I was just thinking about this today. Everyone remembers when new worlds would periodically open; it was always fun to have that blank slate, rush in and try to get up to DIA and the elites the fastest. The problem, of course, is that soon the total supply of coaching jobs across all worlds well exceeded the demand for them, which is why you have SIMs taking the vast majority of jobs across most levels these days.

So - it would be fun to have new worlds, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't just chase people out of the current worlds. So what about having the worlds "reset" after a set number of seasons--I'm thinking somewhere between 30 and 40? That would approximately simulate the length of a real-life coaching career, would still allow plenty of time to move up and establish multiple programs, and then would allow everyone to experience the rush of a new world relatively frequently. There are 11 worlds right now (which is probably at least three too many--I'd also support contracting three of the worlds as part of this process, but don't think that's absolutely necessary), so you could transition to the new system on a staggered schedule, starting approximately six months (4-5 seasons) out and having a new world switch over every 3-6 months after that. That would mean that, in the long run, there would be a world "resetting" every few months, which would give both new and established owners the chance to start on a level playing field and try to race to the top or build a dynasty at a lower level (as opposed to the current system, where each level is essentially dominated by folks who have been camping there for 20, 30, 40, 50 seasons and newbies have little to no chance of competing).

Something like this has probably been proposed before, maybe even several times. I've been playing this game since season 1 of the first world (Rockne) and my feelings for it have ebbed and flowed, which is why I've taken some long periods off. This game has been, at some points, the absolute best college football sim out there, and has potential to be such an incredible game. I think this is something that would improve the game by keeping it from getting stale, which I think it does for pretty much everyone at some point, as well as making the game appear less daunting to less experienced players who have the playing field slanted against them from day one.

Any thoughts on whether this is something people would be interested in? Is this something that people have suggested a thousand times before? (And as always, is there even any point in suggesting any major changes at all? lol)

Not a bad idea to reset but I am sure there are a TON of coaches out there who don't want to leave their "dynasties" or their alma mater...etc.

That takes the dynasty out of Gridiron Dynasty. Just reset a world because? No. A million times no. Now, it would be different if it was a merger to reduce the number of openings in all of the worlds. How that would transpire is a whole other debate.

I think 40 seasons is enough for any dynasty. I think it is a great idea.

yes but most coaches haven;t been there 40 seasons. Some will have just gotten there team competitive and you want to take that away.
no easy answer here.

I'm for taking 2-3 worlds and putting this into place so you can choose to be in it or not.

Really think the best fix is to change the elite and bcs prestige system. Their should be an earned prestige system that you move up once you win so many game, CC's, NC,s etc during a certain amount of time. This makes it so that coaches actually have to be talented to earned the extra benefits of having a prestige but also allow coaches to be successful from anywhere. I believe it would level the playing field and the best coaches could take any team and rise to the top.

Posted by truedevil33 on 2/19/2017 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I'm for taking 2-3 worlds and putting this into place so you can choose to be in it or not.

Really think the best fix is to change the elite and bcs prestige system. Their should be an earned prestige system that you move up once you win so many game, CC's, NC,s etc during a certain amount of time. This makes it so that coaches actually have to be talented to earned the extra benefits of having a prestige but also allow coaches to be successful from anywhere. I believe it would level the playing field and the best coaches could take any team and rise to the top.

Agree with this. I think it would create great interest. Elite teams would be decided by previous years successes. They could change every year.

It would be pretty cool to take a team like Air Force, build them up, start winning games/bowls and eventually be classified as an Elite?

Not a fan. Some coaches are happy where they are, in conferences with other coaches they enjoy playing with, have long time rivals at other schools in their divisions, and have records they worked for in each world that they enjoy padding. Take it away and people will be mad. It is an interesting idea but along the lines of reformatting div 3; you have to consider what you customers want, not what is necessarily the best thing for the game (if it is even best).

I know I wouldn't be happy hoping to reclaim a spot in a conference I am happy in while hoping that the other coaches return, all so a select few can get a job they want at the division 1 level. It just seems like change for the sake of change to me. I guess there are benefits at the top, but not everyone plays division 1, and not everyone who does would be in favor of losing the schools they are at anyway.

Posted by mojolad on 2/19/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):
yes but most coaches haven;t been there 40 seasons. Some will have just gotten there team competitive and you want to take that away.
no easy answer here.

Yeah I just don't think resetting a world would work. If a world is down to 10-15 seasons why would a guy that hadn't been in that world want to even start playing? Agree no easy answer. Maybe some form of season limit at the same school? A rotating elite system at 1A?

Posted by drummer_66 on 2/19/2017 2:11:00 PM (view original):
That takes the dynasty out of Gridiron Dynasty. Just reset a world because? No. A million times no. Now, it would be different if it was a merger to reduce the number of openings in all of the worlds. How that would transpire is a whole other debate.

I don't think I was suggesting resetting a world "just because." I was suggesting resetting worlds because the current format of the game is problematic for multiple reasons, not least of which that staying at a school for 50 or 100 seasons is not remotely realistic. To be clear, I'm not criticizing the coaches that do that at all--they are more than free to do so (and I've spent long periods in multiple worlds at my alma mater, North Carolina). But suggesting that people need the option to stay at a school for 50 years to be able to properly build a "dynasty" is silly. If you reset a world every 40 seasons then you would have 40 seasons to build a dynasty at DIII, 25-30 seasons to build a dynasty in DIA, and somewhere in between for DII and DIAA. If 40 seasons is too low, make it 45 or 50. 50 is probably the realistic outer measure for the number of seasons anyone could be a head coach in real life. And it's not like the world is going to reset out of nowhere--you'll know when it's coming from the start (with the exception of the first reset, where you may get something like 5-30 seasons' notice, depending on where your world falls in the "reset" order).

Posted by jibe717 on 2/19/2017 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mojolad on 2/19/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):
yes but most coaches haven;t been there 40 seasons. Some will have just gotten there team competitive and you want to take that away.
no easy answer here.

Yeah I just don't think resetting a world would work. If a world is down to 10-15 seasons why would a guy that hadn't been in that world want to even start playing? Agree no easy answer. Maybe some form of season limit at the same school? A rotating elite system at 1A?

You ask "if a world is down to 10-15 seasons why would a guy that hadn't been in that world want to even start playing." There are 11 worlds to choose from. If you stagger the resets, as I suggest, there will always be a world that has just reset or is about to reset, which means no one would be limited to jumping into a world "late" in a cycle. With 11 worlds, you could stagger them so that one is resetting probably every 3-4 months, so there would always be plenty of worlds that are "early" in the life cycle. The whole point is that it's more attractive to a newbie to jump into a "young" world where no one has had time to build a dominant dynasty and where there is more user engagement, particularly at DIII where everyone has to start. There are plenty of worlds now where you can jump in at DIII and have maybe two other humans in your conference, and where 25 of the 32 playoff spots go to basically the same teams that have strangleholds on their conferences every season. It's just not a particularly rewarding or engaging experience for someone just starting the game, in my opinion, compared to how it used to be,

Posted by truedevil33 on 2/19/2017 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I'm for taking 2-3 worlds and putting this into place so you can choose to be in it or not.

Really think the best fix is to change the elite and bcs prestige system. Their should be an earned prestige system that you move up once you win so many game, CC's, NC,s etc during a certain amount of time. This makes it so that coaches actually have to be talented to earned the extra benefits of having a prestige but also allow coaches to be successful from anywhere. I believe it would level the playing field and the best coaches could take any team and rise to the top.

I would also like to see recruit vision restrictions removed. Just let it be open and let all coaches compete for all recruits on all tiers.

Not a fan of change for the sake of change. I see a lot more downside than potential upside.

Posted by realist9900 on 2/19/2017 3:46:00 PM (view original):
Not a fan of change for the sake of change. I see a lot more downside than potential upside.

It's not "for the sake of change." It's a change that, in my opinion, would greatly improve the game, and in particular would make it more likely for new users to start playing the game (which, IMO, is sorely needed).

Can you explain what downside you see? I have seen others suggest that they would not like leaving conferences in which they've enjoyed playing for a long time. I understand that to a degree, though I think that people would find that "fuller" worlds (which I think this could provide) would prove to be just as fun, providing plenty more exciting conference rivalries. I'm not really seeing what other downside there is, so would appreciate folks explaining it.

Maybe one modification that would help is allowing a certain level of performance in a world to let you to apply for jobs in a higher division when the world "resets." I think it would probably still be important to leave DIA "blank" to start with, maybe DIAA as well, but allowing folks who were established in the higher divisions to start in DII (or possibly DIAA) would increase the number of initial spots open in the world and would ease concerns about it too hard for folks who enjoy the higher divisions to get back up there in time to form a "dynasty." I also think there should be records kept of past success in worlds, because I know it's important to people not to lose that.

Maybe some of the other old-timers can speak up, but I'm not sure people really appreciate how cool a "virgin" world was. The "newest" world right now is 83 seasons old--that means there hasn't been a "new" world in like eight years. The key is to capture the magic of a new world, without losing too much of the "dynasty" element of the game. I think resetting worlds after 40-50 seasons would accomplish that. I think it's worth sacrificing the ability to be at a school for 40+ seasons, which is something only a handful of users do, anyway. I realize that there are tradeoffs involved, but I'm confident we would find a solution that works (even if it doesn't make everyone happy).

Not sure about this whole thing.. but common things that happen in other games:

when there is a major overhaul in game engine mechanics the server resets and everyone starts at the same level. We are way past the last major update so probably not a good option.

Multiple servers (worlds) are usually made for a growing population of players so everyone can play. When the game loses popularity servers are consolidated so people are not playing in empty worlds. GD is way past the growing stage and having world's that are less than half full really defeats the purpose of the game. HOWEVER, what is the good way to do this if there even is one? Players don't want to start over and if you combine worlds you will have 2 people at Penn State for example. Which one gets to stay there? Or do you just get rid of some of the worlds as they stand? Or do that and create a new world where you can start in the division you were last in?