Had they simply removed distance as a barrier in recruiting you would have started to see battles. When an east coast team can go after a west coast recruit (and vice versa) it would have opened the entire game up as far as recruiting goes. And it would have been the simplest tweak.

They then could have spent more time fixing the game engine and giving coaches more options there so that there would have been something new to master.

Yes, I'm giving this version a try -- free seasons are free seasons. But I understand the frustrations being voiced.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2016 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Yes, that excuse will be used again. Happened in HBD. Sucks but it's a reality.

Long-time owners tend to take "ownership" of the game. While their opinions should certainly be valued, WifS has to sell product. Sometimes changes will NOT benefit the experienced owner but the intention is to bring in new owners.

WifS is an internet community. I certainly enjoy an active chat. But, from what I've gathered, the HD population has been on the decline for some time. The changes were intended to reverse that trend.

Soccer was OK. But, like most games, the SIMAI is inadequate. I was terrible my first season. By the 2nd season, I only lost to human controlled teams. That said, WifS users has declined dramatically over the last 10 years.

Personally, I think the long-term owners would still be the cream of the crop. My perception is they KNEW when they'd win a recruiting battle and that has changed. My opinion is they SHOULD know with some players but there has to be some who aren't sure things because of the most resources. The 18 y/o mind of a player who has been BMOC for 3-4 years is not that easy to read.

The "didn't know the code" is a little more nuanced than that. Mike, I think we are pretty close in our preferences and expectations, so this should make sense to you. My first D1 job was Grambling St in Allen. I would actually be happy playing at a mid-major level, if I felt there was a path to building a good team that didn't involve a process that felt like gaming the system. When I moved to Rutgers, I sent in a CS ticket just suggesting that the one thing that would really improve playability at the mid-major level is if players had preferences and made intelligent choices beyond who threw the most recruiting cash at me. Some players are going to want to go to Duke, because Duke. Some will look at their 2017 class and not see much opportunity to shine, and look at South Carolina or Western Kentucky instead. The response was better than I expected - it was, to paraphrase "That's a good idea, Paul, and something we've been considering. The problem is that we can't just manipulate the existing code to include that level of nuance, we would have to completely re-build. That's not out of the question, but it may be a few years away. In the meantime, thanks for your blah blah blah..."

I'm not a programmer, so I take them at face value. I assume that big changes, like the job hiring project they have said is their next priority, will take quite a bit of internal testing. To be honest, I don't think an open beta was a good idea, in hindsight. And it's not that Seble didn't listen to anyone. On the contrary, the biggest problem was that there were too many voices in his ear (some of whom now openly admit to basically wanting to sabotage the whole thing) and he was maybe listening too closely to too many people, and too quick to change course, without waiting to see how gameplay would adapt.

I thought open beta was good, from a user perspective. I don't know if there were too many users involved, but then that becomes an issue of how do you select some and not others? I definitely am not sure it ran long enough. Even if it's an accelerated 7 or 13 seasons or whatever, a month of real time might not be enough for massive changes. We still don't know effects of EE's for example, and when you get to jobs process we need to see what it looks like after multiple seasons of different types.

I think having a very clear scope for what the changes are is important. Then all the edge cases need to be run down and tested. Part of that is internal (I hope) and I do think there should be a public testing too so that more people can try more things.

If job logic is the next change, lets figure out what's broken with it (I really am not sure that the developers know this, they're not the ones that are playing seasons here and wondering if this is good enough, or posting why isn't this open to me) and get a plan to make it better. But what's broken and what better looks like needs to be defined.

I'd say defined without rancor, but clearly there will be some of that.

Great post rsvphr! Totally agree!

I think that's where WIS needs to step up their game if they're going to make this product successful. Not go and try to appease people but try to understand what it is exactly that is causing long time users to leave. There are MANY who have left without a word. I know a lot of people are sick of the goodbye threads but these coaches are a fraction of the number of total coaches who have left or are dropping teams. What do they say? Why not stick around? Let's not all just jump to the conclusion that they don't like having to compete for players now and can't win 10 titles in a row. That's just an excuse. How many of the people who have said "like it or get out" have sitemailed coaches who have been dropping teams and asked them why they are leaving? Has WIS done this?

But I'd like to add, again, is what does the new user say? I will agree that the forums have been filled with a lot of threads that have been negative and that doesn't look good to a new coach. But how many coaches really use the the forums? How many are actually reading this stuff? I've had pretty active conference chats with new folks who haven't posted a single time. When we had 5 new people to our conference last season in Phelan, I sitemailed all of them and asked how they learned about the game and offered to help them if they needed it. Only 1 person replied. Maybe they think I'm an Azzhole like Spud says I am, I don't know. But that's probably not a great sign.

The success or failure of this game is all about new user retention. Do they know what it takes to keep new coaches to play 3,5,10 or even 50 seasons? Some of the changes to 3.0 may have addressed that and maybe it's still too early to measure the result from our side but what is WIS doing about it? Are they trying to understand this consumer tension of retention? Do they have any clue? I really don't know the answer to this but I do think it's an important question.

I'll ask a question because I don't know. My perception is there are two major complaints.

1. Early entries. I won't get into this because it's a "1st world" problem and affects very few. If it's what I think it is, it will be fixed. Might be three real-life years but it will.

2. The dice roll. This is the one that bothers me. Not because the way it's set up but because it's considered a problem. If I understand correctly, two teams may be battling for a recruit. I don't know all the particulars/categories so I'll just use percentages. Say a kid is 60% Duke, 40% Maryland on the cycle he decides to sign. My understanding is the dice are rolled, weighted 60/40, and sometimes the kid signs with Maryland where in the past it was always Duke. If this is the problem, I don't see it. 18 y/o are unpredictable. Maybe he had his eye on a Maryland co-ed during his last campus visit and that swayed him. Maybe he thought Maryland had a nice locker room, a better campus. Maybe his mom said "I'd rather watch games in Maryland. Those Duke fans are obnoxious." Maybe his HD running mate was going to a small college in Maryland. Tons of factors. I don't think it's an affront to college basketball if some 18 y/o goes to the college that put less effort into signing him. Is that the biggest complaint other than EE?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2016 10:39:00 AM (view original):
I'll ask a question because I don't know. My perception is there are two major complaints.

1. Early entries. I won't get into this because it's a "1st world" problem and affects very few. If it's what I think it is, it will be fixed. Might be three real-life years but it will.

2. The dice roll. This is the one that bothers me. Not because the way it's set up but because it's considered a problem. If I understand correctly, two teams may be battling for a recruit. I don't know all the particulars/categories so I'll just use percentages. Say a kid is 60% Duke, 40% Maryland on the cycle he decides to sign. My understanding is the dice are rolled, weighted 60/40, and sometimes the kid signs with Maryland where in the past it was always Duke. If this is the problem, I don't see it. 18 y/o are unpredictable. Maybe he had his eye on a Maryland co-ed during his last campus visit and that swayed him. Maybe he thought Maryland had a nice locker room, a better campus. Maybe his mom said "I'd rather watch games in Maryland. Those Duke fans are obnoxious." Maybe his HD running mate was going to a small college in Maryland. Tons of factors. I don't think it's an affront to college basketball if some 18 y/o goes to the college that put less effort into signing him. Is that the biggest complaint other than EE?

Regarding part 2, I think the best way for people to look at considering interest level is as a 3rd party evaluation of where it looks like the kid is leaning (think SB Nation, or some other publication). If you're expecting it to be an absolute representation of what is in the kids head, then you can't help but be devastated when he chooses a school he was only supposed to be "high" on, over yours, which he was supposed to be "very high" on. Manage expectations.

Do I have the concept right? Because, if the issue is "I don't always win the recruiting battle when I spend more resources", that's a silly stance.

I had to check my resume' but I played the first 20 seasons in Iba. I did pretty well and moved up quickly but, when I took bottom-feeder Va Tech in the ACC, I was terrible(4,8,8,16 wins). And that's when I gave up HD because VT couldn't compete with the big boys in recruiting. It was just a matter of piling on resources. Sounds like the dice roll fixes that. At least gives the lesser school a shot. Not 50/50 but you don't have to bail when Duke starts hitting the kid up.

You got the concept, more or less, right. The only adjustment I'd add is that your standing is based on "effort" so Duke may have 55% of the effort but dice role is not 1:1 with effort. The "leading" team's odds of signing will be enhanced based on their lead in effort.

Posted by possumfiend on 11/16/2016 11:08:00 AM (view original):
You got the concept, more or less, right. The only adjustment I'd add is that your standing is based on "effort" so Duke may have 55% of the effort but dice role is not 1:1 with effort. The "leading" team's odds of signing will be enhanced based on their lead in effort.

Yes. And, you don't know what your effort credit % actually is. There is variability of probabilities within categories.

OK, that's a complaint I can begin ignoring. At VT, once a big school arrived, I just bailed because I knew I couldn't win the recruit. That was a terrible part of the game and it sounds like I'd at least stand a chance now. Of course, I fully understand why a big school user doesn't like the changes. But it's better for the game and, IMO, more realistic.

Posted by rsvphr on 11/16/2016 9:55:00 AM (view original):
Because of a 40 year career in advertising/marketing (concluded this past 9/30 when I retired and, yes, I say that to generate envy :-)), my world view has always been "everything is marketing". How you got your prom date, your job, your wife to let you go to Vegas with the guys, it's all turning benefits into selling propositions that result in the desired behavior.
Businesses need two simple elements to thrive: customer generation and customer retention. Generation comes from presenting your unique or proprietary selling propositions to a ripe target and retention comes from refreshing your product/service bundles to make existing customers maintain a desire level that keeps them in the fold. You don't accomplish both, you're finished.
WIS is struggling on both fronts right now and the tenor of the exchanges among its customers is sourced in frustration levels that only the vendor can diminish.
The core of the new game is what it is. Therefore, those who are dissatisfied with the core should move on. Nothing to see here anymore.
Those delighted with it should be the ambassadors for customer base growth. Express what delights you and there you go: selling propositions that can be backed up with customer testimonial. And a united set of voices to win over the skeptical.
Here is where the rubber meets the road if this game is going to survive: evaluate what the veterans who WANT TO STAY are saying and address them quickly and efficiently. Eliminate the noise and identify the keys to keeping guys who have a history of coaching 4, 5, 6, 10 teams.
For me, that's where I fall. Really like the macro of the new game. Scouting and the strategies applied are cool. The elimination of hoarding 5 stars is good for all involved, except the hoarders. Many will get over that if the changes don't have punitive characteristics. If the EE issue, the job change recruiting disadvantage and the job logic were addressed, all this infighting (which is killing both generation and retention at the same time) would evaporate.
WIS: Show us how much you want this game to succeed. And how much the customers on all sides of these issues mean to you.

C'mon, let's just play ball!

I like this post.

I have cut back on teams to just one, because of what I perceive as the increased time and effort to play.

I would like to stay with that one and enjoy the new game.

I am peeved about the failure to respond meaningfully to the EE problem - but i think it is worst as a transition issue. There will be fewer teams with multiple EEs in the long term. That doesnt make me any happier with how WIS decided to handle the transition for some (small number) of customers. I think it could be much better than it is on an ongoing basis and am disappointed by failure to try to make it better.

Job changes seem like a problem, but I dont plan to change jobs.

Still trying

In some ways it does become a completely wide open game. In theory a Cal State something or other *can* be just as likely to sign a 5 star guy as Duke or Kansas. But now, in theory, a D3 team can sign a top 100 kid too. It's different.

Maybe it means we'll see less powerful dynasties now. Maybe it means we'll see dynasties from D prestige schools. Nobody really knows because it hasn't been tested over a long period.

I think the disconnect is people are used to spending resources to win a recruit, and now there's that random factor involved. You're never guaranteed to win a recruit. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, that's up to you to decide. But I think if you battled as VT and lost a kid, then your backup (that you carefully planned for) got signed by a D3 school because they are a rebuild and you didn't have time to move effort to him, you might be angry. As angry as UNC dumping 200 CV's on a kid? I don't know.

I think there's still a number of unintended (maybe) and unknown consequences to the changes.

This is how 3.0 promotes battles. Users are still adjusting, and a lot of them are still shying away, but I think (hope) battles for top talent will increase.

It was the lack of battles that really produced a terrible D1 game. The A+ teams would plant their flag on 3 or 4 guys, no one would touch them. Then for their last recruit or two, they could swoop in late and take what they wanted (as long as it was under the 360 mile radius), because they always had a bunch of early entry scholarships. People talk about prestige or conference cash, but the real advantage in that system was scholarship resources.

So at Virginia in the last season of 2.0 recruiting, I gamed the system hard. Like Mike, I had taken over a doormat, and it was a long slog to respectability. I organized my classes 4-4-4-0 (early entry caliber players only started talking to me in the last 2 seasons). So after my 0 class, I had 2 seasons of ACC conference cash plus the 4 scholarships, plus a chunk of rollover change from 2 seasons past. I filled my scholarships, signing 3 4-year guys with ~5k, and spent ~125k on the #9 pg in the country, the best local fit for my team. Staved off WF, but felt real dirty. Glad that system is history.

We had the D1/D3 school battle discussion a few days ago.

My thought was, first, HD and real-life don't translate well. Some believe KY should be able to drop a scholarship offer on the last cycle and take a player a D3 team has been recruiting the entire 2nd RS. I disagree because that totally crushes D3 recruiting. Real-life KY would never drop an offer on a player they didn't recruit at all in the 11th hour. D1 player would never drop to D3 because a Charleston Southern or Cleveland State would have recruited him. Just doesn't translate.

However, if your "careful planning" included some recruiting along the way, I could certainly accept that D1 player leaving me holding the bag at W Conn St. That would just be a gamble I took as WCSU. I see he's "slightly considering" VT and stay on him, I know I might lose.

I really dislike the one big pool theory of recruits. I think it will be shown over time how it affects brand new coaches. I know it shows projected level on the player card, and pulldowns was a weird concept anyway, but I just don't like the idea of everyone sees everyone. I think that contributes to the weirdness of the three divisions.

Honestly why is there a D3 and a D2 other than to promote paying for longer to get to D1? I've never heard of any other SIM game doing something like that. In the construct of the game I like it, there were worlds I only played D3 in, but I know as a new player I was confused.