Quote: Originally Posted By dacj501 on 2/10/2010I agree with zhakws. If I am enjoying my D II or D III program, why is the value of me buying a season and making the NT worth less than someone buying a season and doing the same at D I

If that is what you like, great. I have zero problem with that, but I don't know that you should be rewarded the same as a D1 dynasty coach for it season after season. As I said, great coaches live in the lower divisions, but to assume for one minute that they face same the kind of challenges in recruiting that D1 coaches do is ludicris. Add to it the fact that the lower divisions are far less populated and thus easier for good coaches to continually make the postseason and you can see the rational for reduced rewards at the lower levels.

Quote: Originally posted by dacj501 on 2/10/2010I agree with zhakws. If I am enjoying my D II or D III program, why is the value of me buying a season and making the NT worth less than someone buying a season and doing the same at D I?

It's easier to win at D-III, therefore you shouldn't receive the same money for winning as someone at D1. And "points" = "money" because you're redeeming for things worth money.

I like the system. Let the guys content to win relatively easier NTs at D-III every year subsidize the others who overcome the more challenging competition at D-1.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 2/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 2/10/2010
I, on the other hand, have no problem with it. The whole point of the game is to create a D1 dynasty and having empty or near-empty D1 conferences is contrary to that goal, IMHO.

Really? I missed that part in the name. I didn't realize it was called Hoops Division 1 Dynasty.



Really, z? You have to argue this? It is patently clear based on how the game is set up and rewarded. Can you build other dynasties? of course, but the stated goal of the game is that the it "is your chance to work your way to the top of the college basketball coaching world!" now if you think the top of the coaching world is D3, then I don't know what to tell you. Silly argument to pick.

Just because one thing is your goal does not make it my goal. For you to even begin to say this is a silly argument to pick shows you do not understand.

Some of that lack of population is due to less rewards. Not all, of course, but some.

It's only easier to win at D3 because there are less people. But there are less people partly because of rewards. That's somewhat circular.

Up the rewards and it ups the competition.

Quote: Originally Posted By cthomas22255 on 2/10/2010

Quote: Originally posted by dacj501 on 2/10/2010 I agree with zhakws. If I am enjoying my D II or D III program, why is the value of me buying a season and making the NT worth less than someone buying a season and doing the same at D I?

It's easier to win at D-III, therefore you shouldn't receive the same money for winning as someone at D1. And "points" = "money" because you're redeeming for things worth money.

I like the system. Let the guys content to win relatively easier NTs at D-III every year subsidize the others who overcome the more challenging competition at D-1.

It is easier at d3 because nobody coaches there. The reason nobody coaches there is because they reduced reward points. If you were not a part of the old WIS when d2/3 was very active and a lot of fun, you don't understand the difference between then and now and how what you are saying is so wrong.

But, that said, I think they should consider charging a lower price for D-3 than D-1. That way you'd have a greater quantity of coaches in it and still always have the reward points as an incentive for them to move up.

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 2/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 2/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 2/10/2010
I, on the other hand, have no problem with it. The whole point of the game is to create a D1 dynasty and having empty or near-empty D1 conferences is contrary to that goal, IMHO.

Really? I missed that part in the name. I didn't realize it was called Hoops Division 1 Dynasty.



Really, z? You have to argue this? It is patently clear based on how the game is set up and rewarded. Can you build other dynasties? of course, but the stated goal of the game is that the it "is your chance to work your way to the top of the college basketball coaching world!" now if you think the top of the coaching world is D3, then I don't know what to tell you. Silly argument to pick.

Trust me, I'm with you on z picking bad arguments, but I don't think this is one. The stated goal of the game? No, that's an advertising statement used to entice people to play. I doubt it works.

People play because they enjoy the game. Some want to get to the top, others don't. They should do some actual research to find out if business would actually decline the way they think it would, which it probably wouldn't, because the game is supported by current coaches anyway.

Enjoyment and reaching goals are two differant things. This is a progression based game, that cannot be argued. You can agrue when that progression ends, but still.

As you say, they are supported by current coaches. If they put the rewards even, they would lose money to the carreer D2/3 coaches who have less competition to remain dominant. That was the whole reason for the change in first place and it was said then that the goal was D1 by admin.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 2/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dacj501 on 2/10/2010
I agree with zhakws. If I am enjoying my D II or D III program, why is the value of me buying a season and making the NT worth less than someone buying a season and doing the same at D I?

If that is what you like, great. I have zero problem with that, but I don't know that you should be rewarded the same as a D1 dynasty coach for it season after season. As I said, great coaches live in the lower divisions, but to assume for one minute that they face same the kind of challenges in recruiting that D1 coaches do is ludicris. Add to it the fact that the lower divisions are far less populated and thus easier for good coaches to continually make the postseason and you can see the rational for reduced rewards at the lower levels

You are seriously making the argument that since they are less populated someone should receive less for their money? How is it my fault that nobody plays there?

You also have forgotten that a big factor for why the lower divisions are so bare is because reward points were reduced. So to make that argument is not logical and in no way the reason why WIS decided to give less.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 2/10/2010
Enjoyment and reaching goals are two differant things. This is a progression based game, that cannot be argued. You can agrue when that progression ends, but still.

As you say, they are supported by current coaches. If they put the rewards even, they would lose money to the carreer D2/3 coaches who have less competition to remain dominant. That was the whole reason for the change in first place and it was said then that the goal was D1 by admin.

Why should your enjoyment be rewarded more then my enjoyment?

What zhawks is saying is:
"They should eliminate the reward points tax so that more people will play in D3." But what is to be gained by more people playing in D-3 instead of D2 or D1?

HD would be better if we had more coaches at EVERY level. I say reduce the price for purchasing seasons in D3 while keeping the reward point tax. Choosing the right price points would allow WIS to increase their coaches and revenue at the same time.

Quote: Originally Posted By cthomas22255 on 2/10/2010But, that said, I think they should consider charging a lower price for D-3 than D-1. That way you'd have a greater quantity of coaches in it and still always have the reward points as an incentive for them to move up.

Well that's the tradeoff.

The argument is: I pay the same, so why am I rewarded less?

If you're proposing lower the cost at D3, then that changes the argument.

I keep hearing people say that people quit D3 when reward points were reduced. This may be part of it, but IIRC, the bigger issue was implementing potential.

Quote: Originally Posted By cthomas22255 on 2/10/2010But what is to be gained by more people playing in D-3 instead of D2 or D1?

It might not be a "instead of."

Like I said (and why I said earlier), this game is supported by current coaches. My guess is that current coaches will pick up more teams if they (a) lower the price at lower levels or (b) up the rewards at lower levels.

They should do the appropriate marketing and research to figure out if it's worth it. I'll bet a lot that they haven't.

Just to take a look at one world: in Tark, D I currently has 134 Sim coached teams. D II has 136. Are you telling me that the 2 team Simmy difference makes it so much easier to make the NT that doing so multiple times at D II vs D I means one should get less of a reward based upon the difficulties of recruiting against and trying to earn a NT berth when struggling against an additional 2 human coaches?

Quote: Originally posted by hitman1979 on 2/10/2010I keep hearing people say that people quit D3 when reward points were reduced. This may be part of it, but IIRC, the bigger issue was implementing potential.

And D3 was filled with coaches playing FreeHD. I did that a lot. The real exodus occurred when they got rid of that.