tufft, i'm starting to agree with Mike that this is a waste of time, because you missed the point of my entire post.  But, here goes another attempted explanation...

The current GMs are dedicated because of the complexity and competition of the game.  Couple that with a reasonable barrier to entry, and the people that simply would not care are not playing.  As it stands, we have people that care about their teams.

Add sims to reduce rollover and the competition fades (using sim teams as the programming currently allows - no futuristic 'good' sim teams, because they don't exist at present, so they're irrelevant).  People start to leave.  Worlds are going defunct, the price drops, and now a group of less dedicated people come in.  You act like the new people would ADD to the current group, when in reality, the new, less dedicated GMs would REPLACE the current group.  That isn't a solution.  Long-term, WIS should want to appeal to the group of people currently playing, as they're the most compelled to play well, to pay, and the most likely to stick around.

I have a degree in economics and am currently studying to receive a master's degree. My knowledge of economic principles that can be crafted to fit the scenarios that you're discussing simply do not support the results that you (and only you) support so fervently.

Does any of that make sense, or will you continue to be so bull headed?  Others have at least conceded points in their argument to appeal to you, but you give no ground in yours - despite the fact that zero people see the logic in your argument.  And that isn't a shot at you, but it is to say that, how could several well-educated people totally and utterly miss the point of what you're trying to say?  But this thread is not split.  Nobody here agrees with you.  Does any of this post make sense to you?

Past history indicates that he will continue to be bull-headed and that none of your post even registers with him because it isn't in agreement with his idea.

The funny thing is that, as I said, everyone has had a bad idea.    But they don't get remembered because, when the flaws are pointed out, it's dropped.  tufft won't drop his bad ideas.    You obviously just don't understand the genius of the idea.   So he has to explain it even more. 

cshake, 

>> (using sim teams as the programming currently allows - no futuristic 'good' sim teams, because they don't exist at present, so they're irrelevant). <<

Current simmy sucks and doesn't do at all some of what would need to be done.

If your points are based on allowing sim run teams with the current simmy logic, you have no point in this thread / debate.

I agree with you.

I've explained a few ways the sim program could be improved.  You can agree or disagree with those ideas.

Can we agree to agree?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2015 5:43:00 PM (view original):
So do you think, in your infinite wisdom, that WifS designed Simmy in GD, HD and soccer to be horrible?   To consistently be bottom feeders?   And to leave them that way?

What, good sir, makes you believe that WifS would redesign Simmy in it's most complicated Dynasty game to be better? 

This.

>> The current GMs are dedicated because of the complexity and competition of the game. ... blah blah blah <<

I've probably done a bad job explaining one of my key points. My fault. Sorry about wasting some of your time.

Let me try again -- The are not enough current GMs.

As far as this suggestion goes, it doesn't matter very much current GMs think.  Nothing I've proposed would be forced down the throat of any current private world.  Popular vote and/or the commish (depending on how the world works) could say No Sims. And that would be that.

There would be some debate on public worlds,  How long to keep them open before adding any sims? Or does it go by a vote of the GMs signed up for the world?  Max number of sims to add?  Would 2 good enough sims ruin a world? Would 4?  3 sim team per world is a quick 10% boost in the number of team playing HBD. What business is hurt by an overnight 10% increase in the activity that generates income for the business?

There are not enough current GMs to fill 32 spots in 160 worlds.   Allowing customized world sizes solves that problem.

Much better idea.   Not sure who submitted it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2015 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2015 5:43:00 PM (view original):
So do you think, in your infinite wisdom, that WifS designed Simmy in GD, HD and soccer to be horrible?   To consistently be bottom feeders?   And to leave them that way?

What, good sir, makes you believe that WifS would redesign Simmy in it's most complicated Dynasty game to be better? 

This.

Asked and answered several times.

I don't know or care how or why WIS did what it did in other worlds in the past.  Different time. Different games.

I'm sure once in your life you did something less than great your first pass and then did it better your next try.  I know I have.

Sims done badly would be bad.  Agreed.  How many times do you need me to agree with you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2015 2:27:00 PM (view original):
There are not enough current GMs to fill 32 spots in 160 worlds.   Allowing customized world sizes solves that problem.

Much better idea.   Not sure who submitted it.

Could be workable. Sorry if I never told you that.

What do you do with worlds that have 29 people signed up?  Do you have to toss 5 people to get to 24?

What do you know about the math and other processes behind creating schedules?

Please share a bit of the logic or math you've used to determine that creating more 162 game schedules with different numbers of teams all at once (this can't go live 1/2 done) is easier than slowly improving simmy logic over time.

>> I have a degree in economics and am currently studying to receive a master's degree. <<

Congratulations!

Since I've tossed aside the first 2 paragraphs of your last post (I agree with the first point and you are ignoring a realty I am including in my theses in the second), does that change your analysis?

And the only reason I included a WC was to keep 2nd place teams interested.   If someone is up by 16 with 30 left, you could see a lot of owners throwing in the towel.   4 in each league is half and that's just too many.

>> Easy peasy.<<

Yes, you've done the easy peasy part. Contrats!

Now let see how they all work for every team, every day, for 200 simulated days.  (I'm pulling 200 out of the air.  I'd don't know how many days simulated days and HBD season runs.)

Any grade school sports fan can do what you did.

Creating the actually, day-by-day schedules is very complex.  Especially if there's a different one every season.  (As HBD works now.)

You don't need to believe me.  Look it up.  There's this internet thing out there. Vast amount of information that can be checked before you decide what's easy peasy.

You think creating a schedule is hard?    Hell, everything in there is divisible by 3.     Three game series abound.    It's not like you have to work in travel time.

Jesus, you're one stubborn bastard.

If you have one *****, it's the 15 games against other division.   You'll have 8/7 or 7/8 H/A.   But it still can be 81/81.