You misunderstood my list, but thats all right. Item 4 means "other teams, but not all of them, only top ones." I did not intend to repeat Gonzage, Duke or Kentucky. The fourth item was discrete of the first three, exactly as the first three were each discrete of the others.
Eg. 1) Yellow 2) Red 3) Brown 4) Other colors, but not all of them, only colors I like. The fourth item is discrete of the first three, and does not suggest whether or not I like the first three colors.
Now, if we're done srguing semantics ...

"My proposal doesn’t change how you have to play." I agree, and in no way did I suggest that it did. Don't introduce a straw man. But you made assumptions of why people play, and I showed that your assumption was too narrow, entirely omitting one or more categories of WIS users. If you read resentment into that, it is an example of projection.

Now, are we please going to talk about the topic in the OP, the job process?

Job advancement timing ... A season of D3 is $5.00 and about seven weeks. Five seasons at D2 come to $50 less awards, and 35 weeks. For people unaccustomed to working their way to the top of something, who want something NOW because they want it NOW, you are undoubtedly right that that is too expensive and too long. For anyone who understands starting at the bottom of a ladder and climbing the rungs one at a time (any ladder), it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Job process ... needs (1) firings of underperforming coaches, (2) much clearer communication of expectations and the advancement possibilities available, and (3) possibly a quicker path to higher divisions for highly successful coaches. Time in a job does not constitute success, though.

Am I the only one who thinks Spud sold his alternate ID to someone else? I actually agree with most of this!

Posted by mullycj on 12/2/2018 10:10:00 PM (view original):
Am I the only one who thinks Spud sold his alternate ID to someone else? I actually agree with most of this!

Or the actually intelligent person that lives inside his brain was finally given the wheel for an afternoon.

But back on topic to Job Process - I'm dropping my GT team in Tark but I was curious to see if I was even qualified for the same job.. and I wasn't. Granted I don't have a super impressive resume but I'd still think it'd be good for a decent job like GT.

Resume

Includes two E8 appearances at GT and a Title game appearance at Denver. Also had 3 players drafted at GT (about to be 4 with an EE). Maybe drafted players don't matter though but it does help your prestige so I dunno. The PIT appearances in the last 4 seasons are mostly likely what is holding me back for being qualified... at a job I was already at and coming off an E8! Whatever

Side note - there are people who are at A+ prestige jobs who have literally never even been past S16 in their career..

Posted by l80r20 on 12/2/2018 9:02:00 PM (view original):
You misunderstood my list, but thats all right. Item 4 means "other teams, but not all of them, only top ones." I did not intend to repeat Gonzage, Duke or Kentucky. The fourth item was discrete of the first three, exactly as the first three were each discrete of the others.
Eg. 1) Yellow 2) Red 3) Brown 4) Other colors, but not all of them, only colors I like. The fourth item is discrete of the first three, and does not suggest whether or not I like the first three colors.
Now, if we're done srguing semantics ...

"My proposal doesn’t change how you have to play." I agree, and in no way did I suggest that it did. Don't introduce a straw man. But you made assumptions of why people play, and I showed that your assumption was too narrow, entirely omitting one or more categories of WIS users. If you read resentment into that, it is an example of projection.

Now, are we please going to talk about the topic in the OP, the job process?

It isn’t semantics. You applied the same argument to all four “groups”, so making a distinction between them now is nonsense. I clarified the point for you, and you dodged it. There is a difference between B level prestige teams, and the “absolute top”. The jobs process can (and probably should) take this difference into account. My argument is that it should be much cheaper and faster to be able to get to the B level, where if you are not getting the “absolute top” teams, you can compete with them, if you’d like. If coaches could actually get to that level after 6 seasons, as you later propose, it would be *much* more attractive to new players who go looking for a college basketball game. Of course it’s much, much longer and more expensive than that currently, generally triple at least. For those experienced and motivated to cherry-pick the best spots and move around to get up as fast as possible, it can be closer to double time (and cheaper, because you’re racking up credits), but that’s an advanced technique, and not particularly fun, as it’s more like jumping through hoops than playing Hoops Dynasty.

And it isn’t a straw man or a projection (you may want to brush up on fallacies this morning) to note that you are the one advocating a narrow path and a narrow field of choices for users. This game is at its best when it operates as outcomes representing the sum of multiple user choices. It’s at its worst when dictating outcomes based on predetermined paths and expectations. If you want to slowly build your resume and move up one wrung at a time, you will always be able to do that. But you are advocating for a system that forces people to do it that way. If it’s because you don’t think someone has “earned it” after a year and 10 season’s worth of credits, there’s really no other word for it than resentment.

One other thing on firings - this is a place where it’s important to keep in mind this is a game people pay for, it isn’t real life. If the developers want to alienate customers, ramping up firing is a great way to do it. Not sure that’s a good path toward retention. The only reason to have firing operate in this kind of game is if demand is so high, there’s a logjam. That isn’t the game we have, and even if it was, there are better ways to address it.

Finally! One paragraph about the job process. Okay, you don't agree with firing, we can agree to disagree on that.

Please don't continue to try to put words in my mouth, though, as you argue semantics and so grossly misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) my posts. (Eg. in addition to your advocacy for a fast track for those who need it, I added the suggestion that there are also people who are patient enough to earn a top spot. That's broadening the options, not narrowing them). Now, back to the job process...

"The only reason to have firing operate in this kind of game is if demand is so high, there’s a logjam." [or to prevent a poorly performing coach from squatting on a top job] So do you advocate that they design the game for empty worlds by dropping firings, or for reasonably occupied worlds where squatters are not gifted with top jobs regardless of merit? I would advocate for designing for reasonably occupied worlds -- hence, my suggestion that they do some marketing By the way, pretty much every coach who is fired from one job seems to reappear on another job within a day or so. Somehow I doubt that it ever surprises them to be fired, and it certainly doesn't "alienate" them so badly that they don't find a new job promptly. On the other hand, I see complaints that a cherished job never comes available when a coach is allowed to squat there despite poor performance.

“Please don't continue to try to put words in my mouth, though, as you argue semantics and so grossly misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) my posts. (Eg. in addition to your advocacy for a fast track for those who need it, I added the suggestion that there are also people who are patient enough to earn a top spot. That's broadening the options, not narrowing them).”

In case you have forgotten, this is what you wrote, in response to my assertion that 2++ years and $200 is an absurd cost for getting to a B level D1 program (high mid-majors - like Gonzaga - and low to mediocre Big 6 programs): “But let WIS improve it for thoughtful people, not merely dumb it down to satisfy cravings for instant gratification. Let them materially improve the game, not trash lower divisions or give away top jobs regardless of the merit of a coaching resume.” I’m addressing the words you wrote. If you meant something other than what you wrote, it’s up to you to write more clearly.

”So do you advocate that they design the game for empty worlds by dropping firings, or for reasonably occupied worlds where squatters are not gifted with top jobs regardless of merit?”

I advocate for a jobs design that is attractive and inviting to new players, one that does not impose an enormous cost and wait time that feels like a bait-and-switch money grab. I advocate for a game that is fun to play whether in a full conference, or by oneself in an empty conference. I advocate for a game where D1 has multiple places from which one can compete, so if a Big 6 conference is full, one can move to a mid major conference and build a nationally competitive team. That may not answer your question, but that’s because your question is leading and ridiculous.

“By the way, pretty much every coach who is fired from one job seems to reappear on another job within a day or so. Somehow I doubt that it ever surprises them to be fired, and it certainly doesn't "alienate" them so badly that they don't find a new job promptly.”

Interesting theory, especially since I can count on one hand the number of D1 coaches I’ve heard of getting fired in my 5 real life years playing this game.

The most valuable customers, from a business perspective, are the ones who enjoy the game enough to pay full or near full price for it. Most guys move on rather than ante up season after season at full price in a conference where they are unable to make headway. They give up the positions voluntarily, which is a hell of a lot better than telling a customer s/he is not good enough at a game to pay for it. So for B level prestige teams - high mid majors and low to mediocre Big 6 programs - no, ramping up firings does not make sense in any context.