Posted by Benis on 7/16/2017 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 7/16/2017 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/16/2017 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 7/16/2017 10:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 7/16/2017 8:44:00 AM (view original):
Well, something has to be done to D3. We had close to 150 teams in Naismith in 2.0 and it was not slowing down. How many did we lose? All D3 are down...

Naismith was clearly the most popular D3 world. It was maybe at 125 tops by early 2016. No other D3 world approached anywhere close to 150 and all were lower than Naismith.

Mid to High 100s in D3 back in 2015-2016

Populations

Benis,
Wtf...?
D-3 populations in the thread you linked back up my numbers.

in Naismith, January 2016 would've been around Season 85. D3 in Naismith shows around 125 humans.
in Crum, January 2016 would've been around Season 79. D3 in Crum shows 83 humans.
Other Worlds range from in the 90's to 110's.

There was a spike one year around then due to free seasons given out.

Yeah there are some spikes there from freehd prob.

Seasons in the 70s looked pretty strong. That was 2015 right?

Each earth-year is around 8 HD seasons.
Naismith just finished Season 96.
So July 2015 would be around Naismith Season 80.
And January 2016 would be around Season 84.

But 3.0 wasn't being considered til February 2016, so January 2016 would've had decreasing numbers that were aligned with 2.0 issues...

Zorzii is specifically claiming that D-3 was at a strong 150 til we switched to 3.0...

In reality, D-3 was experiencing a steady decrease through January 2016, when D-3 Crum was at 83 and 4 others were under 100.
The 83 number for Crum was prior to any knowledge of 3.0 being considered.

Posted by npb7768 on 7/16/2017 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Also, January 2016 is a good marker because WIS didn't mention HD 3.0 was in the works til around February 2016.
Looking at D-3 numbers from back then, it looks like maybe half the worlds were sub-100.

Why would Zorzii try to mislead everyone? I have no freakin idea.

zorzii will use any ploy possible to "prove" D3 recruiting needs to be capped.

Why that's his baby is beyond me. Just don't play D3 if you hate it. I don't get why anyone plays something they hate.

Posted by npb7768 on 7/16/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Zorzii is specifically claiming that D-3 was at a strong 150 til we switched to 3.0...

In reality, D-3 was experiencing a steady decrease through January 2016, when D-3 Crum was at 83 and 4 others were under 100.
The 83 number for Crum was prior to any knowledge of 3.0 being considered.

Yeah, he's definitely off there.

But bottom line - D2/D3 are reaching all time lows.

Posted by Benis on 7/16/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 7/16/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Zorzii is specifically claiming that D-3 was at a strong 150 til we switched to 3.0...

In reality, D-3 was experiencing a steady decrease through January 2016, when D-3 Crum was at 83 and 4 others were under 100.
The 83 number for Crum was prior to any knowledge of 3.0 being considered.

Yeah, he's definitely off there.

But bottom line - D2/D3 are reaching all time lows.

Ok. I let you guys sort it out. I am not playing D3 Mike.

Then don't worry about it. I can only assume some D3 school took your D2 school recruit. Because, when you make a suggestion, it's for your benefit.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Then don't worry about it. I can only assume some D3 school took your D2 school recruit. Because, when you make a suggestion, it's for your benefit.

Well, it's to get back to a fun D3. And Naismith did have 140 not long ago.

D3 is fine and doesn't miss you.

Now concentrate on making HBD better since you don't play that either.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2017 1:29:00 PM (view original):
D3 is fine and doesn't miss you.

Now concentrate on making HBD better since you don't play that either.

D3 misses a lot of owners. It used to have the best of the bests.

If you say so. I'm just glad they're not telling us how bad it is and constantly trying to "fix" it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2017 1:53:00 PM (view original):
If you say so. I'm just glad they're not telling us how bad it is and constantly trying to "fix" it.

They are gone.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I hate this "cap D3" nonsense. It's never been capped. In 2.0 you could recruit both D2 and D1 recruits at D3. Why cap it now? The only hindrance I see at D3 is lack of a scouting budget.

Wow! Just tuned in to this Whopper of a lie. What the hell are you talking about. Completely and obviously false.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2017 8:49:00 AM (view original):
I disagree. Many like D3 just fine. Let's not pretend that HD population is down because D3 recruiting isn't capped. That's nonsense.

There's first class point missing involved here.

The issue is whether new users are being added in 3.0. I recall Mike theorizing that, once enough seasons were passed in 3.0, there'd be new user growth.

There are no new users, but...I mean... obviously...that couldn't have anything to do with the buy-in cost to be competitive actually GROWING substantially since D3 users have been allowed to field D1 teams.

Posted by l80r20 on 7/16/2017 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I hate this "cap D3" nonsense. It's never been capped. In 2.0 you could recruit both D2 and D1 recruits at D3. Why cap it now? The only hindrance I see at D3 is lack of a scouting budget.

^^^ This.

"Nonsense" is the right word for it. And I agree the D3 budgets are a bit too small.

Is this Spud? Champion of the unbalancing of the game for the benefit of...? Wait...why would adding D3 budgets improve things? That would just make it D2.

Posted by rogelio on 7/16/2017 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I hate this "cap D3" nonsense. It's never been capped. In 2.0 you could recruit both D2 and D1 recruits at D3. Why cap it now? The only hindrance I see at D3 is lack of a scouting budget.

Wow! Just tuned in to this Whopper of a lie. What the hell are you talking about. Completely and obviously false.

Which part is the lie? As an A+ prestige D3 school, you could absolutely pull down D1 kids that were within 70 miles of campus. Unless you mean the "cap" part which, yeah, there were artificial caps on how high you could reach. But it was random-I could pull down kids rated 510 that were on my D1 list but kids rated 480 and on my D2 list wouldn't talk to me. Or you could mean the budget constraint part, which is just mine (and several others') opinion.