With all the hand-wringing over openings, what sort of change would convince you to add a team?

For me, it's a time issue.  In particular, running the minors.  I'm not comfortable with SIMMY managing my real prospects.  Too often a top draft pick will be sat down in favor of a 7th year pro stuck in AA.    If WifS were to add a "Always start this position player" and "Use in rotation" options that actually worked, I'd probably be more comfortable with SIMMY at the helm of my LoA team and have time to run another team or two.

If possible, I'll track the responses and categorize them.   For me, "More SIMAI management options" might work.  And, if it's just "Cheaper teams", that works too.  Probably not gonna happen but I'll list it.

More SIMAI management options-1
Player development/ADV uselessness-2
More flexible budgeting-2
Cost-4
"Help" cheatsheets for n00bs-1
Fewer cycles-1

I agree with both sentiments. In addition, I'd say- make growth a little less formula based. Have growth vary. Right now, it is boring to know where exactly a player will end up in 3 years. Make ADV worth something.

I know many debates have focused around what to do with budget money when you first join a world, if they can figure something out to be user friendly id prob pick up another team or 2.  I don't want to join a world and then be handcuffed for 2-3 seasons because of it.  If you get a team needing to rebuild its hard to jump right into INT/DRAFT with only 14m, if you grab an aging team you are just hoping that the 14 med/train doesn't bite you

Growth is too pedictable. I do not want 1st round busts and more DITR but some players could deveolp quickly and peak early and some could be late bloomers and grow more after seaon 3 or 4. 

  On DITR if kept they need to rework the formula so that it is not based on just overall rating.

Mike I would say for me it is mostly the money.  

Would I like to see better simmy, ways to make teams that were blown up competitive, better instructions and help, different coach system, different budgeting and revenue systems, sure but that is just something I think would make the game more interesting not really stopping me from playing more teams.

Nothing would convince me to add a team. But I'd encourage others to join if WIS was actively investing in the game. HBD will probably survive, with or without me, for at least a few more years. But I can't look friends in the face & tell them they should join as it all stands now.  I'm hooked, but I wouldn't wish it on them.

I've posted a lot of suggestions in that section. Don't think it does anyone any good to repeat them here.

I agree with the money aspect. Would be kind of neat not to be limited to certain amounts. I took on a old team this year and would have loved to be able to spend more then 14m on prospects.

Posted by b_rad052 on 10/16/2012 1:36:00 AM (view original):
I agree with the money aspect. Would be kind of neat not to be limited to certain amounts. I took on a old team this year and would have loved to be able to spend more then 14m on prospects.

I assume you meant scouting.    Prospect budget is not limited by the 4m +/-.

For me, it comes down to money. I am being forced to drop down to two teams because my families budget is very tight(I shouldn't carry any but I am a hooked). If I am willing to play with $50, that would still be the amount I would spend on the site. So if it was $50 for a season I would have one team. If it was $10 a season I would have 5 teams ect. I wouldn't even mind if the took away some bonuses to help cover the cost to lower the prices. We all seem to agree with getting ride of the fourth place finish bonus. Add in a few more adjustments to the rewards and you could find dropping the price to be very simple.

As far as the minors AI goes, I wish you could add a % to the amount of playing time you want each player to play. So you have a 26 year old roster filler on your AA team I could mark it at 15% and my All Star in the making I could put at 85%. Or get even more into detail. It would be basically one lazy afternoon of setting up the minors. It would be a bunch of work and fall into the "never going to happen." As would lowering the price per season.

Three is my self-imposed capacity.

The preseason activities, the draft, and the end-of-season activity and planning for the next season are the most time consuming parts of the game for me.  In season game management and minor league management is just a couple of minutes every game cycle.

My fear is that a fourth team would increase the risk of the more time-consuming parts of the game for me clashing across multiple worlds, and Murphy's Law dictates that it would happen at a time least convenient in real-life for me to handle.  I've pretty much avoided that with three teams.

Cost is secondary.  I could afford a fourth team if I wanted provided I open the credit card bill before my wife does and not have to deal with the "what's this charge" questions.

Don't think I have any suggestions for fixes or improvements to the game that would give me a reason to pick up an additional permanent team.

You're kind of all over the place there, ADDwrg. 

It seems like time is also your issue but you don't really know of an "improvement" that would help, right?

Correct.

There is a suggestion forum.   It sort of doubles as a complaint department.  Your post would have worked there.

My issue is also time, but I believe that if WIS made a spreadsheet similar to that of maddiesdad widely available, the time it takes to manage a team would be drastically reduced. So, my suggestion is just that: a player spreadsheet that is easy to find.