Posted by Fregoe on 3/8/2022 4:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/8/2022 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by StillWaters on 3/8/2022 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/7/2022 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by StillWaters on 3/7/2022 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Close two ... open one for the displaced coaches ONLY. Strict enforcement of one team per world.

If that works, after five seasons or so do it again, plus open the first new world to everyone, with improved hiring/firing.

Simply making ghost towns more ghostly with a new world makes no sense at all. At least this way competition would be improved overall.

I have never been a fan of closing worlds. It will only **** people off and likely cause them to drop teams.

Of course it might, I don't disagree. And if you only read the first two words of my post, your answer was adequate. But I suspect that for a shot at a semi-private (limited access) new world, a lot of that complaint would go away. I actually have concern that it would turn out to be unfair for the other users, the ones who don't get in on the ground floor.

And besides, I'm looking at it from the point of view of what could be good for the game, not the selfish interests of a privileged few users. And making more ghost towns is clearly not in the best interests of the game.

I have no doubt that you want what is best for the game. That's where I'm coming from too. I just don't think this idea would improve HD in the long run.

You mention that you don't want more ghost towns but isn't that what would happen if you closed down a world and only allowed those users to join a new world. You're going to have fewer users in this exclusive world which would be very ghost town like, no?

I just can't imagine too many people who have spent real life years to reach their "dream job" being totally cool with having their team pulled from them and told that they "get" to start over. And even if they didn't choose my world to do this to, what's to say they won't do it to me next time. So it's just going to upset and discourage everyone.

The most likely end result of this experiment is lower user populations and even lower confidence in HD long term. Why continue to invest money on a team when it could be shut down on a whim by the developer?

I am totally against shutting down worlds. But to be fair he said shut down 2 and fill the new one with the user from both. Which would reduce ghost towns.

I am team new world though. No one would be forced to join. And if they used the influx of $ this world would generate to market the product maybe it would benefit all worlds.

Yeah close 2 and open 1, close 3 open 1.., whatever combo you want still results in the same thing IMO.

Posted by Benis on 3/8/2022 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Fregoe on 3/8/2022 4:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/8/2022 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by StillWaters on 3/8/2022 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/7/2022 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by StillWaters on 3/7/2022 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Close two ... open one for the displaced coaches ONLY. Strict enforcement of one team per world.

If that works, after five seasons or so do it again, plus open the first new world to everyone, with improved hiring/firing.

Simply making ghost towns more ghostly with a new world makes no sense at all. At least this way competition would be improved overall.

I have never been a fan of closing worlds. It will only **** people off and likely cause them to drop teams.

Of course it might, I don't disagree. And if you only read the first two words of my post, your answer was adequate. But I suspect that for a shot at a semi-private (limited access) new world, a lot of that complaint would go away. I actually have concern that it would turn out to be unfair for the other users, the ones who don't get in on the ground floor.

And besides, I'm looking at it from the point of view of what could be good for the game, not the selfish interests of a privileged few users. And making more ghost towns is clearly not in the best interests of the game.

I have no doubt that you want what is best for the game. That's where I'm coming from too. I just don't think this idea would improve HD in the long run.

You mention that you don't want more ghost towns but isn't that what would happen if you closed down a world and only allowed those users to join a new world. You're going to have fewer users in this exclusive world which would be very ghost town like, no?

I just can't imagine too many people who have spent real life years to reach their "dream job" being totally cool with having their team pulled from them and told that they "get" to start over. And even if they didn't choose my world to do this to, what's to say they won't do it to me next time. So it's just going to upset and discourage everyone.

The most likely end result of this experiment is lower user populations and even lower confidence in HD long term. Why continue to invest money on a team when it could be shut down on a whim by the developer?

I am totally against shutting down worlds. But to be fair he said shut down 2 and fill the new one with the user from both. Which would reduce ghost towns.

I am team new world though. No one would be forced to join. And if they used the influx of $ this world would generate to market the product maybe it would benefit all worlds.

Yeah close 2 and open 1, close 3 open 1.., whatever combo you want still results in the same thing IMO.

Yes, fewer ghost towns, which everyone seems to agree would benefit the game. I have yet to see any suggestion, even from those who advocate for opening new worlds and ghost towns, that more ghost towns would somehow be a benefit.

Let me preface before taking my own shot at this issue that I do not have, or could find, population data to back this up. These assumptions are simply based on my own experiences.

The question over whether or not to open a new world (or close/combine) focuses more on potential revenue than anything else. Potential revenue coming from existing coaches acquiring another team, relapsed coaches becoming active again, or new coaches getting their first team. These three avenues should be considered for any combination of opening or closing worlds. In my experience it seems that most coaches have teams in more than one world. That being said:

Open a new world
Existing Coaches - As pointed out by others many coaches will want to get into a new world for the chase to the top. Also pointed out by others, after that chase is over this is as unique as any other world out there.
Relapsed Coaches – I could see the possibility of marketing to them the same chase that would attract your multiple world coaches would attract back more than a few relapsed coaches. They clearly have a higher probability of relapsing after the chase is over.
New Coaches – Without a marketing effort to tell people unfamiliar with HD few brand new coaches will be acquired simply due to a new world being open. Past that there is a decent chance in my mind that with the initial few seasons having increased competition at DIII and DII from the influx of seasoned coaches from other worlds could backfire and drive off new coaches who find the learning curve too steep with the competition level.
Closing/Combining worlds
Existing Coaches – If my assumption of most (50%+) of coaches having multiple teams then there is a decent chance that in closing two worlds to form one new one that a small but engaged group of coaches will have teams in both worlds that now will only have one. This cuts down on revenue for this world vs two worlds. Additionally there is a small percentage of coaches who have been at one school for 50+ seasons who won’t want to start over at the same or different school having lost that history and nostalgia. And just like with opening a new world there will be the coaches who grab a team in this world just to be in the chase.
Relapsed Coaches – Little to no effect for relapsed coaches compared to a new world. Some will still become active again for the chase.
New Coaches – Little to no effect for new coaches compared to a new world.

Ghost Towns
I may be in the minority here but I do not think ghost towns are truly bad for the health of the game at the DI level. Part of what I enjoy of the current state of HD is that I can adjust my team/conference to the amount of time I have in my life to devote to HD. When I was in college I had multiple teams in 2x worlds with full conferences and loved that there was almost always recruiting going on. Then when I joined the work force I went down to one world in an empty conference. This allowed me to keep a high level of success with a fraction of the time that a single world in a full conference currently takes me. I think this is a great asset to the game as it stands that I am able to make HD work for my schedule instead of the other way around.
Odds of any Changes
Without knowing the fixed cost associated with opening and running a new world it is hard for anyone to say one way or another. Is the minimum average number of players to make a world breakeven 200? 300? How many coaches have already saturated their personal team limit? How much additional workload does a new world add to the staff? With all these questions I personally would rather see time, energy, and money go towards getting new coaches brought into the site as opposed to just offering a new world. Each new coach has the potential to get teams in multiple worlds where a new world only offers (primarily) existing coaches another opportunity at a team.

Nice write up ^^^^^