Posted by rednu on 1/18/2011 4:56:00 PM (view original):
I think the howling and screaming and gnashing of teeth that was heard when the engine was changed over would pale in comparison to the outrage you'd hear at worlds being contracted and might even rival the level of outrage that can be found any given day over in GD right now.

It isn't just the teams. It's also the friendships and rivalries that are created among people playing in the same conference that would be changed. I won't go so far as to say it would be the equivalent of dropping a nuke on the game, but from a cost/benefit standpoint I bet it would hack off a whole lot more folks than it would endear

yeah, i would put a heavy bet on closing 1 world causing enough folks to drop the game that WIS had to close down 2 more worlds :)

Posted by girt25 on 1/18/2011 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 1/18/2011 1:45:00 PM (view original):
"I don't think it could be done, based on the fact that people have worked hard and spent lots of money to get to their dream schools."

In real life actual franchises have been contracted, so if it can be done in real life it can be done in a pretend game especially if in the long run it makes the game more enjoyable. Alblack's idea is the way I would think it would be or should be done. Make every effort to give those who had their school taken away from them the same team and same players in another world. The biggest obstacle to this is the D1 schools, unlike D2 and D3 and even the lower levels of D1 where odds are in the 10 worlds every school is open in at least 1 there is no world where the likes of UCONN, Duke, UNC, UCLA, Kentucky etc., are open. So if you take Duke away from somebody it may take a whole lot to keep them around in the game, 20 free seasons might not even be enough.

No one is saying that it CAN'T be done. Of course it could. They're saying it would quite simply be a terrible idea that would serve to alienate a ton of loyal customers. This idea gets brought up from time to time and I can't sugarcout my response -- I think it's the single worst idea offered up in this forum.

I agree, but when it has been done in professional sports the affects were much larger and more people were affected. However I think the big difference is those things are done for monetary purposes and I can't imagine that operating an extra world in HD can ever be a money loser. Just because some coaches want fuller worlds doesn't mean it's in the best interest for WIS and that's the only time contraction will ever be considered.

I think that wooden is dead just my opinion i wouldnt mind if they elminated my world aso i could join another. and if they eliminated your world just join a conference with all your buddies again and start over and dont elminate the worlds with the most people but the least.

Posted by jayhawks2130 on 1/18/2011 7:18:00 PM (view original):
I think that wooden is dead just my opinion i wouldnt mind if they elminated my world aso i could join another. and if they eliminated your world just join a conference with all your buddies again and start over and dont elminate the worlds with the most people but the least.

But if the point of killing off worlds is to reduce the number of Sims, how is a group of 8-12 people going to find a conference with enough dead teams to be able to mass-migrate and stay together and start over in one of the fewer remaining worlds (the whole issue of some people perhaps being really ticked at being asked to "start over" in the first place notwithstanding...)? And if you're allowing owners to import their current team into new worlds and/or allow owners to grab the same team in a world where it is free, as some on here have suggested, there's no assurance that 8-12 people will all be reassigned to the same world because some of those teams may very well be taken in each post-collapse world. 

I'm sure someone else has suggested this, but what if instead of killing worlds, each world was contracted?  You could reduce D3 by 8-16 of the 32 conferences... and with a little programming you could move coaches and players from one program to another, at least allowing some continuity for existing coaches.  So if you decide, for example, that the Empire 8 is undersubscribed across all worlds, you could contract it, and then in Wooden you could move the players and coach  from the strong Vassar program in that world to a conference that is not contracted, to a program that was a sim previously.  So the Vassar owner's experience is that he wakes up one morning with the same players, only his school is now, say, Emory (and his conference mates are different).  I don't know what the need is for this at the D1-D2 level, might be none, might be just dropping 4-6 low-D1 conferences or so.

Lots of problems (moving players is probably not too hard, but moving prestige might be; hard to synchronize the contraction across worlds; conference relationships would be essentially impossible to keep in contracted conferences), but might yield a better game in the long run without too many people quitting.  Willing to be shot down on this; fire away.

Sometime in the last three years the demand was high enough for the worlds we have now.  So why not address the real problem- the drop off in players over the last couple of years, instead of eliminating worlds. 

No matter how you do it, some people are going to be very upset if you eliminate a world.  For reasons including but not limited to: Friendships, school choices, rivalries, staggering with other worlds, number of 2/day vs. 1/day worlds or just because it was a change.

When I first started WIS, you had to grab a team before 8 AM at signups, or you were too late.  That's where this needs to get again, or at least closer to solve the problems.  It's too bad FOX doesn't do more to drive people here, it's a great set of games for sports fans.