That's for sure. If not, it was eventually doomed. I think we all just have different ideas on what the best way forward was.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/12/2016 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Good thoughts, chapel. If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that WIS had to do something different with HD.

The something different could've been not ignoring it on autopilot for 5 years.

"But most importantly, the current game is not retaining users, so something has to change."

Disagree - the current game is not bringing in new users. There's a big difference between the population dwindling because players are racing to the exits vs. the game is failing because of 0 marketing effort to replace normal attrition.

"The something different could've been not ignoring it on autopilot for 5 years."

Yep - that too. I think if they would invest in one more developer, and really try to continually develop small increments of the games, it would help retain users. In the big picture, that would more than pay for the developer. And they could be minor changes, just to make people feel like they were being paid attention to. One thing I had suggested, and I know many others, was to change the 2 hour first cycle at the start of recruiting. I don't know anything about programming, but that seems like such a simple fix. Change the number 2 to the number 24. Give us a full day to do our first recruiting.If it's that simple, that takes 10 minutes to do. But I can't tell you how many times I have stressed out and stressed my family out because "I have to do recruiting - sorry honey, it has to be done in this 2 hour period". And why not make scouting cash available more than 36 hours before recruiting starts. Do little things like this in all of the games at least once or twice a year, so that the product is continually improving.

Another thing that might help users feel more connected to admin, or vice versa, would be if admin would post more on the forums.

Posted by mullycj on 8/12/2016 11:43:00 PM (view original):
"But most importantly, the current game is not retaining users, so something has to change."

Disagree - the current game is not bringing in new users. There's a big difference between the population dwindling because players are racing to the exits vs. the game is failing because of 0 marketing effort to replace normal attrition.

Agree with this too, completely. You have to bring in people faster than you lose them. You will always lose some people. In my business, customers close down, change ownership, etc. So even if you have a great product, there will be some loss of customers. The idea is to get more new customers than you lose and retain them. I think the marketing aspect needs to be a part of this equation. If you make a great improvement, like I think this is, but no one knows about it, you are missing a great opportunity.

chapelhillne, pkoopman, hang in there, guys. You're absolutely on the right track.

Posted by mullycj on 8/12/2016 11:43:00 PM (view original):
"But most importantly, the current game is not retaining users, so something has to change."

Disagree - the current game is not bringing in new users. There's a big difference between the population dwindling because players are racing to the exits vs. the game is failing because of 0 marketing effort to replace normal attrition.

I don't think that is true. Sure, better marketing would help but I think we all kinda assume that this is a great game and if they just advertised a little bit more people would play and it would be great!

I can't support this with data but I now think that we, the current user base, is a subset of the sports fan population. We like the game because of it's characteristics but most people DON'T like the game for the same reasons we do.

I don't think the game was not bringing in new users, I really think it wasn't keeping them. The March/April push in Allen (I think) is an example of that.

That's a good point trent. Not that many of those who joined stuck with it - and I am sure that was a disappointment to management. I'd love to see HD mention that there are mentors available for those who want one. I think with a new game, there is a certain amount of time you have to capture the interest. If you play for an hour or two and you are totally lost, you tend to give up. That's why I think having really clear directions is really important, and having a list of mentors available for people when they join might be a really good idea. I'm always willing to help new people. There's a great deal of satisfaction to me in watching a coach develop because you helped them. And you build friendships, and that locks you into the game more.

If those of us who were in Beta and really like the game would make ourselves available as mentors, and perhaps even assign ourselves to new users and contact them offering assistance, this could be a great way to get the user base up.

I'm going to start a thread for a HD 3.0 Mentor List. That will be good for existing users who didn't play the Beta as well.

Chappel, One of the best things for the old game was when NEW users who were good at the game mentored and tutored other coaches in D3. Some of this was because it USED to be really difficult to get to good d1 programs, and many of us were bored silly waiting around. It was not uncommon in the old days to have to play 2 d3 teams b4 promo to d2, then two d2 teams b4 promo, then sometimes 3 but always 2 d1 teams b4 getting into a major conference, then one or two more promos to get to a high major school like Duke / Kentucky / UNC / UCLA etc. The only ones who made it to the top were the great ones.

That game is gone, not due to the Beta, that simply was the last nail in the coffin. The problem was the great ones stayed and liked it, and they were better than everyone else, so they never left. For that old game to exist, it needed two things, neither of which was on the table, tougher firing stds, or some sort of mandatory retirement / starting over. It's funny, I proposed the second thing a few months ago, and many of the same coaches who are unhappy now, were unhappy with that proposal. For me, I would view the being able to retire from a program as a badge of honor, kind of like getting to A+ prestige, even if it no longer helps one ridiculously win recruiting battles, it still symbolizes competence at the game. One coach really like Mich State, wouldn't it be cool to be the first coach to retire at Mich State, then start over in d3 and see if you can do it again?

My biggest issues with the new game are all the things chapel is saying is good about it, all the recruiting bells and whistles. I don't want to play a recuiting game (I sort of always have hated recruiting, other than when there were so many, it didn't matter who I got, I could win titles with all 40th ranked guys and my custom practice plans b4 potential. I want to play a SIM box score game, with my day to day in season game and team planning strategy to determine my results, not the way I recruit. I mean I understand the way I recruit is part of it, I simply don't want it to increase significantly.

The good news with the new game, it 'might' generate even enough teams, that the few team and game planning strategies that are left (cause most of them have been taken away, because the top coaches used to slaughter everyone else before target minutes and real practice planning in order to build teams got taken away) might let the 'best' team and game planning coaches have a pretty big edge. Based on what I saw in the Beta, I had a huge edge on most, and I did it with skipping one recruiting session completely, and only partaking in the 2nd session, which is really hard, in another. I didn't take over a remarkable team, but it was still a very good B+ one.

But I warn the coaches who think that the new HD will answer all their hopes and dreams to be a top coach in this game. Still, the ability to team build and game plan is what seperates the men from the boys. And as long as the game doesn't take away practice planning, roster setting, shot distro, and daily game planning, the top coaches are still going to win. Now wins might get pushed around in a more even manner, but none the less, unless you are top ten percent in game related skills, the soccer mom recruiting game is still not going to help you.

What he said.

" For me, I would view the being able to retire from a program as a badge of honor, kind of like getting to A+ prestige, even if it no longer helps one ridiculously win recruiting battles, it still symbolizes competence at the game. One coach really like Mich State, wouldn't it be cool to be the first coach to retire at Mich State, then start over in d3 and see if you can do it again? "

Good thoughts.

Posted by CoachSpud on 8/13/2016 1:34:00 AM (view original):
chapelhillne, pkoopman, hang in there, guys. You're absolutely on the right track.

+1

For those of you here who are old enough to remember "New Coke".....I'd like to suggest that right about now is the time to get yourself settled in with your popcorn and get ready to watch the proceeding with interest and a smile. Not because of the impending trainwreck, but because WIS isn't nearly as intelligent a business as Coca Cola, and this could be an entertaining event in terms of a business willfully throwing itself into chaos because there are too bullheaded to ever admit failure.

at one point in time, i was against the mandatory retirement, but OR convinced me years ago with some forum post that it was a good idea. i think it gets a bit complex, its not as simple as a 40 year cap, or maybe i just over think it, and it is that simple? my concern is a coach who spends 30 years building up d3 dynasty then wants to try d1, they only get 10 years to try to reach their dream job and build a dynasty there, its just not enough time. so maybe you could have infinite time in d3/d2 and only like 30 seasons in d1 or something, or even give someone +5 seasons every time they move a d1 job unless its an A range prestige job in which case you get no bonus. something to stop the parking. and maybe let retired coaches start with a d+ d1 school if they really want to, i don't think you really want to force d1-only coaches through d2/d3.

still, i think it could work, and i think there are pretty many reasonable proposals that would have a net-positive impact. would be better if they were in place from the beginning, but what can you do.

good post OR, i agree.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/13/2016 2:58:00 PM (view original):
at one point in time, i was against the mandatory retirement, but OR convinced me years ago with some forum post that it was a good idea. i think it gets a bit complex, its not as simple as a 40 year cap, or maybe i just over think it, and it is that simple? my concern is a coach who spends 30 years building up d3 dynasty then wants to try d1, they only get 10 years to try to reach their dream job and build a dynasty there, its just not enough time. so maybe you could have infinite time in d3/d2 and only like 30 seasons in d1 or something, or even give someone +5 seasons every time they move a d1 job unless its an A range prestige job in which case you get no bonus. something to stop the parking. and maybe let retired coaches start with a d+ d1 school if they really want to, i don't think you really want to force d1-only coaches through d2/d3.

still, i think it could work, and i think there are pretty many reasonable proposals that would have a net-positive impact. would be better if they were in place from the beginning, but what can you do.

good post OR, i agree.

Six months from now, we're going to look back and wish these kind of conversations had taken place with WIS before they told us the beta was going to focus on making recruiting more complicated.

I mean yeah, we're doing it now, but we'll do it in six months too.