Lock in ownership Topic

Another suggestion I assume nobody at WiS will actually read, but since I've been complaining about it on Owner Chats for a while, I may as well make it "official."

WiS should lock in any owner who takes control of a team as its world is filling. In virtually every world in which I've played more than a season, I've seen owners take over teams, only to bolt for the next shiny team in another world that crosses their field of vision. In my opinion, this isn't just an annoyance to the owners in these yo-yo-ing worlds, it certainly seems harmful to WiS itself long term, as worlds as a whole take longer to fill.

Unless you believe that owners will suddenly start waiting for just the perfect team to become available, teams and worlds will fill more quickly in succession and, over the course of time, turn over more times (cha-ching) if an owner can't leave once he's taken ownership of a team.

I don't believe most onwers will be that selective. Those who would be likely to wait on the perfect opening already are doing that. I think the issue I'm addressing is due to owners who are much more interested in playing NOW than the exact team they own. Not to mention the idea of taking the "something better" that comes along approach.

WiS, please consider locking down owner movement after taking ownership of a team.

4/9/2013 10:41 AM (edited)
Nothing says "What a mess" than an owner who doesn't care for the world he's "locked" into. 
4/9/2013 11:33 AM
Locking in, for how long?

There are lots of reasons why owners leave worlds.  You can't and shouldn't force somebody to stay if they have a reason to leave (whether or not you agree with or "accept" their reason).

Part of the cause of the problem that you are seeing is that commissioners of these "yo-yo-ing" worlds just don't do a very good job of screening incoming owners.  If somebody has a series of "one-and-done" teams on their profile, maybe those folks should not be welcomed in to a world that is trying to fill.  Often, many commishes just take the first "x" owners to apply to fill their "x" number of openings just to get the world started.  That's a recipe for the problem you are trying to solve.
4/9/2013 11:35 AM
One of my worlds has just moved into week #4 of waiting to fill 5 spots.  We are down to 3 a this point.  If I was a new owner in a world (having no allegiance to the world other than I saw a team I liked) and then proceeded to wait for a month with no end in sight..........I would consider moving to a world that was down to one spot, or just filling faster in general.

Saying to people HAHA! you clicked the button so now you are dedicated to wait for 2 months to play doesn't seem like a good idea.  Basically just asking for more abandoned teams IMO.

4/9/2013 11:44 AM

Maybe I wasn't clear.

I'm referring to the period between rollover and the world filling. That window should be locked once an owner takes over a team.

Mike, while I agree with your comment, I doubt it significantly impacts these situations. Very little happens during the window I am describing that would actually sour an owner on the world he has joined, or his own team there. It is pretty obviously not wanting to wait any longer, or that a better team came along elsewhere, that sends them off to another world. I see no overall benefit to allowing this sort of movement other than catering to owners' fickle and/or impatient nature. That's not a good enough reason in the grand scheme, and locking owners in would eliminate a lot of the current impatience anyway.

I think the sitaution is detrimental not just to the worlds that take longer to fill (and again, you may be in worlds that don't...that doesn't mean this isn't an issue overall), but also to WiS itself long term.

4/9/2013 11:49 AM
gotigers, my suggestion is intended to shorten the wait to fill worlds. One issue I've seen numerous times in worlds during that window between rollover and the world filling is 7 openings, 6, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, etc.

My point being that if everyone had to stay put, that world would have filled weeks if not months sooner. For the exact reason you poinht out, gotigers: people want to play. the closer you get to filling, the more people will want to join.

4/9/2013 12:00 PM (edited)
A secondary benefit to the suggestion is tied to the possibility of consolidating or eliminating worlds. Consolidation has happened occassionally I believe? It has certainly been brought up periodically. If my suggestion were implemented, the worlds that clearly still struggled to fill for extended periods would flag themselves for consoldiation. Currently, there's too much noise in the data with the moving around of owners in all but the best worlds.
4/9/2013 11:57 AM
I don't know how often it happens.  I imagine it's with newer owners wanting to play instead of sit.    I see no benefit to them in making them stay and wait.   Why sour the game for an inexperienced owner?
4/9/2013 12:03 PM
Whoops, I selected the wrong team.
What do you mean I can't correct it?
4/9/2013 12:03 PM
FYI, my general outlook in this suggestion and in others I've made previosuly is the same. We have been left as paying customers to do a lot of the work that WiS as creator, maintaner, and beneficiary of HBD and its other games shoudl be responsible for doing.

The reason there are private world rules in every case I have seen (and perhaps there are exceptions I have not seen) is to overcome the limitations of this game (tankers, etc.). That is, we aren't customizing the private worlds to make them more unique, but only to try and keep things as fair as we can by and large. That shouldn't be our job as paying customers, and yet we've become accustomed to doing just that.

In this example, locking in owners by default eliminates the need for a world's commissioner (in private worlds) to have to recruit 10 guys for 5 openings. 

4/9/2013 12:13 PM
Mike, I think you're assuming that locking them in is going to result in the same wait time. My whole reason for suggesting this is to cut down on the wait time. I am all but certain it would for the same underlying reason that owners bolt now.

deathinahole, that's clearly not the type of departure to which I'm referring. Give them a 24 hour window if that's a legitimate concern.

4/9/2013 12:17 PM
OK, locking in an owner results in shortening the wait time for that world from 6 weeks to 4 weeks.   However, you've taken a relatively new customer, dying to play and spend money, and held him back a month.   I don't see the benefit for him and I do see the negatives to the world. 
4/9/2013 12:20 PM
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/9/2013 12:17:00 PM (view original):
Mike, I think you're assuming that locking them in is going to result in the same wait time. My whole reason for suggesting this is to cut down on the wait time. I am all but certain it would for the same underlying reason that owners bolt now.

deathinahole, that's clearly not the type of departure to which I'm referring. Give them a 24 hour window if that's a legitimate concern.

I made "listen to what I mean, not what I say" famous.

You can't have a rule that's applicable in terms of how you feel or mean at the time. That creates a mess.
4/9/2013 12:25 PM
Not sure of your point, deathinahole. If the rule itself is that you have a 24 hour window for "buyer's remorse" or lack of concentrating enough to pick the right team, then fine. Locked in after that. There is no inconsistency in doing that to address the concern you raised. I'm more apt to take the "tough ****" attitude I take when owners "forget" to proetect their Rule V guys, but I'm willing to compromise.
4/9/2013 11:36 PM (edited)
What about a week for buyer's remorse?
4/9/2013 12:35 PM
12345 Next ▸
Lock in ownership Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.