Posted by shoe3 on 11/24/2018 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 11/24/2018 2:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/23/2018 9:38:00 PM (view original):
It isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as designed. It’s a bad design, and it’s completely misguided. But it isn’t broken.

C'mon shoe. You know exactly what I meant. Do I have to be specific each time I post?

Just for that, I'm going to kick your butt even more when we play..lol

LOL. Relax wiz, I wasn’t responding to you. Zags is the one who put the wrong term in the topic.

You'll have to excuse my intensity shoe, I'm all amped up for this afternoons matchup, coming off a tough loss...lol

Gonzaga’s baseline is definitely higher than SLU’s. It’s either 1/3 or 2/3rds of a letter grade more, but they aren’t equal.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/23/2018 9:38:00 PM (view original):
It isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as designed. It’s a bad design, and it’s completely misguided. But it isn’t broken.

Working as designed? If you mean the design is intended to impede & obstruct users from qualify for jobs by using a superfluous set of rules than you're right shoe. I disagree that it is working as designed, this game has changed tremendously since the last time the job process has been upgraded. User retention is at an all time low and the job function has to change to reflect the current state of HD. The code may be working "as designed" but the business logic behind it no longer fits the user requirements for a successful game application. There are so many open jobs that it no longer makes sense to bar users who are seeking to advance, transfer, or return to HD. Its broken, outdated, and needs to evolve to fit the current needs of this game.

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/26/2018 9:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/23/2018 9:38:00 PM (view original):
It isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as designed. It’s a bad design, and it’s completely misguided. But it isn’t broken.

Working as designed? If you mean the design is intended to impede & obstruct users from qualify for jobs by using a superfluous set of rules than you're right shoe. I disagree that it is working as designed, this game has changed tremendously since the last time the job process has been upgraded. User retention is at an all time low and the job function has to change to reflect the current state of HD. The code may be working "as designed" but the business logic behind it no longer fits the user requirements for a successful game application. There are so many open jobs that it no longer makes sense to bar users who are seeking to advance, transfer, or return to HD. Its broken, outdated, and needs to evolve to fit the current needs of this game.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/26/2018 9:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/23/2018 9:38:00 PM (view original):
It isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as designed. It’s a bad design, and it’s completely misguided. But it isn’t broken.

Working as designed? If you mean the design is intended to impede & obstruct users from qualify for jobs by using a superfluous set of rules than you're right shoe. I disagree that it is working as designed, this game has changed tremendously since the last time the job process has been upgraded. User retention is at an all time low and the job function has to change to reflect the current state of HD. The code may be working "as designed" but the business logic behind it no longer fits the user requirements for a successful game application. There are so many open jobs that it no longer makes sense to bar users who are seeking to advance, transfer, or return to HD. Its broken, outdated, and needs to evolve to fit the current needs of this game.

That’s exactly what I mean. That’s why I said it’s a bad design, and completely misguided. But that *is* the design. The idea is basically to suck as much money from people before they get to their destination. This is precisely why I’ve been saying since 3.0 was announced, the biggest obstacle to player retention is the poorly designed, stratified jobs process. It makes a lot of sense when worlds are new, and people are stepping all over each other racing to the jobs they want. It makes no sense now, unless they start retiring worlds and opening new ones.

If they want the user base to grow, they absolutely have to let people get to their intended destination faster.

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/26/2018 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/26/2018 9:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/23/2018 9:38:00 PM (view original):
It isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as designed. It’s a bad design, and it’s completely misguided. But it isn’t broken.

Working as designed? If you mean the design is intended to impede & obstruct users from qualify for jobs by using a superfluous set of rules than you're right shoe. I disagree that it is working as designed, this game has changed tremendously since the last time the job process has been upgraded. User retention is at an all time low and the job function has to change to reflect the current state of HD. The code may be working "as designed" but the business logic behind it no longer fits the user requirements for a successful game application. There are so many open jobs that it no longer makes sense to bar users who are seeking to advance, transfer, or return to HD. Its broken, outdated, and needs to evolve to fit the current needs of this game.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

He has a point. People talk about letting users start at D1 right away. He's saying the same thing basically. Making it easier to qualify for a better job COULD be a good idea for the game. It's a matter of opinion.

Yes, lets remove all criteria for advancing. Being told you are not good enough for a video game can be psychologically damaging. I know of several people who have gone to therapy because they have spent their lives being told how special they are by mom and dad and now they are facing adversity. It's not fair. It's a video game. In fact, is there a way both teams can win some games? Do we really have to have winners and losers if both teams try really hard?

The game does need to evolve to suit the needs of the "I should always succeed whether I am good enough or not" generation.

Posted by mullycj on 11/26/2018 12:06:00 PM (view original):
Yes, lets remove all criteria for advancing. Being told you are not good enough for a video game can be psychologically damaging. I know of several people who have gone to therapy because they have spent their lives being told how special they are by mom and dad and now they are facing adversity. It's not fair. It's a video game. In fact, is there a way both teams can win some games? Do we really have to have winners and losers if both teams try really hard?

The game does need to evolve to suit the needs of the "I should always succeed whether I am good enough or not" generation.

Literally no one has ever made the argument you are setting up as a straw man here. The closest you’ll see to a serious version of “the game should be easier” is when folks complain about recruiting being too ambiguous and complicated, as in they want a more straightforward and deterministic game, where following x path leads to z result.

The game is an entertainment product. New users pay to play. The challenge is in competition with other users, not who has the patience to wait out a forced period (often 2+ real life years in 1-a-day worlds) of stratification before they are eligible for the level (high D1) most will want to play. If the Gonzaga job was going to a user with a better resume, zags would have no argument. The point is that he’s been in the world 20 seasons, and the team is going to stay sim controlled, while he has to fork up for another season with a team he doesn’t really want. The only purpose is to suck more money from him. It’s a bullsh!t system, and he’s right to be p!ssed.

Posted by Benis on 11/26/2018 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/26/2018 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/26/2018 9:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/23/2018 9:38:00 PM (view original):
It isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as designed. It’s a bad design, and it’s completely misguided. But it isn’t broken.

Working as designed? If you mean the design is intended to impede & obstruct users from qualify for jobs by using a superfluous set of rules than you're right shoe. I disagree that it is working as designed, this game has changed tremendously since the last time the job process has been upgraded. User retention is at an all time low and the job function has to change to reflect the current state of HD. The code may be working "as designed" but the business logic behind it no longer fits the user requirements for a successful game application. There are so many open jobs that it no longer makes sense to bar users who are seeking to advance, transfer, or return to HD. Its broken, outdated, and needs to evolve to fit the current needs of this game.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

He has a point. People talk about letting users start at D1 right away. He's saying the same thing basically. Making it easier to qualify for a better job COULD be a good idea for the game. It's a matter of opinion.

I agree with that sentiment. But if you drew that specific an argument out of zags' post, you must have a newer version of the CoachWardSpeak translator than I'm running.

Besides, Zags hasn't been arguing it should be easier to get to D1. He's been arguing he should be entitled to a better D1 job despite his lack of merit.

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/26/2018 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/26/2018 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/26/2018 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/26/2018 9:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 11/23/2018 9:38:00 PM (view original):
It isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as designed. It’s a bad design, and it’s completely misguided. But it isn’t broken.

Working as designed? If you mean the design is intended to impede & obstruct users from qualify for jobs by using a superfluous set of rules than you're right shoe. I disagree that it is working as designed, this game has changed tremendously since the last time the job process has been upgraded. User retention is at an all time low and the job function has to change to reflect the current state of HD. The code may be working "as designed" but the business logic behind it no longer fits the user requirements for a successful game application. There are so many open jobs that it no longer makes sense to bar users who are seeking to advance, transfer, or return to HD. Its broken, outdated, and needs to evolve to fit the current needs of this game.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

He has a point. People talk about letting users start at D1 right away. He's saying the same thing basically. Making it easier to qualify for a better job COULD be a good idea for the game. It's a matter of opinion.

I agree with that sentiment. But if you drew that specific an argument out of zags' post, you must have a newer version of the CoachWardSpeak translator than I'm running.

Besides, Zags hasn't been arguing it should be easier to get to D1. He's been arguing he should be entitled to a better D1 job despite his lack of merit.

"He's been arguing he should be entitled to a better D1 job despite his lack of merit."

Yes and no. I think he's arguing that what should be determined as 'merit' needs to be adjusted. Do I think his resume is good enough to get that Zags job based upon the game today - no, definitely not. But do I think that the game would be better if it that resume WAS good enough? I can see the argument.

Also, great coachward name drop. I miss that guy.

Here’s a way to look at it. In 1-a-day worlds, a season is about 7 weeks long. Let’s say Zags career trajectory is about average. Based on his Knight performance in isolation, it looks like he’s spent about $10 per season. Let’s say this is what an average new player is looking at (just for arguments sake, no offense, zags).

An average new user would expect to spend well over 2 real life years and ~$200 to be at that level - not yet eligible for high mid-major teams.

So put another way, a D3 job costs $5. A D2 job costs between $5-$16 and a 7 week time investment (if one jumps directly to D2 after the initial season). Gonzaga apparently costs >$200 + a 2++ year investment for the hypothetical average new user.

IMO, there really shouldn’t be any wonder why this game has trouble attracting and retaining users.

Posted by mullycj on 11/26/2018 12:06:00 PM (view original):
Yes, lets remove all criteria for advancing. Being told you are not good enough for a video game can be psychologically damaging. I know of several people who have gone to therapy because they have spent their lives being told how special they are by mom and dad and now they are facing adversity. It's not fair. It's a video game. In fact, is there a way both teams can win some games? Do we really have to have winners and losers if both teams try really hard?

The game does need to evolve to suit the needs of the "I should always succeed whether I am good enough or not" generation.

I have a 67% win percentage
I have 11 NT bids & 8-11 NT record.
I have 2 PI bids w/ 7 wins including one championship.

Am i not successful enough for you Mully? Maybe it would be better off if everyone below your "success" level quit and you can continue to play "SIMAI" for 90% of your matches. I am sick of having to play with teams that I don't care for while the team that I want is unoccupied and unsuccessful. Now that I think about it, the N. Central Conference sounds like a great destination to play in next season. Can't wait to beat tons of sims with you next season chump.

Bring it child!

Posted by shoe3 on 11/26/2018 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Here’s a way to look at it. In 1-a-day worlds, a season is about 7 weeks long. Let’s say Zags career trajectory is about average. Based on his Knight performance in isolation, it looks like he’s spent about $10 per season. Let’s say this is what an average new player is looking at (just for arguments sake, no offense, zags).

An average new user would expect to spend well over 2 real life years and ~$200 to be at that level - not yet eligible for high mid-major teams.

So put another way, a D3 job costs $5. A D2 job costs between $5-$16 and a 7 week time investment (if one jumps directly to D2 after the initial season). Gonzaga apparently costs >$200 + a 2++ year investment for the hypothetical average new user.

IMO, there really shouldn’t be any wonder why this game has trouble attracting and retaining users.

You and I have always agreed it costs too much to get to D1. But I part ways with you on the business sense of making it tougher to get the high-caliber D1 jobs.

Gonzaga should be more difficult to get than Saint Louis. Sure, both are too expensive, but your elaborate math is a bit of a straw man here.

LOL@ “elaborate math,” AKA adding. It isn’t a straw man. Those are the actual costs, in terms of time and money.

I haven’t proposed SLU and Gonzaga being the same. What I’ve said in the past is some version of:
*D3 is a free to play sandbox with no incentives.
*New users start paying at D2.
*After 1 season, eligible for D prestige D1 teams.
*After 5 seasons or 3 tournament wins (D2 or D1), eligible for C prestige D1 teams.
*After 7 seasons or 5 tournament wins, eligible for B prestige D1 teams.
*After 10 seasons or 8 tournament wins, eligible for A prestige teams.

Gonzaga would still be a higher reach, and require a better resume. But both would be significantly cheaper.