Instead of mergers, which are complicated and require HBD's assistance, I think commissioners should directly reach out to owners in the LEAST populated worlds and encourage them to abandon their team and take over a team in world that only has a few openings. Sell these owners that their team is dead and they need to move on. Hopefully this could snowball into completely abandoning the least populated worlds, effectively eliminating them by user choice rather than HBD choice.

Posted by rdierkers on 11/6/2018 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Instead of mergers, which are complicated and require HBD's assistance, I think commissioners should directly reach out to owners in the LEAST populated worlds and encourage them to abandon their team and take over a team in world that only has a few openings. Sell these owners that their team is dead and they need to move on. Hopefully this could snowball into completely abandoning the least populated worlds, effectively eliminating them by user choice rather than HBD choice.

This makes far too much sense.

People sit in those worlds forever because it doesn't cost them anything and they likely have a good pipeline (or multiple aliases) they worked hard to cultivate. Most of them already have teams in other worlds, so they aren't automatically likely candidates to take on another squad. Merging allows them to keep their teams intact.

That's why I say having stale worlds around doesn't matter much either way. That's cosmetic. What does matter is driving new users to the game -- something that Gleeman did well. Social media marketing and improving the look and feel of the game would contribute there.

Posted by damag on 11/6/2018 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rdierkers on 11/6/2018 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Instead of mergers, which are complicated and require HBD's assistance, I think commissioners should directly reach out to owners in the LEAST populated worlds and encourage them to abandon their team and take over a team in world that only has a few openings. Sell these owners that their team is dead and they need to move on. Hopefully this could snowball into completely abandoning the least populated worlds, effectively eliminating them by user choice rather than HBD choice.

This makes far too much sense.

I started a thread in the Classifieds titled "Unofficial Merger Suggestions" that outlines a number of such moves that could be made that would vacate the 6 least populated worlds and fill about 20 worlds with those owners. I'm not sure how much use/visibility it's been getting however.

Can I leave a league still in the waiting period without having to pay again?

Yes, as long as the world is not full and the button pressed.

Sorry of this has been mentioned already, but I'd like to see them move to more customizable world structures. In addition to being able to set a MWR right there in the "set up" area, you could allow the commish to toggle between:

32 team world (current style)
28 team world (four 7 team divisions in each world [2 division winners and 2 WC from each league])
24 team world (six 4 team divisions in each world [3 division winners and 1 WC from each league])
20 team world (four 5 team divisions in each world [2 division winners and 2 WC from each league])

I think anything under 20 isn't worth having.

If you select from one of the alternate structures you also lose 4 playoff spots and a full round of playoffs. This way WIS has less to payout for playoff teams, which may make it worth pursuing...)



Also would be kinda cool (though probably not as feasible) if teams could be free to move from world to world and weren't tied to their specific world. Commish could take an owner and his whole franchise, which would replace a current idle and available franchise.

Posted by Vitamin_C on 11/18/2018 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Sorry of this has been mentioned already, but I'd like to see them move to more customizable world structures. In addition to being able to set a MWR right there in the "set up" area, you could allow the commish to toggle between:

32 team world (current style)
28 team world (four 7 team divisions in each world [2 division winners and 2 WC from each league])
24 team world (six 4 team divisions in each world [3 division winners and 1 WC from each league])
20 team world (four 5 team divisions in each world [2 division winners and 2 WC from each league])

I think anything under 20 isn't worth having.

If you select from one of the alternate structures you also lose 4 playoff spots and a full round of playoffs. This way WIS has less to payout for playoff teams, which may make it worth pursuing...)



Also would be kinda cool (though probably not as feasible) if teams could be free to move from world to world and weren't tied to their specific world. Commish could take an owner and his whole franchise, which would replace a current idle and available franchise.

The idea of different world sizes is a cool one that I don't think has been proposed before, while I think your second idea of having teams move from world to world has been previously proposed and CS said that it is implausible based on the coding that would have to take place.

The biggest factor in non retention of new owners is the length of time required to build a team. If the draft pools were expanded to create 2 to 2.5 rounds of ML talent 20% increase in DNR and a expansion with INFA pool of 10% we would speed up the process which is too long mop. This would charge up the team building process. You would as a result have more FA which again would increase the interest in the game. These are real fixes that can be done with out a major over haul.

Wouldn't adding talent to the draft and IFA pools just raise the standard for what is considered a big leaguer?

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/24/2018 9:28:00 AM (view original):
Wouldn't adding talent to the draft and IFA pools just raise the standard for what is considered a big leaguer?

Exactly

Posted by Vitamin_C on 11/24/2018 9:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/24/2018 9:28:00 AM (view original):
Wouldn't adding talent to the draft and IFA pools just raise the standard for what is considered a big leaguer?

Exactly

Yup.

A reminder that each world is different. You can't - well, I probably should say exactly that - judge a player without considering his relative values only to the player pool in which he exists.

The two worlds in which I play have observably different player pools. One has far less, let's call it "Type A" pitching in it. This changes everything about the league - lower ratings get more demand get bigger contracts and more competition... lesser hitters put up better stats... more money is spent in free agency... actually drafting a very good SP is of more value... etc etc. It's all connected.

If all you do is jack up the player levels by an equal amount, yep you might have players you feel a little better about looking at their player cards, but it won't necessarily lead to more hits and or wins, and you might end up asking "why isn't this guy producing?"

I do agree with rmancil's thoughts that it takes a new player too long to reform a team, especially considering that they have no idea what they are looking at ratings wise when they first start playing. It usually takes a new HBD player at least a full real life year to turn a team around. I would imagine that this would be quite discouraging for most. I'm just not sure what the solution is.

When you increase the player talent pool it will
A) Speed up team building
B) Put more importance on role playing /lead off hitter,hitters club or pitching defense needs vs ball park
C) Increase F.A. pool allowing for faster team build when combing the draft / INFA/FA POOLS
D) Create more interest in all forms of team building with much faster results
E) What your doing now isn't working
F) Just like real life salary and team needs become much more important
G) Different worlds with different player ratings would stiff be different.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Posted by rmancil on 11/24/2018 10:36:00 AM (view original):
When you increase the player talent pool it will
A) Speed up team building
B) Put more importance on role playing /lead off hitter,hitters club or pitching defense needs vs ball park
C) Increase F.A. pool allowing for faster team build when combing the draft / INFA/FA POOLS
D) Create more interest in all forms of team building with much faster results
E) What your doing now isn't working
F) Just like real life salary and team needs become much more important
G) Different worlds with different player ratings would stiff be different.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

None of this will happen. It’ll be the same thing but instead of x player being all star quality, he’ll just be average, and instead of y being MVP quality, he’ll be just an all-star. It doesn’t speed up team building because everyone is better now, not just your players. Everything’s the same, just how we think players do will be worse than how they do.

Edit- the analogy that comes to mind, is if America wanted to solve poverty. So they were like, hey, why don’t we just print more cash. That causes deflation.