On the other hand, the new system appears much more daunting to learn, so it is much more effort to figure out how to recruit on a semi-competent level (although I think a lot easier to master).

its the end part that matters most, IMO. doesn't really matter if you lose by 20 or 40 to the top coaches in the world when you first start, but it does matter that you can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. when i started, my first recruiting class was a wreck, but after studying hard all year, i felt i could compete with that 2nd team, and it was true, they went on to pull a 1 seed. when they put potential on top, i felt it really would make it harder to bring in new coaches, and thought it might be wisest to leave d3 without potential, to keep the learning curve where it was. i was a quick study, but if i could do it in a season, plenty of folks could do it in 5 or less. now, between potential and all this new scouting/recruiting ****, i just don't see it. after a few seasons, most coaches are still going to be hopelessly lost. i mean, im not saying any 3 month old coach should be able to be best in the game - but you should be able to see ahead to a place where you are highly competitive. you can't have all the new coaches feeling hopelessly lost, and in today's game, i don't know how any a new coach could feel anything else.

its not just d3 either, its d1, too. you used to walk into d1, get your *** kicked for a while, but then you figured it out and could compete. there was no "wait 15 seasons to get a premium program and THEN compete". the bar to entry is way too high game-wide and that is by far the biggest problem with this game.

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/15/2017 5:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 7/14/2017 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 10:39:00 AM (view original):
I enjoy D3. A lot. So let's be careful with the use of "everyone".

I'll tell you the same thing I told benis. If your business plan is no new users, so why bother making/keeping the game somewhat manageable?, you have a failed business plan.

You want to cap D2/D3? Fine. Move people out of D3 after 3 seasons(abandoned team is SIM-controlled for a full season in order to prevent aliases from taking them) and do the same at D2. Don't let vets park, build dynasties and destroy new users.

Mike is being hyperbolic, but I basically agree with the outline of this plan. I have always said the same thing and have never heard anything else that made sense. Experienced D3 users (after, say 4 NT appearances) should see their bonus cash diminish with each successive season. You want to dominate D3, pay for the privilege! It would not be necessary to force sim-control for a season.

All the same, none of that would eliminate the need to cap recruiting into D1. It just makes no sense that obvious D1 talent is paying any attention to D3 effort.

i am not sure on the d3 thing, capping seasons, but i think you have to either do that or have a rookie world, like they do in lots of other games (beginner games or lounges etc). i loved walking into a d3 where OR was also a coach, where i could immediately look to what the best were doing - and i see a lot of value in the "meet a mentor" aspect of mixing rookies and vets in d3. but i think a lot of the vets get caught up in their own experience - i certainly did - i long argued you had to keep it mixed - that's the experience that worked for me. but i don't think it makes sense to appeal to a wider audience. make a d3-only beginner world (teams and players both), give people a 5pack to start for like 10 bucks, that they can transfer to a regular world (the remainder) at any time... and i think that would work well. if you make all d3s beginner worlds, you lose the people who prefer d3, and i think it would feel kind of ghost town-ish. let people stay like 10 seasons max and transfer their team out to a real world any time... i don't really see a downside, keep just enough beginner worlds that most humans are making the NT, hell make the sims even shittier if that is what it takes. let people get hooked before it gets tough... society these days doesn't have the patience for old-style games where you get destroyed for a long time before you start to turn it around.

This would actually be a good idea. Get rid of FREEHD and give someone a couple free seasons in this beginner world. This allows someone to get a feel for the game over multiple seasons but would not allow a long term impact of someone essentially playing for free. Then they could buy seasons if they enjoy it.

Posted by poncho0091 on 7/14/2017 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 7/14/2017 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 7/14/2017 9:11:00 AM (view original):
The current version of the game is not going to attract new users. Enter at D3, get beat down by teams recruiting D1 players, not even with players you recruited, in which you feel any investment, and leave.

WIS had feedback from disgruntled new users that complained that, in their first recruiting session, they had no idea how to recruit. WIS decided that the fix was that no one would be able to recruit in season 1. The mistake in that is believing that the new users making that complaint were ever going to stick with this game. Those are not WIS target consumers.

The reality, that I even read proponents of 3.0 admit, is that D2 is not a great game now. That makes the above problem even worse! You first season in D3 is awful; your next 7 seasons in D2 will be tedious. However, D1 is kinda ok...no chance at growth unless some changes are made.

Right on. Cap D2, D3, let them recruit during first session, make first job a recruiting one.

Terrible idea that you keep repeating.

n00b vs 110 season vet in close quarter recruiting. That should end well for the n00b, right?

Actually it's significantly preferred over the current model of DIII recruiting where n00b recruits DIII players and gets stuck with a bad scholarship for 4 seasons, or wastes all his resources on DI players that he never had a shot at, all while the vets are stacking low end DI rosters. At least in the old system, you took your lumps in recruiting season 1 and if you take on a bad player, odds are the guys who are good don't have significantly better players.

I have a DII team that just went to S16 and only lost 1 guy, and there are multiple DIII teams that I would not currently beat.

Significantly preferred by who?

No one is stuck with players. I've cut guys I recruited and took no hit. I think that's greatly overstated.

Mike : the system at D3 is dumb. It's a millenials thing: dude don't give me a limit, I am at Philadelphia Biblical and kids with D1 dig me. Come on, if Duke can recruit this kid, why not me at Philadelphia Biblical?

You decide : D3 is either a ramp to learn the game having FUN... and not stumbles on TheOnly low D1 Teams. I suggest only getting players from the D3 pool

Or it's a D3 competitive thing, narrow the gap, make sure location is less important with a cap at 520-530.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/15/2017 7:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 7/14/2017 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2017 9:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 7/14/2017 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 7/14/2017 9:11:00 AM (view original):
The current version of the game is not going to attract new users. Enter at D3, get beat down by teams recruiting D1 players, not even with players you recruited, in which you feel any investment, and leave.

WIS had feedback from disgruntled new users that complained that, in their first recruiting session, they had no idea how to recruit. WIS decided that the fix was that no one would be able to recruit in season 1. The mistake in that is believing that the new users making that complaint were ever going to stick with this game. Those are not WIS target consumers.

The reality, that I even read proponents of 3.0 admit, is that D2 is not a great game now. That makes the above problem even worse! You first season in D3 is awful; your next 7 seasons in D2 will be tedious. However, D1 is kinda ok...no chance at growth unless some changes are made.

Right on. Cap D2, D3, let them recruit during first session, make first job a recruiting one.

Terrible idea that you keep repeating.

n00b vs 110 season vet in close quarter recruiting. That should end well for the n00b, right?

Actually it's significantly preferred over the current model of DIII recruiting where n00b recruits DIII players and gets stuck with a bad scholarship for 4 seasons, or wastes all his resources on DI players that he never had a shot at, all while the vets are stacking low end DI rosters. At least in the old system, you took your lumps in recruiting season 1 and if you take on a bad player, odds are the guys who are good don't have significantly better players.

I have a DII team that just went to S16 and only lost 1 guy, and there are multiple DIII teams that I would not currently beat.

Significantly preferred by who?

No one is stuck with players. I've cut guys I recruited and took no hit. I think that's greatly overstated.

i posted on these forums daily for years, and i would guess this account is at least half of it - including a crap ton of posts i made from data collection programs where i would just copy paste onto the forums for sometimes as long as an hour. how do you have almost 20x the posts? have you been playing like every WIS game there is for ever? if someone played 5 WIS games and posted on each twice a day, for 10 years - you'd have 50% more posts than them! that is crazy.

Some good points are being made here.

“But to take over a team and be stuck with bad players for a full season makes zero sense.”
True. Pick a good team, not a bad team, to start with. Don’t blame the game.

“society these days doesn't have the patience for old-style games where you get destroyed for a long time before you start to turn it around.”
True, impatience knows no bounds. People need instant gratification … some people.

Problem is new players don't know what a bad team is.

That's going to be a problem under any system.

zorzii, not everyone shares your opinion. There is a learning curve. That's going to be there with/without capping. The veterans are going to have an advantage. It's my contention that cutting the player pool by 2/3 is going to force n00bs to battle vets for players. That's a bad recipe.