i'm not sure that would be a better solution (running a mix of 2.0 and 3.0 worlds). if seble were to propose it, i would have to argue against it strongly. seems to me the problems are too extensive to even get into properly, but here are a few:
- considering this approach over the long term, suppose we had split into pre-potential and post-potential worlds ~8 years ago. then, when the engine got rewritten 4 years ago, the point of the new engine was largely to allow seble to change the underlying language, to allow for future changes. so, does he have to them rewrite both lines? i know a lot of code is in common, but a lot changes during these major releases, too. the development, testing, and maintenance efforts are considerable - and that is just when hitting the first bump - it only gets worse over time.

- how do we diverge from there? when seble changed recruit generation and everything else he did that release, like make passing point guards matter, and added some teeth to severe fatigue to help balance the press (the latter being a pair of changes virtually everyone likes), does that only go in the new world? does the old world just sit around, no improvements ever again, just to give a place for old coaches to go and die? or does seble have to now have a no-potential world with the new updates, a no-potential world without the new updates, and two more world for potential, with and without the updates? seems like a mess. i think it would clearly be impossible to maintain that, so instead, when you carve off worlds, they have to go without a lot of well-received changes? that has a host of problems of its own.

- which worlds are picked? in a mmorpg, there might be pvp and non-pvp worlds, but folks picked that choices ahead of time. in a RTS or RPG like starcraft or diablo, where there are expansions, you do end up with a split, some people don't pay to upgrade, some do. but those are all self-selected, too. forcing the choice on everybody, to either upgrade or not, its going to leave a lot of unhappy people (damn, i wanted HD 3.0, but my 2 worlds didn't get upgraded - now i have to start all over just to get the updates i have been paying towards this whole time??). this isn't a game where people are able to easily switch worlds. if it was, the idea could work. i could see allowing world transfers, but that is a whole effort of its own, to create that kind of thing. there are numerous delicate balance issues, and should not be considered a trivial matter. without world transfers, half the people are still going to be unhappy, or maybe more accurately, all the owners are going to be unhappy about the fate of half of their teams? either way, sounds ****** to me.

i don't want to make this a mega-post, but that just is just the tip of the iceberg. it would be tough for staff and users both in the short term, and in the long term. if this game had a large base, it might be possible to pull off, but with this tiny base, i don't think it is. think about the forums, you'd basically have to split them to avoid mass confusion... list goes on!

This discussion has been running for a while. It predates the savage rage regarding the update. I mainly want this discussion to get down to brass tacks. Let's kill a one a day! That would make spacing out 9 worlds much easier. It should already have been planned really. Vote!

On the other hand, no world has actually recruited in 3.0, and won't for almost 2 more weeks. So, the conclusory statements being made on the forums are based on no legitimate data. Much of the Beta was, you know, accelerated, random, and subject to in-season revision.

I'm still concerned whether I will find the AP-unlock system playable, but I don't think scouting is going to be more time consuming (after the initial learning curve). The problem remains how to switch targets efficiently, rather than how to find them initially.

No worlds should be eliminated! Players PAID to participate and should be shown the respect of keeping what they have built and accomplished. The state of HD no matter what school of thought one subscribes to (good or bad) is the result of developer's decisions and the customers should not be penalized. Some may say they already have been. I am staying far away from that argument. As much as I would like to see both versions of the HD in the future I agree it is not practical. Empty worlds has been a long standing problem, so I have been told. Maybe consider lowering the price per season? After all 300 players at 9.95 is better than 200 at 12.95.

Why condense two worlds into one? If you are going to kill off one world, instead of saying all coaches from World A now belong to World B, why not say that the World A coaches can choose which world they want to transfer into. Keep the resume the same so no one loses what they have worked so hard for, not to mention the money they put in.

Also, you would have to announce this prior to the start of World A's last season. Coaches that have built up a rivalry or friendship with other coaches may want to look for a world together. After World A shuts down, the other worlds would have to wait a day after job openings are posted before hirings begin so coaches in the new world can take more time to get to know the open positions and what coaches are in what conference. Also,preference for the open jobs should go to coaches that were at that other school in their World. If more than one coach claims a school, either overall resume or time at that particular school wins out.

You can't just merge two worlds. Remember when the rule came down that one coach couldn't have multiple teams within 1,000 miles of each other? If you throw a coach into a new world, and in World A he was at UCLA but here in World B he is already at USC, he can't take both jobs.

Radical suggestion? Get rid of D III. D II is great for coaches that want to build a program up without worrying about baseline privilege, and D I is the ultimate test of starting at the bottom and working your way up to a Big 6 school. D III always seemed like it was an easy place to build a dynasty for the coaches that made a career there, so when new coaches came in, they were discouraged easily. I know because two people that I referred to this game quit cause D III was so boring. I know this will ruffle the feathers of some people, but isn't that what has been going on for a year one way or the other anyways in many different ways?

How many seasons did your friends play? Why exactly did they think it was boring?

Not many, one guy stuck around for three seasons, I doubt the other guy stayed after I bought him a second season. Honestly, I think an issue was that I showed them how to play when I was recruiting with Utah, and recruiting at DI is so much different than DIII. These were people that played the NFL game with me and I got them to come for the $5 first season. The strategy involved in the NCAA game is much more intense than the NFL game, and with 11 Super Bowls wins (in 11 tries) I can say that without a doubt.

Sorry I don't have a better answer for you, and I don't work at that casino anymore so I don't really talk to them at all.

I've gotten about 10 friends to play and only 4 are left. They all left because they 'couldn't get in to it' or they thought it was boring during the season since there isn't much to do other than game plan. And since you don't really know what's going on yet, kind of hard to get into gameplanning.

But I don't really think this problem of being 'bored' is created by D3 being dominated by dynasties. New coaches will take awhile to get acclimated to the game eventually and can then compete at D3 but it's already pretty empty that they should be able to do decent right from the start. If you moved all the D3 coaches to D2 then you'd have over 200 D2 coaches for a new player to compete with. They'll probably take even longer to be successful.

I am down to three teams, I truly think a world or two need to be gone. How you do it is another story.

I just don't see it happening. You close a world and how many of those coaches are going to move those teams over to a new world? Even if given a free season. How many of those coaches are going to say "you know what, this is stupid, you just made me lose a team I worked really hard to build up and have built up a great conference with friends, I'm going to take my other teams and leave too".

WIS would just be losing more coaches which means losing more money. Maybe they'll do it eventually if it gets really, really bad but even with 200+ coaches in a world, it's still making money.

Many coaches become VERY attached to the world(s) they participate in. I am very attached to Phelan since I have been in it since season two. all of my 96 seasons have been in D3. I do not want to see my accomplishments in that world erased on a whim. I have tried other worlds but I stayed in Phelan. The suggestion to eliminate a world or two has been around for years. It has not happened yet and you will notice no new worlds since 2008.

At one point I had confidence in the development team, that confidence is waning. Not a criticism just an honest expression of sentiment on my part. I do not think HD has fully recovered from a number of changes over the years. Implementation in my estimation has always been an issue. I have no way to predict what will happen in the future. Experienced coaches leave and only time will tell if they are replaced with like quality.

I went off on a bit of a tangent.

I vote no to shutting down ANY world. HD would lose more coaches than it gains. Such a move could be a fatal one for the game.

My opinion only.

No matter what I hope coaches continue to enjoy the game.