Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
I'm for a single session because of job change/new coaches. The first season under the current system is a waste. You probably have a bad team full of players you didn't recruit. You can't gain an "attachment" to the team that way and I believe that's one of the reasons a lot of users don't have Season 2. If you go 5-22 with players you didn't bring in, there's little incentive to re-up. If you go 5-22 with 4 guys you recruited, maybe you see light at the end of the tunnel. Or maybe you just like developing the guys you recruited. And it's entirely possible you recruit 4 piles of steaming garbage but they're your steaming garbage and you learned something. You gain no knowledge in recruiting and don't develop "your" guys. It's just not fun.

I disagree with mike on a lot of things, but this post is dead on. Agree 100%.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 10/2/2017 11:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/2/2017 10:10:00 PM (view original):
Yes, but the problem is, let's say you are in a battle over the #1 Point Guard in the country. Diverting that 10 AP per cycle could cause you to lose the recruit, so the way the system is set up is the main problem. If there were a lower limit on the APs, like 20 per player per cycle, then each team could spread their APs around more. Or if it took fewer APs to unlock a player - like maybe 5-10, these things would also solve the problem.

It's a tradeoff -- are you willing to sacrifice 2-3% chance of landing a top player in order to have a backup for if a 50-50 situation goes against you? What are the marginal returns on APs 77, 78, 79, and 80 on the #1 PG in the country?

This is it, right here. Nothing more I can add.

As for the tangent on going back to one session... it isn't happening. There'd be too much to cram. Better to talk about reasonable fixes that could positively affect gameplay overall.

1. There should be more "late" signing recruits in the top 100.
2. No "late" player should sign with anyone until the last 8 cycles, which means 2 non-signing cycles for late recruits.
3. Some players, especially late signees, should view new coaches positively. Right now, the only preference is "wants long time coach".
4. Insert a prestige factor that follows the coach, not just the program.
5. Allow a coach to siphon off some APs to try to convince a player on the big board to stay another year.
6. Add a few dozen jucos to the pool for the second session, consider them diamonds in the rough, players with breakout years, big growth spurts, etc.
7. Lower sim teams standards for recruiting. Move everyone down the ladder a bit, so their effort is more effective, and the high prestige teams are less likely to take multiple walkons.

This is too close-minded for me: "As for the tangent on going back to one session... it isn't happening. There'd be too much to cram. Better to talk about reasonable fixes that could positively affect gameplay overall."

IF you can make the game better, for EVERYONE, you make the game better. You don't slam doors shut with "it isn't happening." I like 3.0. I also know, with TWO 1st seasons, that 1st seasons suck. I'm a WifS vet so I get it. I sucked it up and waited for Seasons 2. But new users aren't WifS vets and shouldn't be expected to suck it up. The experience needs to be enjoyable from Day 1 to have a successful product.

Posted by johnsensing on 10/3/2017 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
I'm for a single session because of job change/new coaches. The first season under the current system is a waste. You probably have a bad team full of players you didn't recruit. You can't gain an "attachment" to the team that way and I believe that's one of the reasons a lot of users don't have Season 2. If you go 5-22 with players you didn't bring in, there's little incentive to re-up. If you go 5-22 with 4 guys you recruited, maybe you see light at the end of the tunnel. Or maybe you just like developing the guys you recruited. And it's entirely possible you recruit 4 piles of steaming garbage but they're your steaming garbage and you learned something. You gain no knowledge in recruiting and don't develop "your" guys. It's just not fun.

I disagree with mike on a lot of things, but this post is dead on. Agree 100%.

I also agree 100%. Twice, I've signed up for a D3 team in 3.0 and I hated it each time. I wasted a season playing with crappy SIM players that have no potential and by the end of the season, I didn't care. Mike is right -- I had no personal investment in any of those guys. I love rebuilding jobs -- and when I am losing with guys that I recruited, I am invested in their growth.

When 3.0 was rolled out, I went down to 1 team because I wasn't sure I would like it enough to keep playing. Now I am not willing to sign up for a new team because I don't want to waste 12.99 on a stupid, meaningless season.

That is such a good point. It's really important for a new player to be able to mold his team. At least let the guy do the second session, and try to fix the second session so he has a chance. I am sure that would help with user retention. I like to change jobs a lot, and this has deterred me from doing that as well.

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/3/2017 11:57:00 AM (view original):
That is such a good point. It's really important for a new player to be able to mold his team. At least let the guy do the second session, and try to fix the second session so he has a chance. I am sure that would help with user retention. I like to change jobs a lot, and this has deterred me from doing that as well.

Good point guys : user retention. Rebuilding in 3.0 is scary. I am doing it in Alabama and I think It will take three more seasons than under 2.0

Posted by johnsensing on 10/3/2017 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
I'm for a single session because of job change/new coaches. The first season under the current system is a waste. You probably have a bad team full of players you didn't recruit. You can't gain an "attachment" to the team that way and I believe that's one of the reasons a lot of users don't have Season 2. If you go 5-22 with players you didn't bring in, there's little incentive to re-up. If you go 5-22 with 4 guys you recruited, maybe you see light at the end of the tunnel. Or maybe you just like developing the guys you recruited. And it's entirely possible you recruit 4 piles of steaming garbage but they're your steaming garbage and you learned something. You gain no knowledge in recruiting and don't develop "your" guys. It's just not fun.

I disagree with mike on a lot of things, but this post is dead on. Agree 100%.

Yup. Post of the day goes to Mike.

If poopman(you like that, benis?) is right and single session isn't happening, letting new users recruit in session 2 is the next best thing. I think I waited 2-3 weeks for both of my teams. I could have recruited RS2 with both. If you couple that with more "late" signees, you've solved a couple of issues for new users/job changers.

"The problem with limiting APs to 20 per player per cycle is that it basically kills any ability for lower prestige teams to compete for the better recruits. Pouring 80 AP into a recruit where a higher prestige team might only be willing to put in 40 or 60 AP per cycle is how lower prestige teams are able to neutralize the prestige advantage. Strip that away by limiting APs per cycle so higher prestige teams can spread their AP around is simply a way to kill off competition and we're back to an HD 2.0 player distribution system."

That's right, it is a rich-get-richer scheme, no more no less.

The same can be said for:
"2. No "late" player should sign with anyone until the last 8 cycles, which means 2 non-signing cycles for late recruits." BAH, that just gives steroids to the redlight ... no one can seriously argue that is good for the game on a whole, only good for the top teams or coaches who royally screw up their early recruiting.
"4. Insert a prestige factor that follows the coach, not just the program."
"6. Add a few dozen jucos to the pool for the second session, consider them diamonds in the rough, players with breakout years, big growth spurts, etc."
"7. Lower sim teams standards for recruiting. Move everyone down the ladder a bit, so their effort is more effective, and the high prestige teams are less likely to take multiple walkons."

And for the record, so far dividing recruiting into two sessions seems to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the chaff is loudly vocal about it on the forums. I wouldn't have anticipated that. (NOT sarcasm)

I have special concern about what one of those suggestions would do to the game as far as unintended consequences.

"4. Insert a prestige factor that follows the coach, not just the program."

A coach could make his bones in a nearly empty conference by beating up on sims, then grab a respectable team in a fuller conference and enjoy greater advantages than the coaches who have played in that conference with more humans.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 12:04:00 PM (view original):
If poopman(you like that, benis?) is right and single session isn't happening, letting new users recruit in session 2 is the next best thing. I think I waited 2-3 weeks for both of my teams. I could have recruited RS2 with both. If you couple that with more "late" signees, you've solved a couple of issues for new users/job changers.

I DO like that.

Oh sorry Mike. I guess your idea does suck. 'Cause Stone Cold Spud said so.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 10/2/2017 11:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/2/2017 10:10:00 PM (view original):
Yes, but the problem is, let's say you are in a battle over the #1 Point Guard in the country. Diverting that 10 AP per cycle could cause you to lose the recruit, so the way the system is set up is the main problem. If there were a lower limit on the APs, like 20 per player per cycle, then each team could spread their APs around more. Or if it took fewer APs to unlock a player - like maybe 5-10, these things would also solve the problem.

It's a tradeoff -- are you willing to sacrifice 2-3% chance of landing a top player in order to have a backup for if a 50-50 situation goes against you? What are the marginal returns on APs 77, 78, 79, and 80 on the #1 PG in the country?

This is it, right here. Nothing more I can add.

As for the tangent on going back to one session... it isn't happening. There'd be too much to cram. Better to talk about reasonable fixes that could positively affect gameplay overall.

1. There should be more "late" signing recruits in the top 100.
2. No "late" player should sign with anyone until the last 8 cycles, which means 2 non-signing cycles for late recruits.
3. Some players, especially late signees, should view new coaches positively. Right now, the only preference is "wants long time coach".
4. Insert a prestige factor that follows the coach, not just the program.
5. Allow a coach to siphon off some APs to try to convince a player on the big board to stay another year.
6. Add a few dozen jucos to the pool for the second session, consider them diamonds in the rough, players with breakout years, big growth spurts, etc.
7. Lower sim teams standards for recruiting. Move everyone down the ladder a bit, so their effort is more effective, and the high prestige teams are less likely to take multiple walkons.

This is too close-minded for me: "As for the tangent on going back to one session... it isn't happening. There'd be too much to cram. Better to talk about reasonable fixes that could positively affect gameplay overall."

IF you can make the game better, for EVERYONE, you make the game better. You don't slam doors shut with "it isn't happening." I like 3.0. I also know, with TWO 1st seasons, that 1st seasons suck. I'm a WifS vet so I get it. I sucked it up and waited for Seasons 2. But new users aren't WifS vets and shouldn't be expected to suck it up. The experience needs to be enjoyable from Day 1 to have a successful product.

Why use a band aid? Make the game better for new users.

It's funny that the main reason Seble chose to change the recruiting timeline was for the BENEFIT of new users. He thought that new people would have a better idea of who to recruit after playing through an entire season. I think the vast majority of us disagree and I can't see how the population data supports it being an improvement.

Posted by Benis on 10/3/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 10/2/2017 11:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/2/2017 10:10:00 PM (view original):
Yes, but the problem is, let's say you are in a battle over the #1 Point Guard in the country. Diverting that 10 AP per cycle could cause you to lose the recruit, so the way the system is set up is the main problem. If there were a lower limit on the APs, like 20 per player per cycle, then each team could spread their APs around more. Or if it took fewer APs to unlock a player - like maybe 5-10, these things would also solve the problem.

It's a tradeoff -- are you willing to sacrifice 2-3% chance of landing a top player in order to have a backup for if a 50-50 situation goes against you? What are the marginal returns on APs 77, 78, 79, and 80 on the #1 PG in the country?

This is it, right here. Nothing more I can add.

As for the tangent on going back to one session... it isn't happening. There'd be too much to cram. Better to talk about reasonable fixes that could positively affect gameplay overall.

1. There should be more "late" signing recruits in the top 100.
2. No "late" player should sign with anyone until the last 8 cycles, which means 2 non-signing cycles for late recruits.
3. Some players, especially late signees, should view new coaches positively. Right now, the only preference is "wants long time coach".
4. Insert a prestige factor that follows the coach, not just the program.
5. Allow a coach to siphon off some APs to try to convince a player on the big board to stay another year.
6. Add a few dozen jucos to the pool for the second session, consider them diamonds in the rough, players with breakout years, big growth spurts, etc.
7. Lower sim teams standards for recruiting. Move everyone down the ladder a bit, so their effort is more effective, and the high prestige teams are less likely to take multiple walkons.

This is too close-minded for me: "As for the tangent on going back to one session... it isn't happening. There'd be too much to cram. Better to talk about reasonable fixes that could positively affect gameplay overall."

IF you can make the game better, for EVERYONE, you make the game better. You don't slam doors shut with "it isn't happening." I like 3.0. I also know, with TWO 1st seasons, that 1st seasons suck. I'm a WifS vet so I get it. I sucked it up and waited for Seasons 2. But new users aren't WifS vets and shouldn't be expected to suck it up. The experience needs to be enjoyable from Day 1 to have a successful product.

Why use a band aid? Make the game better for new users.

It's funny that the main reason Seble chose to change the recruiting timeline was for the BENEFIT of new users. He thought that new people would have a better idea of who to recruit after playing through an entire season. I think the vast majority of us disagree and I can't see how the population data supports it being an improvement.

If WIS determines that not playing with their own recruits actually is a problem, they can tweak the timeline. They don't have to scrap the whole first session and cram it all into the second.

My experience is different than Mike's. I don't know which is more common among users who are likely to want to play an online fantasy sports simulation. Above my pay grade. I know when I signed up for my first D3 team, I was looking for one without many open scholarships. I wanted to learn the mechanics of the game, without having to count on not making horribly rookie mistakes with my first class. I didn't plan on staying at D3, so what really mattered to me was whether I found the recruiting process fun (2.0 for me was pretty ok at lower levels, and terrible at D1), and how long it would take me to get to the level I wanted to play at (far, far too long).

Along those lines, if we're just going for it, then just eliminate the forced stratification, and allow users to sign up for D level D1 programs. Sure, tweak the timelines and allow them to start their job in front of the second session, if that's deemed to be important.