Oh well, back to my cave to do my grumpy old man things. Take care all, nice talking to you again.

Posted by emy1013 on 12/3/2017 1:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/2/2017 11:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 12/2/2017 11:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/2/2017 11:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 12/2/2017 11:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't know how much one commercial costs to put on during the NCAA tournament. I'm sure it's not cheap. But 1 single commercial for 30 seconds could catch some eyes

That’s the perennial suggestion, and it’s not a bad one, in theory. But it’d be a whole lot more attractive to Joe Nacho watching the Sweet 16 If, when he saw the spot and plunked out the address on his browser, he didn’t have to start at D3 Podunk U. He wants to coach Syracuse, and if he can’t coach Cuse, maybe he’ll settle for coaching against them at Rutgers, or hell at Niagra. But say he takes the leap and signs up for a season at Podunk U and then realizes that he won’t even be able to coach Niagra for a handful of seasons, and a ~$75+ investment.

So we’re full circle back to the OP. Getting Joe Nacho, who should be a potential customer because he’s somewhat interested in dynasty games and loves college basketball, getting him to give it a try and to stick around is why we’re talking about the benefits of ditching the forced stratification model, that may milk the hardcore nerds out of more money, but almost certainly turns away far more potential users.

Ahh, the Instant Gratification Generation. Big part of what's wrong with **** nowadays. I gotta have it and I gotta have it now.

That’s a bit of a cop out. I doubt 40-somethings are any more likely to want to spend a year and $75+ dollars to play the game that they intended to purchase than 20-somethings. Hell, why stop at 3 levels then? Why not make people start out coaching high school, or AAU, or church-league pick-up games. More levels, more users, more profit, right?

It isn’t about instant gratification. It’s a consumer choosing how to spend his or her entertainment dollars. You can blame millennials if you want, but you won’t get any closer to filling worlds.

Now that's where you're wrong. What's being argued and bandied about IS instant gratification. Wanting to start at the top level immediately without "putting in the time" to learn the game. Do you honestly think that those coaches have any chance whatsoever against the entrenched coaches? No. And despite Mike's attempt at showing how those coaches would never cross paths, he's wrong because I run into coaches in recruiting ALL the time who are recruiting far below the level they should.

Like I said, I could give a **** less where WiS lets coaches start. But to try to sit there and say that it's NOT about "instant gratification" (or whatever term or phrase or bullshit semantics you want to use) is simply disingenuous. The game was (and currently is) designed for coaches to start at the bottom and work their way up. You're proposing to throw away those initial steps and start at the top rung. Now how again is that not "instant"?

And of course the worlds would never fill 100%. That's because as soon as it got difficult, lots of coaches would bail because they can't stand it if they aren't winning easy. But there was a very long time when worlds were north of (or right at) 2/3's in human coaches. The current population is a joke. I would also argue that 40-somethings WOULD be more likely to stay than 20-somethings because for one, they tend to be in a more stable position in life, financially, and tend to have more time for things like HD. But that's a debate for another time. Hell, I started as a mid 30's-something and I'm still here over a decade later. Why? Because I like the game. And because the cost of a team is a very minor inconvenience to me whereas a college student or someone just beginning a career probably has less funds to put toward those teams. And because I have patience and LIKE the idea of having to start at the bottom and work my way up. Guess that puts this old man in the minority thinking these days....

So much to address, in this post and others, but little desire to do so.

You say "coaches need to learn the game". Pretty much the only thing we agree on. But exactly how they do that is the question. You have users agreeing with you then saying D1 is so different. If that's the case, spending a real-life year in D2/D3 is pointless(and a deterrent to filling worlds). Yet the same people are fighting the idea of allowing people to start at some crap D1 school. You simply can't have it both ways.

As for running across users you shouldn't because they're recruiting too high/low, that's simply part of the learning process. That puts us back at the first point. If they're recruiting too high, they'll figure it out because they're not getting recruits. If they're recruiting too low, they'll figure it out because they're not getting the wins. How does playing D2/D3 teach anyone that The Citadel can't recruit top 10 players?

Finally, the discussion is "Should the game design be changed?" It made sense to "work your way up" when every level had 200 users. That is not the case now and it hasn't been for quite awhile.

Posted by npb7768 on 11/30/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):
Long thread this week titled "Fork This...", which had i think a good idea tucked in somewhere around Page 7...

Just my opinion, but I agree with the proposed idea that users should be allowed the option of starting their HD careers in Division-1. (Don't eliminate D2 and D3, just allow the starting-at-D-1 option).

Available teams would be low level teams in low level conferences, where the base prestige is D.

The long slog up the HD ladder typically takes a full earth year or so. With world populations struggling, it would be an easier sell for new users.

Let new users get hammered if it comes to that. Can't be any worse than the sucky Sims.

Anyway, this is a thread to discuss the pros and cons.

No for any existing world. If WIS starts a new world and wants to implement that, why not?

To expound upon my previous post, because I simply cannot STFU, I think this site has 5000 users. They obviously like games like HD. Why aren't they playing?

My experience:
FREEHD brought me back after a 10 year absence. I joined an empty conference with 10 HBD users. Had it NOT been for joining with my internet buds, I don't play a 2nd season. I damn sure don't buy it. Why? We've already established I play games like HD. I played a season with a terrible team of players I didn't recruit at a school I'd never heard of with a vague, 10 year old understanding of the game(admittedly it might have been better if I knew nothing because I knew my team would stink). How is that fun?

Since I don't think we're going to see a drastic recruiting change(like recruiting before the season starts to fill your roster), what is the fix? I don't know if allowing users to start at Western Carolina is the answer but I don't think it hurts. WC could make the NT and earn the right to get destroyed by UNC. West Conn St cannot. Would that help? I don't think it would hurt.

To me, that's a start in getting the CURRENT WifS users to play HD.

Right now winning at D3 for new users is easy. Every D1 player they get is better than the players the Sims have on their teams.

IMO a good way to keep users is exactly what you talked about: Making connections to other players. Why not assign an active mentor to check in and talk with every new user?

When the new user starts a site mail is sent to the new user of a mentor to talk with in their world. One is also sent to the mentor with the new player's name and team. The mentor can check in on them and explain things as needed.

While, as a stand alone idea, I think that's a good one, I'd also be pretty concerned with the mentors. I've seen way too much "This is how you do it" comments. I said this after my first question but, if there's only one way, this is a terrible game. Mentors have to know that there is more than one way to win.

To clarify the "millions" comment- I'm not saying we can have millions of people playing this game all at once, necessarily. I'm saying that the demographic that this type of game appeals to is at least a couple million. (men between the ages of 20 and 60, sports fans, computer/video game fans, etc).

I've gotten at least a dozen friends to sign up and play HD over the past couple years. Some played just a few seasons while others played 10+ seasons. Some are still playing today. Everyone that I asked to play thought the game concept was awesome but they had never heard of anything really like it before (besides your Franchise mode in NCAA or Madden).

Point being - this game could easily have 10,000 people playing if it was priced correctly, properly marketed and was fun/engaging. That's a VERY low and conservative number.

Well, yeah. If it's cheap, marketed to the masses and, most importantly, FUN.

I think it's cheap. I don't think it's marketed very well. And, as it's set up, the FIRST season is NOT fun. If the hook isn't set, marketing doesn't matter. It just creates a revolving door.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/3/2017 12:51:00 PM (view original):
While, as a stand alone idea, I think that's a good one, I'd also be pretty concerned with the mentors. I've seen way too much "This is how you do it" comments. I said this after my first question but, if there's only one way, this is a terrible game. Mentors have to know that there is more than one way to win.

We use to have that in D3, not anymore. It's wait and win the d1 jackpot now or change location if needed.

That is sort of my point. You hate D3 recruiting. And that's fine. But I don't want you offering a D3 coach advice even though you understand the game well enough. Anyway, that aside, here are some "opinions" that don't seem right:

1. Zone - I received HORRIBLE advice on my zone team from a successful user who never played zone. Actually more than one user. Some didn't know 2-3 really functioned as 2-2-1. Very successful users might be totally clueless in some aspects of the game.
2. Location - There are many widely-varied opinions on how important this is. I'm not sure who is right but I don't think it matters nearly as much as you do.
3. Key ratings - Again, widely-varied opinions. Personally, I think O/D sets matter as to which ones are more important while others preach ATH/SPD/DEF. And they may be right to some extent. I know a 23/45/31 PG is going to be horrible at any level but I don't think you need 68/89/75 PG either in zone at D3 or M2M in D2.

I know more about HBD, and have some pretty specific opinions, but I always say "There is more than one way. Ask some others as well in order form your own opinion and build your team your way."

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 12/3/2017 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Right now winning at D3 for new users is easy. Every D1 player they get is better than the players the Sims have on their teams.

IMO a good way to keep users is exactly what you talked about: Making connections to other players. Why not assign an active mentor to check in and talk with every new user?

When the new user starts a site mail is sent to the new user of a mentor to talk with in their world. One is also sent to the mentor with the new player's name and team. The mentor can check in on them and explain things as needed.

Or, make sure the Guides at the top of the forums are accurate and up-to-date and a site mail calling attention to them. That way new users are getting consistent info and can still seek a mentor if they choose to.

Glad to see the idea of starting at D1 is gaining so little traction.

Yep because the game is so successful with that 5-7 season trudge to D1 now. People LOVE starting at D3 to "learn the game" which, apparently, is completely different at D1. That's why world populations are booming. BOOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stupidity cannot be cured but, with effort, it can be overcome.

what if they got rid of D2 and D3 in ONE world. Gave anyone in that world the option to swap into any other world with one or two free seasons.....or move up to D1 in that same world.....?

Isn't that essentially the same problem as contracting worlds? Hell, if they're gonna do that, they might as well go all the way with it.