Demand will increase around the start of Spring Training.  It always does.  Whether it will go up on its own to actually fill 300 openings is very questionable.  

Killing one world may actually create no demand whatsoever.  I have 6 teams.  If one of my worlds was killed I wouldn't necessarily feel like I need to go grab another team and start from scratch.  I may just pocket the 2 free seasons and use them for my other 5 teams.  In fact that is probably what I would do unless I happened across another league I wanted to be involved in. 

Posted by gotigers17 on 2/1/2016 10:04:00 PM (view original):
Demand will increase around the start of Spring Training.  It always does.  Whether it will go up on its own to actually fill 300 openings is very questionable.  

Killing one world may actually create no demand whatsoever.  I have 6 teams.  If one of my worlds was killed I wouldn't necessarily feel like I need to go grab another team and start from scratch.  I may just pocket the 2 free seasons and use them for my other 5 teams.  In fact that is probably what I would do unless I happened across another league I wanted to be involved in. 

My point exactly. I'm in 7 worlds. That will soon be 4.

Killing worlds won't work.    Anyone wiling to just find a new world isn't sitting in a world for 3-4 months hoping WifS give them 2 credits so they can move to a different world.

FWIW, killing worlds to spread out those owners to healthier worlds is a misconception that's always brought up and is terribly wrong.   I have three long-term worlds.  Of the three, Mantle is the shortest term.  This is my 19th season there.  So let's say Mantle struggles to fill next season.   I still have Cooperstown(37) and Moonlight Graham(39).  I could sit idle for a long time without concern.   Not because I love my team(I do) but because it's a good world.  I know tecwrg isn't going to panic and let in 6 n00bs just to play.   He'll maintain the standard.   Kill that world and I still have Coop/MG.  I might look around but, if I don't see something that looks like something I'd stay in for 5 REAL-LIFE years, I'm not joining.   And I have less confidence in the product because ADMIN decided to nuke a world I'd been in for 5 REAL-LIFE years.

It's just a bad idea.

Is WIS even mulling the idea of allowing a limited number of SIM teams in a world? Or, is requiring 100-percent human-run teams a vital part of the game's structure? I ask only because it has become common practice in other WIS dynasty games.

Allow a world to roll with sim teams after sitting for 45 days.  This would incentivize worlds to continue to attempt to fill with human owners, but allow them to get playing in a relatively reasonable time frame in periods of slow demand.   Some think, however, that having SIM run a team would destroy it to the point that no human owner would take it.  

Historically speaking, SIM teams are always horrible.   I have no idea if owners who have been sitting for an extended period would rather play with them than sit but I know I would enjoy the game much less if I had a half a dozen sim teams running franchises.

From what I've seen a lot of owners just want to get playing with their teams.  Whether it be going public for one season to fill, or merging and losing all of their history, they're for it as long as they can get playing.  If the alternative is sitting for months or losing all history, I think a lot of worlds would roll with a few SIMs for one season than do that.  Of course, there would be some who wouldn't consider playing with SIMs, just as there are some that are strongly against going public or merging, the current options available now, but it is a fit for some worlds.  

Ensuring that SIM doesn't completely ruin a team for future human owners would be key.   And I don't think it should be immediately available, only a remedy for periods of slow demand, I think 45 days is a solid number.  

I guess the bottom line is that needs to be some options available.   Right now the options are sit or go thru the long, pain in the *** merge process.   And, when merge is mentioned, I've noticed a lot of owners are not down for it. 

I still think varying world sizes is the best option.   In fact, it would make the game "fresh" without really doing much.     I think it would be cool to play your 4 divisionmates 20-25 times in a 20 team league. 

The only potential problem I see with that is that once you go down to 20 teams, I can't envision there would ever be a way to increase it again, so the potential market for your world is narrowed to owners who want to play in 20 team worlds, possibly making it harder to fill.  No idea if there would be strong preference by owners to play in worlds of certain sizes though.  

Once you get down to 20 teams, you've had enough problems filling.   That would just be a new obstacle.    Which, at some point, owners have to say "You know what?  This isn't a viable world" and move on.   Whether they'd do that or not, I have no idea.