Posted by mcott323 on 1/19/2023 3:31:00 PM (view original):
I’d be in for a new world at any of 1x 2x or 4x. Wasn’t around for the formation of any of the current worlds and think it would attract a solid and engaged userbase right away. What’s the downside?

Attrition from existing worlds is the only real concern, but it's a big one. I assume most folks are pretty maxed at what they can handle, either from an attention standpoint or a funds standpoint (or both); so if they participate in a new world, many, if not most, will end up dropping participation in another world. That's the concern, anyway.

Now if it's a new world that has something new and special about it, other than just being a new pile to be on top of, there's another aspect to consider; especially if it's an aspect that can be transferred to other worlds if it proves popular. And maybe that's something that can attract new users as well, in the long run.

"What’s the downside?" As shoe3 points out, the new worlds would be parasites off the old worlds ("attrition," that's very polite). So, since they would be parasitized anyway, why not just close ALL the old worlds at the end of the current season, and open multiple new worlds? It might even be an opportunity for programming some long needed repairs/patches into the game code and make the game better.

The only downside I see really is basically the amount of
time it would take the developers to start this world. And
maybe that's only two seconds. I don't know. But I don't think
there's a terrible downside to it. but my problem with it is where is the upside? I think we're overstating how great this would be. In most worlds, there’s lots of top jobs opening up periodically. So it’s not as if HD is at a stand still and coaches can’t move up any further. I do agree that in most cases, the same coaches that lead the way now would also lead the way in the new world.

‘Super conferences’…. We have some good ones at every level right now. But if we’re honest with ourselves, how do they usually play out? You get a bunch of coaches together for some fun, and it lasts what 20 seasons at MOST? Then some of the teams/coaches start to drift away. There may be a random few that hang around for longer. But by nature we have short attention spans until we’re on to a different challenge. Is that a good enough reason for a new world? I don’t believe so. It seems like a lot of work for not much gain.

Sorry if this looks choppy, the forums always freeze up on me mid message. It looks like it’s written a little wonky on my screen

Posted by R0pey on 1/19/2023 5:06:00 AM (view original):

No it's not trolling it just literally is the dumbest thing generally poor coaches ask for.

You know what would drum up attention?

Fixing the game that caused so many people to leave and isn't designed to attract and keep new coaches that stumble upon the site.

A business model designed around bringing back customers that left because your product is worse is a terrible business model.

New worlds are nothing but a short term band aid that does nothing to actually fix why coaches left and why new coaches dont stick around. Most of the time peopl clamoring for new worlds are the coaches who think the only reason they aren't coaching A+ Kansas is because that coac has been there for 5 years and they'd totally beat them there. Newsflash if these coaches who already went through the journey to get to these jobs and hold them even bother they'd wipe the floor and get to the jobs. And if it wasn't worth it to them it's just 2 mediocre worlds of mostly mediocre coaches trying to fight for schools they aren't good enough to get in the current worlds.

Ive yet to see someone list an actual benefit that is "it would be a fun race to the top"

"Fixing the game that caused so many people to leave and isn't designed to attract and keep new coaches that stumble upon the site."

That seems like an awful lot of work!

Posted by CoachSpud on 1/19/2023 6:21:00 PM (view original):
"What’s the downside?" As shoe3 points out, the new worlds would be parasites off the old worlds ("attrition," that's very polite). So, since they would be parasitized anyway, why not just close ALL the old worlds at the end of the current season, and open multiple new worlds? It might even be an opportunity for programming some long needed repairs/patches into the game code and make the game better.

Closing all the worlds and then opening new ones to replace them is honestly the dumbest thing you could possibly do. It's not even worth the time to point out all the reasons why this would be disastrous because they're so obvious.

I actually like the idea of a new world.. However! I do agree that there bigger priorities. Like how about we fix this issue of using phone for the forums. It bugs out on me constantly and I always need to close the page and re-visit the WIS. Very annoying and tedious.

i agree the new world would leech from the old ones. i think d1 is full enough across the 10 worlds though, that you could spin that as a feature instead of a bug. folks seem to be pretty ok with wasteland d2/d3s, but WIS does lose money from having additional credits to give out for the new world.

i think the biggest obstacle to a new world is that probably the folks running the show today have no idea how to spin one up. WIS hasn't started a world in ages and a ton of things have changed, and likely whatever code seeds the new world would need maintenance and stuff to even be usable. i mean, im guessing it mostly works, but its unlikely 12 years later, it just all works cleanly. not sure it is worth it for them to get into all that.

new worlds are pretty cool. but when a couple opened when i was only here a couple years, i didn't even join them back then. i doubt i would join a new world if it was created today. like 1%. but it did create a bunch of excitement in the community for a while? i think a lot of folks would enjoy it.

I do like the idea of a cycle world. Start a world, and it will reset after a human owned team wins the D1 title say 3 times. That would be a reset every 7-10 seasons, then everyone starts at d3 again. Rinse. Wash. Repeat. I know it will never happen but I would definitely spend money on that world.

Posted by texrangers25 on 1/20/2023 3:42:00 PM (view original):
I do like the idea of a cycle world. Start a world, and it will reset after a human owned team wins the D1 title say 3 times. That would be a reset every 7-10 seasons, then everyone starts at d3 again. Rinse. Wash. Repeat. I know it will never happen but I would definitely spend money on that world.

i have liked a similar idea for a long time but the arbitrary timeline associated here i think would be a problem because a lot of folks would be really excited for the next season and not see this coming. i would love to see the next new world have a built-in expiration maybe 40 or as high as 50-60 seasons and then basically its records and titles get archived for viewing somewhere and the world rolls clean. that way there is built-in new world every so often, and its long enough to let folks build d1 dynasties, but then it cuts off before things get too stale. it would be kinda questionable, those last few seasons. but IMO, while some folks would start dropping off ~10 seasons from world roll, enough folks would be invested enough in their programs that they'd carry on up to or very close to the cutoff, trying to get a title in the books before the song ends or whatnot.

seems to me most coaches in this game, most of their programs they are moving around often to change things up. the folks with 100 seasons at a program are the exception not the rule. i kinda used to worry more about what happens when the world ends after 40 seasons or so but i feel like it would be totally fine. its not necessarily a bad thing to have folks hungry for more when things roll over. the problem with ending existing worlds is nobody expects it will ever happen and will be bitter, feel cheated almost, if they lose those programs. but when its baked in from day 1 i think it would be much less resentment.

Posted by gillispie on 1/20/2023 11:36:00 AM (view original):
i agree the new world would leech from the old ones. i think d1 is full enough across the 10 worlds though, that you could spin that as a feature instead of a bug. folks seem to be pretty ok with wasteland d2/d3s, but WIS does lose money from having additional credits to give out for the new world.

i think the biggest obstacle to a new world is that probably the folks running the show today have no idea how to spin one up. WIS hasn't started a world in ages and a ton of things have changed, and likely whatever code seeds the new world would need maintenance and stuff to even be usable. i mean, im guessing it mostly works, but its unlikely 12 years later, it just all works cleanly. not sure it is worth it for them to get into all that.

new worlds are pretty cool. but when a couple opened when i was only here a couple years, i didn't even join them back then. i doubt i would join a new world if it was created today. like 1%. but it did create a bunch of excitement in the community for a while? i think a lot of folks would enjoy it.

A D1 only world with firings turned up, where you start at D+ or lower prestige, and there’s a 60 year career limit, at which point you start over. I think that’s different enough to attract coaches without sucking away (too much) from existing worlds.

If all the D+ and lower teams are taken right away, maybe open up a new one a week later. Or wait for rollover, if it’s a 2-day, shouldn’t be too long before a few dozen+ teams are open.

If they can do it, I’d be all for something like this. But like gil says, not something I imagine they can just snap their fingers and create. And just starting another vanilla world just isn’t going to be a net positive in the long run, unless it comes with a major update/upgrade.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/20/2023 3:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 1/20/2023 11:36:00 AM (view original):
i agree the new world would leech from the old ones. i think d1 is full enough across the 10 worlds though, that you could spin that as a feature instead of a bug. folks seem to be pretty ok with wasteland d2/d3s, but WIS does lose money from having additional credits to give out for the new world.

i think the biggest obstacle to a new world is that probably the folks running the show today have no idea how to spin one up. WIS hasn't started a world in ages and a ton of things have changed, and likely whatever code seeds the new world would need maintenance and stuff to even be usable. i mean, im guessing it mostly works, but its unlikely 12 years later, it just all works cleanly. not sure it is worth it for them to get into all that.

new worlds are pretty cool. but when a couple opened when i was only here a couple years, i didn't even join them back then. i doubt i would join a new world if it was created today. like 1%. but it did create a bunch of excitement in the community for a while? i think a lot of folks would enjoy it.

A D1 only world with firings turned up, where you start at D+ or lower prestige, and there’s a 60 year career limit, at which point you start over. I think that’s different enough to attract coaches without sucking away (too much) from existing worlds.

If all the D+ and lower teams are taken right away, maybe open up a new one a week later. Or wait for rollover, if it’s a 2-day, shouldn’t be too long before a few dozen+ teams are open.

If they can do it, I’d be all for something like this. But like gil says, not something I imagine they can just snap their fingers and create. And just starting another vanilla world just isn’t going to be a net positive in the long run, unless it comes with a major update/upgrade.

I absolutely like a career mode type world and a limit (like 60 years). And forcing a restart after. That and firings.