Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 8:43:00 AM (view original):
“Overall point is.... because the game has a dumb setup regarding EEs, and because D3 recruiting is funky, the game design has forced me to decide D2 is the best game play for. And that's where I'll stay. I didn't think Slippery Rock is my ultimate goal when I first started. But i do now. Thanks to the game design. I'd love to play high D1..... so fix it. I'll join you all when that happens.”

Before, people didn’t want to play D1, because there was a system where the top 20 teams divided up all the good players, and there were 2 ways to break 8nto that group - wait for one of them to leave or forget to renew, or wake up at 3AM every morning of recruiting to perform the complicated dance of seeing if anyone else had stupidly challenged one of those top 20 teams for a recruit, so you could pile on to wreck that guys season. Of course, there was a 2B which was illegal (but not uncommon) which was to coordinate these attacks with others.

The only way to break this winner’s ball setup is to widen the window on recruiting. That involved 1) probability based decisions by recruits (so 50.1 gets a recruit roughly 52% of the time, rather than 100% of the time); and 2) making elite talent more volatile and harder to replace. These are, as you can imagine, not popular ideas among people who had entrenched themselves in those top 20 programs. But all this other talk about ideas that would have “solved” the problem - caps, recruit gen, just little tweaks like rollover cash removal, etc. - this is all revisionist history nonsense. This was all discussed in beta. Those ideas all end up being either dumb or insufficient, or both, once looked into and considered from a broad perspective.

So bottom line is, if you don’t want to deal with the headaches of elite talent being volatile, fine. Don’t recruit talent. Either find a way to be competitive without it (which can be done), or play lower levels. But don’t pretend you would *really* like to play a simulation of real life college basketball, because you clearly don’t.

Shoe is 100% correct.

And Topdogg, no need to avoid D1 based on avoiding the supposed-nightmare EE situation. You're a great coach and would do awesome in D-1.

Posted by npb7768 on 2/15/2019 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 8:43:00 AM (view original):
“Overall point is.... because the game has a dumb setup regarding EEs, and because D3 recruiting is funky, the game design has forced me to decide D2 is the best game play for. And that's where I'll stay. I didn't think Slippery Rock is my ultimate goal when I first started. But i do now. Thanks to the game design. I'd love to play high D1..... so fix it. I'll join you all when that happens.”

Before, people didn’t want to play D1, because there was a system where the top 20 teams divided up all the good players, and there were 2 ways to break 8nto that group - wait for one of them to leave or forget to renew, or wake up at 3AM every morning of recruiting to perform the complicated dance of seeing if anyone else had stupidly challenged one of those top 20 teams for a recruit, so you could pile on to wreck that guys season. Of course, there was a 2B which was illegal (but not uncommon) which was to coordinate these attacks with others.

The only way to break this winner’s ball setup is to widen the window on recruiting. That involved 1) probability based decisions by recruits (so 50.1 gets a recruit roughly 52% of the time, rather than 100% of the time); and 2) making elite talent more volatile and harder to replace. These are, as you can imagine, not popular ideas among people who had entrenched themselves in those top 20 programs. But all this other talk about ideas that would have “solved” the problem - caps, recruit gen, just little tweaks like rollover cash removal, etc. - this is all revisionist history nonsense. This was all discussed in beta. Those ideas all end up being either dumb or insufficient, or both, once looked into and considered from a broad perspective.

So bottom line is, if you don’t want to deal with the headaches of elite talent being volatile, fine. Don’t recruit talent. Either find a way to be competitive without it (which can be done), or play lower levels. But don’t pretend you would *really* like to play a simulation of real life college basketball, because you clearly don’t.

Shoe is 100% correct.

And Topdogg, no need to avoid D1 based on avoiding the supposed-nightmare EE situation. You're a great coach and would do awesome in D-1.

Yeah topdogg. Who cares what you like or don't like. Just do it anyway.

Posted by npb7768 on 2/15/2019 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 8:43:00 AM (view original):
“Overall point is.... because the game has a dumb setup regarding EEs, and because D3 recruiting is funky, the game design has forced me to decide D2 is the best game play for. And that's where I'll stay. I didn't think Slippery Rock is my ultimate goal when I first started. But i do now. Thanks to the game design. I'd love to play high D1..... so fix it. I'll join you all when that happens.”

Before, people didn’t want to play D1, because there was a system where the top 20 teams divided up all the good players, and there were 2 ways to break 8nto that group - wait for one of them to leave or forget to renew, or wake up at 3AM every morning of recruiting to perform the complicated dance of seeing if anyone else had stupidly challenged one of those top 20 teams for a recruit, so you could pile on to wreck that guys season. Of course, there was a 2B which was illegal (but not uncommon) which was to coordinate these attacks with others.

The only way to break this winner’s ball setup is to widen the window on recruiting. That involved 1) probability based decisions by recruits (so 50.1 gets a recruit roughly 52% of the time, rather than 100% of the time); and 2) making elite talent more volatile and harder to replace. These are, as you can imagine, not popular ideas among people who had entrenched themselves in those top 20 programs. But all this other talk about ideas that would have “solved” the problem - caps, recruit gen, just little tweaks like rollover cash removal, etc. - this is all revisionist history nonsense. This was all discussed in beta. Those ideas all end up being either dumb or insufficient, or both, once looked into and considered from a broad perspective.

So bottom line is, if you don’t want to deal with the headaches of elite talent being volatile, fine. Don’t recruit talent. Either find a way to be competitive without it (which can be done), or play lower levels. But don’t pretend you would *really* like to play a simulation of real life college basketball, because you clearly don’t.

Shoe is 100% correct.

And Topdogg, no need to avoid D1 based on avoiding the supposed-nightmare EE situation. You're a great coach and would do awesome in D-1.

Shoe's whole bit is predicated on the idea that now D-1 is more popular than before. Data disproves that. Players have left all 3 levels since 3.0 was released. Someone asked for data before:



All of that said, I don't think the EE thing is as vile as its naysayers do-- the teams in Naismith (my only current world) who are losing EEs every season seem to be reloading pretty nicely. I could name the top 10 teams now and it would likely be VERY similar +/- ten seasons from now. Good coaches continue to adapt and win.

Posted by Benis on 2/15/2019 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 2/15/2019 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 8:43:00 AM (view original):
“Overall point is.... because the game has a dumb setup regarding EEs, and because D3 recruiting is funky, the game design has forced me to decide D2 is the best game play for. And that's where I'll stay. I didn't think Slippery Rock is my ultimate goal when I first started. But i do now. Thanks to the game design. I'd love to play high D1..... so fix it. I'll join you all when that happens.”

Before, people didn’t want to play D1, because there was a system where the top 20 teams divided up all the good players, and there were 2 ways to break 8nto that group - wait for one of them to leave or forget to renew, or wake up at 3AM every morning of recruiting to perform the complicated dance of seeing if anyone else had stupidly challenged one of those top 20 teams for a recruit, so you could pile on to wreck that guys season. Of course, there was a 2B which was illegal (but not uncommon) which was to coordinate these attacks with others.

The only way to break this winner’s ball setup is to widen the window on recruiting. That involved 1) probability based decisions by recruits (so 50.1 gets a recruit roughly 52% of the time, rather than 100% of the time); and 2) making elite talent more volatile and harder to replace. These are, as you can imagine, not popular ideas among people who had entrenched themselves in those top 20 programs. But all this other talk about ideas that would have “solved” the problem - caps, recruit gen, just little tweaks like rollover cash removal, etc. - this is all revisionist history nonsense. This was all discussed in beta. Those ideas all end up being either dumb or insufficient, or both, once looked into and considered from a broad perspective.

So bottom line is, if you don’t want to deal with the headaches of elite talent being volatile, fine. Don’t recruit talent. Either find a way to be competitive without it (which can be done), or play lower levels. But don’t pretend you would *really* like to play a simulation of real life college basketball, because you clearly don’t.

Shoe is 100% correct.

And Topdogg, no need to avoid D1 based on avoiding the supposed-nightmare EE situation. You're a great coach and would do awesome in D-1.

Yeah topdogg. Who cares what you like or don't like. Just do it anyway.

Topdogg:
If you like D-2, then stay in D-2.
If you want to try D-1, but are avoiding it because several people are lying about EE's being an absolute nightmare, then try D-1.

Posted by npb7768 on 2/15/2019 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 2/15/2019 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 2/15/2019 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 8:43:00 AM (view original):
“Overall point is.... because the game has a dumb setup regarding EEs, and because D3 recruiting is funky, the game design has forced me to decide D2 is the best game play for. And that's where I'll stay. I didn't think Slippery Rock is my ultimate goal when I first started. But i do now. Thanks to the game design. I'd love to play high D1..... so fix it. I'll join you all when that happens.”

Before, people didn’t want to play D1, because there was a system where the top 20 teams divided up all the good players, and there were 2 ways to break 8nto that group - wait for one of them to leave or forget to renew, or wake up at 3AM every morning of recruiting to perform the complicated dance of seeing if anyone else had stupidly challenged one of those top 20 teams for a recruit, so you could pile on to wreck that guys season. Of course, there was a 2B which was illegal (but not uncommon) which was to coordinate these attacks with others.

The only way to break this winner’s ball setup is to widen the window on recruiting. That involved 1) probability based decisions by recruits (so 50.1 gets a recruit roughly 52% of the time, rather than 100% of the time); and 2) making elite talent more volatile and harder to replace. These are, as you can imagine, not popular ideas among people who had entrenched themselves in those top 20 programs. But all this other talk about ideas that would have “solved” the problem - caps, recruit gen, just little tweaks like rollover cash removal, etc. - this is all revisionist history nonsense. This was all discussed in beta. Those ideas all end up being either dumb or insufficient, or both, once looked into and considered from a broad perspective.

So bottom line is, if you don’t want to deal with the headaches of elite talent being volatile, fine. Don’t recruit talent. Either find a way to be competitive without it (which can be done), or play lower levels. But don’t pretend you would *really* like to play a simulation of real life college basketball, because you clearly don’t.

Shoe is 100% correct.

And Topdogg, no need to avoid D1 based on avoiding the supposed-nightmare EE situation. You're a great coach and would do awesome in D-1.

Yeah topdogg. Who cares what you like or don't like. Just do it anyway.

Topdogg:
If you like D-2, then stay in D-2.
If you want to try D-1, but are avoiding it because several people are lying about EE's being an absolute nightmare, then try D-1.

Yeah Topdogg. Don't make up your own mind about what you want to do. Stop listening to all the haters.

Posted by wronoj on 2/15/2019 9:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 2/15/2019 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 8:43:00 AM (view original):
“Overall point is.... because the game has a dumb setup regarding EEs, and because D3 recruiting is funky, the game design has forced me to decide D2 is the best game play for. And that's where I'll stay. I didn't think Slippery Rock is my ultimate goal when I first started. But i do now. Thanks to the game design. I'd love to play high D1..... so fix it. I'll join you all when that happens.”

Before, people didn’t want to play D1, because there was a system where the top 20 teams divided up all the good players, and there were 2 ways to break 8nto that group - wait for one of them to leave or forget to renew, or wake up at 3AM every morning of recruiting to perform the complicated dance of seeing if anyone else had stupidly challenged one of those top 20 teams for a recruit, so you could pile on to wreck that guys season. Of course, there was a 2B which was illegal (but not uncommon) which was to coordinate these attacks with others.

The only way to break this winner’s ball setup is to widen the window on recruiting. That involved 1) probability based decisions by recruits (so 50.1 gets a recruit roughly 52% of the time, rather than 100% of the time); and 2) making elite talent more volatile and harder to replace. These are, as you can imagine, not popular ideas among people who had entrenched themselves in those top 20 programs. But all this other talk about ideas that would have “solved” the problem - caps, recruit gen, just little tweaks like rollover cash removal, etc. - this is all revisionist history nonsense. This was all discussed in beta. Those ideas all end up being either dumb or insufficient, or both, once looked into and considered from a broad perspective.

So bottom line is, if you don’t want to deal with the headaches of elite talent being volatile, fine. Don’t recruit talent. Either find a way to be competitive without it (which can be done), or play lower levels. But don’t pretend you would *really* like to play a simulation of real life college basketball, because you clearly don’t.

Shoe is 100% correct.

And Topdogg, no need to avoid D1 based on avoiding the supposed-nightmare EE situation. You're a great coach and would do awesome in D-1.

Shoe's whole bit is predicated on the idea that now D-1 is more popular than before. Data disproves that. Players have left all 3 levels since 3.0 was released. Someone asked for data before:



All of that said, I don't think the EE thing is as vile as its naysayers do-- the teams in Naismith (my only current world) who are losing EEs every season seem to be reloading pretty nicely. I could name the top 10 teams now and it would likely be VERY similar +/- ten seasons from now. Good coaches continue to adapt and win.

I don’t make any claims about “popularity”. Other people worry about that. My whole bit is based on playability. Is it a competitive game? Non-competitive games can be very popular (see FarmVille).

Overall population snapshots are not the whole picture. We know a lot of people left - and we knew before beta finished that a lot of people were going to leave. Attrition is a reality, and the rates go up following an update, because there are always people who don’t like the changes, for whatever reason. So lots of people left, and lots of the people who left had lots of teams. It was very common to use lower levels (especially D3) as credit farms (more nefariously as zombie scouts) for D1 programs.

One thing we can say for sure is that D1 is more popular relative to lower levels now, which is as it should be. A lot of folks still look at this through the lens of “the fuller, the better”, and it’s just not how the game is designed. A competitive commodity game, where users are competing with each other for scarce talent with scarce resources, just isn’t going to work over a certain percentage of population. There are good ways to increase population (by fixing the jobs process, thereby decreasing the cost of playing D1) if that is important to WIS. But you’re never going to see much over half full at any level, unless you start a new world, which will be at or near capacity for a bit while folks race to the “top jobs”, but will eventually level off.

Posted by npb7768 on 2/15/2019 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 8:43:00 AM (view original):
“Overall point is.... because the game has a dumb setup regarding EEs, and because D3 recruiting is funky, the game design has forced me to decide D2 is the best game play for. And that's where I'll stay. I didn't think Slippery Rock is my ultimate goal when I first started. But i do now. Thanks to the game design. I'd love to play high D1..... so fix it. I'll join you all when that happens.”

Before, people didn’t want to play D1, because there was a system where the top 20 teams divided up all the good players, and there were 2 ways to break 8nto that group - wait for one of them to leave or forget to renew, or wake up at 3AM every morning of recruiting to perform the complicated dance of seeing if anyone else had stupidly challenged one of those top 20 teams for a recruit, so you could pile on to wreck that guys season. Of course, there was a 2B which was illegal (but not uncommon) which was to coordinate these attacks with others.

The only way to break this winner’s ball setup is to widen the window on recruiting. That involved 1) probability based decisions by recruits (so 50.1 gets a recruit roughly 52% of the time, rather than 100% of the time); and 2) making elite talent more volatile and harder to replace. These are, as you can imagine, not popular ideas among people who had entrenched themselves in those top 20 programs. But all this other talk about ideas that would have “solved” the problem - caps, recruit gen, just little tweaks like rollover cash removal, etc. - this is all revisionist history nonsense. This was all discussed in beta. Those ideas all end up being either dumb or insufficient, or both, once looked into and considered from a broad perspective.

So bottom line is, if you don’t want to deal with the headaches of elite talent being volatile, fine. Don’t recruit talent. Either find a way to be competitive without it (which can be done), or play lower levels. But don’t pretend you would *really* like to play a simulation of real life college basketball, because you clearly don’t.

Shoe is 100% correct.

And Topdogg, no need to avoid D1 based on avoiding the supposed-nightmare EE situation. You're a great coach and would do awesome in D-1.

He is a great coach, and he would be fine in D1; I’ve told him this publicly and privately. He’s entitled to his preferences, I just want to be clear about what those preferences are.

I will say, it’s a damn shame how much effect this toxic negativity has on folks who fall in with the wrong crowd.

Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 2/15/2019 9:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 8:43:00 AM (view original):
“Overall point is.... because the game has a dumb setup regarding EEs, and because D3 recruiting is funky, the game design has forced me to decide D2 is the best game play for. And that's where I'll stay. I didn't think Slippery Rock is my ultimate goal when I first started. But i do now. Thanks to the game design. I'd love to play high D1..... so fix it. I'll join you all when that happens.”

Before, people didn’t want to play D1, because there was a system where the top 20 teams divided up all the good players, and there were 2 ways to break 8nto that group - wait for one of them to leave or forget to renew, or wake up at 3AM every morning of recruiting to perform the complicated dance of seeing if anyone else had stupidly challenged one of those top 20 teams for a recruit, so you could pile on to wreck that guys season. Of course, there was a 2B which was illegal (but not uncommon) which was to coordinate these attacks with others.

The only way to break this winner’s ball setup is to widen the window on recruiting. That involved 1) probability based decisions by recruits (so 50.1 gets a recruit roughly 52% of the time, rather than 100% of the time); and 2) making elite talent more volatile and harder to replace. These are, as you can imagine, not popular ideas among people who had entrenched themselves in those top 20 programs. But all this other talk about ideas that would have “solved” the problem - caps, recruit gen, just little tweaks like rollover cash removal, etc. - this is all revisionist history nonsense. This was all discussed in beta. Those ideas all end up being either dumb or insufficient, or both, once looked into and considered from a broad perspective.

So bottom line is, if you don’t want to deal with the headaches of elite talent being volatile, fine. Don’t recruit talent. Either find a way to be competitive without it (which can be done), or play lower levels. But don’t pretend you would *really* like to play a simulation of real life college basketball, because you clearly don’t.

Shoe is 100% correct.

And Topdogg, no need to avoid D1 based on avoiding the supposed-nightmare EE situation. You're a great coach and would do awesome in D-1.

He is a great coach, and he would be fine in D1; I’ve told him this publicly and privately. He’s entitled to his preferences, I just want to be clear about what those preferences are.

I will say, it’s a damn shame how much effect this toxic negativity has on folks who fall in with the wrong crowd.

Thanks for the love.... I think? Haha

But I just think the idea behind what needs to be done at D1 doesn't fit me. Could I figure it out? Maybe. Probably. But it just seems weird to approach recruiting in a manner of not getting the best player available all the time. I just choose not to do so. I'm sure it would take me a while to get to EE level anyway. But that would be my goal. To keep climbing.

I also understand the grouping of top coaches hoarding all the talent. And that being a problem. But I'm on with that idea in general. But there is another problem created here..... Firings should happen more often. It would bring another element to the game. If they fixed that, it gives everyone a chance to get to their school of choice. But if you can't cut it, your out.

I think that would be a better way to make the playing field better. The top teams would keep that talent, the coaches would just change.

For now, I'll just camp at D2 and if things change with EEs or firings, i'd gladly reconsider. Who knows.... maybe I'll get bored at D2 after a while and just try D1 for the hell of it. Now is just not that time.

it's good to have a spicy thread every now and then. Bringing us all together, right!! (Rrrrrrrrrrrright).

On the other hand, what am I complaining about. I haven't paid for this game in years. Worlds are empty and most of the people that actually knew what they were doing have left.

IOW, his time is so valuable, he spends it doing something he doesn’t enjoy, and constantly trashes. #winning

“Firings should happen more often. It would bring another element to the game. If they fixed that, it gives everyone a chance to get to their school of choice. But if you can't cut it, your out.

I think that would be a better way to make the playing field better. The top teams would keep that talent, the coaches would just change.”

I’m not saying you’re wrong. Firing would be a way to address log jams of coaches, when they appear. But I think we should recognize that in the context of a discussion about trying to increase population, removing paying customers from a position they spent a lot of time and money to get in the first place is a good way to ensure that user never spends another dime on the product.

Personally, I would lean strongly against increasing firing at this point.

EEs suck they but they aren't a nightmare.

Posted by Benis on 2/15/2019 11:46:00 AM (view original):
On the other hand, what am I complaining about. I haven't paid for this game in years. Worlds are empty and most of the people that actually knew what they were doing have left.

lie

Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 8:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 2/15/2019 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rugburn on 2/14/2019 11:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/14/2019 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 2/14/2019 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/14/2019 12:39:00 AM (view original):
You know what makes me laugh? People who spend time and energy on a game they think is garbage. Also, people who think the game is “dying off” because D3 (which certainly never needed to exist in the first place) has declined, even though thousands of teams are human controlled.

You lost, poncho. Go away if you don’t like the game. Seriously. It’s ok. You’ll find something else.

Obviously you missed Benis' posts showing how the entire HD population has died off after the release of 3.0.

The way things are now you have to SUCK to NOT make a post season tournament. Read a case study on "New Coke" and maybe you will understand the difference between a successful company and WIS. (I am sure the millennials have no idea what I'm talking abut here). "New Coke" = 3.0

Another reminder of the hands-down stupidest topic on the forums. “Died off” is ridiculous and false. Thousands of teams are controlled by humans. It’s nowhere near dead. We don’t have to worry about it disappearing next week. It’s not like there’s this large staff of people who require salaries, or stockholders expecting dividends. It’s server costs, and whatever FTE HD takes of Seble’s salary. If they want or need to increase population, address the time and cost to play the level most people want to play. Easy. Done.

And as above, if you *need* a massive amount of people doing the same thing you’re doing in order to enjoy it, you can play FarmVille. Just don’t forget to log in every 5 minutes to harvest your carrots.

in summary:
-ignore the fact that 40% of the game's population has left since 3.0 began
-by level "most" people want to play, you mean the level that you want to play.
-massive amounts of people playing the game designed to produce revenue is apparently a bad business decision now.

Something you seem to not understand is if the lower levels are trash, you can not sustain the game long term, because new people don't stick around. As the older players leave, you need to replenish and we are currently not doing that as populations continuously keep decreasing.

This is 100% correct. It's so simple that if anyone reading these forums can't comprehend it then I feel sorry that you have to walk around this world being such a fuckin idiot.

Thanks for your assessment, Duke.

Anyone reading these forums thinking Benis is doing anything other than mouthpiecing for a group of sour grape sucking gamerz whales, who are still crying about losing their favorite toy 3 years ago can feel sorry about whatever they want. I’ll just keep chuckling at the Duke of Obfuscation still playing this game he hates, and trying to do his forum pied piper act to mount the counter revolution. Keep blowing that pipe, Benis.

Meanwhile you are mouthpiecing for...yourself.

Not everyone aspires to be a medicore DI coach by consistently recruiting mediocre talent in SIM filled worlds so that they can avoid dealing with EEs.

“Not everyone aspires to be a medicore DI coach by consistently recruiting mediocre talent in SIM filled worlds so that they can avoid dealing with EEs.”

Sure. Everyone has their own criteria for success. We all make choices. All the choices have consequences. For some folks, those consequences are just too complicated to deal with.

Not for everyone, though.

The game isn’t too complicated for you mully. You can do it. I have faith in you.