The downside, from my perspective, is exactly what I stated earlier; I am in a conference with people I enjoy playing with, I have rivalries built with coaches from other conferences that I enjoy playing against, I am not interested in starting over, and I am happy where I am. I don't see any evidence that we would experience the fuller worlds that would make up for my concerns. I just see the world I am happy in shutting down and the loss of established relationships in game to go along with it. We were promised fuller worlds when division 3 was reformatted. If anything, I think world populations have dropped. Lower the price and/or advertise if you want fuller worlds. Don't destroy worlds (or divisions) where loyal customers are already committed to the game.

I don't disagree that fuller worlds would be more fun. I just don't see that this would make the worlds fill up. It would absolutely aggravate many existing customers though.

Posted by genuvar on 2/19/2017 5:59:00 PM (view original):
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?

I don't mean to appear overly argumentative, but what games that require progress reset levels when the engine is updated? I have played many online games. I have never even heard of this happening. I am not saying it doesn't. It may happen a lot. I don't think it is common though, unlike server consolidations. I agree there is no good way to consolidate servers in this game, unlike others where established characters/kingdoms are moved to the new server. Even if you could successfully move teams without creating conflicts with other coaches already there or moving there who have or want the same teams, it would defeat the purpose of everyone starting out at the same level anyway.

Curious to see what other coaches think here. I can only speak for myself, but I hate the idea. Maybe run a Poll?

Posted by tarheel1991 on 2/19/2017 5:43:00 PM (view original):

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).

There have been many suggestions on the forums on what WIS could do for the game. Both to freshen it up for existing users and also attract new users. Some excellent ideas.

This suggestion is not one of those. I can in no way see how this would attract new users. When I discovered GD I couldn't have cared less that some coaches have owned a team for 40+ seasons. This does nothing for new users. Some users would hate it....some users would like it. = Not worth it.

The answer to this problem to me is to attach a "Pro" world to every college world and that you only be allowed to use a username once in any given world. The Pro teams would then hire coaches away from college schools based on their resume, and the coach could accept or decline the job offer. At the pro level, everything would be even with no elite status, and each team would draft players from the graduating college classes. WIS should develop more controls so that the professional level is more complex and realistic and has as many bells and whistles as they can add in. Once a coach is hired out of college to a pro team they could no longer use that username for a college team in that particular world unless they were fired or stepped down from their pro team. I'm sure the people at WIS could come up with some great twists to this idea. The pro level would then become very competitive and coaches would constantly be moving up and some would be getting fired. Hopefully, this would cause a degree of turnover to open up more opportunities for other coaches to move up.

Like I said in the interview that WIS did, I'm good at coming up with ideas but few of them are realistic or any good for anyone lol. So this might be totally unusable, but it is an idea!

I like it pete

Love it Pete

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.

... not the least of which is that it would *undoubtedly* get botched in the worst possible way, effectively dopping napalm on what is currently a fun and functional game.

If a transition of the willing could occur, I think yes, but at some point new people join the wrong world and then get effectively "screwed" by the forced change. Perhaps modified that you could not be the head coach at a school in a world for longer than "x" years rather than a simultaneous forced change world wide? Perhaps that was the original concept and I misread.

Perhaps open a new world and then announce in six months 2-3 worlds will be deactivated. If you coach in one of the worlds being deactivated you can immediately switch over to d2. This gives you a head start on the race to elite programs.

Just st a thought and it has flaws but it's probably the most non offensive idea I can see.

You do realize --- there isn't any in Cinci that actually tweeks GD anymore...that went bye-bye with the 3.0 rollout and subsequent backlash. They got rid of BaltimoreBirdFan and didn't replace him. The season run automatically on the server. The CS responses are from other game coders (few) - thus the long response times and un-understandable determination of the replies (see TigerFan controversy).

Posted by sjurat on 2/21/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):
You do realize --- there isn't any in Cinci that actually tweeks GD anymore...that went bye-bye with the 3.0 rollout and subsequent backlash. They got rid of BaltimoreBirdFan and didn't replace him. The season run automatically on the server. The CS responses are from other game coders (few) - thus the long response times and un-understandable determination of the replies (see TigerFan controversy).

I've said something similar. I love we are discussing new ideas but they will never touch this game again. :(

I have not read all comments (too lazy), but I would favor shutting down a few worlds. Give something like a YEAR notice...so that coaches can scout out the other worlds......give preferences to WIS and let them "re-assign" when a team comes available (at any level they have played at in the shut down world).

This would not help everyone, but if coaches can "see" into the other worlds and like to have TAM Commerce....then if/when it opens up, they could go get it. I would also suggest that WIS "clone" their team for them so they have even lesser impact. Hell, even if their desired school was not available, they could still clone the team and give it to them anywhere they wanted to go.

If done over a year....there would be ample opportunity for coaches to find a good landing spot. And yes....there will always be someone left out. I understand that. I was essentially "booted out" of D3 when they simplified that division...so I understand. But I lived and went on with coaching.

Posted by harriswb3 on 2/21/2017 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I have not read all comments (too lazy), but I would favor shutting down a few worlds. Give something like a YEAR notice...so that coaches can scout out the other worlds......give preferences to WIS and let them "re-assign" when a team comes available (at any level they have played at in the shut down world).

This would not help everyone, but if coaches can "see" into the other worlds and like to have TAM Commerce....then if/when it opens up, they could go get it. I would also suggest that WIS "clone" their team for them so they have even lesser impact. Hell, even if their desired school was not available, they could still clone the team and give it to them anywhere they wanted to go.

If done over a year....there would be ample opportunity for coaches to find a good landing spot. And yes....there will always be someone left out. I understand that. I was essentially "booted out" of D3 when they simplified that division...so I understand. But I lived and went on with coaching.

I personally would vote NO to a world reset. But I wouldn't be against shutting down worlds. An idea that I floated around was you could do as you said but also take your old roster of players with you. I would have no problem if they did so with one of my worlds/teams but I would be happiest if I had the team that I had recruited. This is how a merge is done in HBD. I think it would work well.

As far as having worlds that reset, if that's what you were ok with then fine. They could have 2 or 3 new worlds run this way.The rest would be as they are now.

Posted by jibe717 on 2/21/2017 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by harriswb3 on 2/21/2017 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I have not read all comments (too lazy), but I would favor shutting down a few worlds. Give something like a YEAR notice...so that coaches can scout out the other worlds......give preferences to WIS and let them "re-assign" when a team comes available (at any level they have played at in the shut down world).

This would not help everyone, but if coaches can "see" into the other worlds and like to have TAM Commerce....then if/when it opens up, they could go get it. I would also suggest that WIS "clone" their team for them so they have even lesser impact. Hell, even if their desired school was not available, they could still clone the team and give it to them anywhere they wanted to go.

If done over a year....there would be ample opportunity for coaches to find a good landing spot. And yes....there will always be someone left out. I understand that. I was essentially "booted out" of D3 when they simplified that division...so I understand. But I lived and went on with coaching.

I personally would vote NO to a world reset. But I wouldn't be against shutting down worlds. An idea that I floated around was you could do as you said but also take your old roster of players with you. I would have no problem if they did so with one of my worlds/teams but I would be happiest if I had the team that I had recruited. This is how a merge is done in HBD. I think it would work well.

As far as having worlds that reset, if that's what you were ok with then fine. They could have 2 or 3 new worlds run this way.The rest would be as they are now.

Agreed. Fair. Simple.

Posted by jibe717 on 2/21/2017 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by harriswb3 on 2/21/2017 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I have not read all comments (too lazy), but I would favor shutting down a few worlds. Give something like a YEAR notice...so that coaches can scout out the other worlds......give preferences to WIS and let them "re-assign" when a team comes available (at any level they have played at in the shut down world).

This would not help everyone, but if coaches can "see" into the other worlds and like to have TAM Commerce....then if/when it opens up, they could go get it. I would also suggest that WIS "clone" their team for them so they have even lesser impact. Hell, even if their desired school was not available, they could still clone the team and give it to them anywhere they wanted to go.

If done over a year....there would be ample opportunity for coaches to find a good landing spot. And yes....there will always be someone left out. I understand that. I was essentially "booted out" of D3 when they simplified that division...so I understand. But I lived and went on with coaching.

I personally would vote NO to a world reset. But I wouldn't be against shutting down worlds. An idea that I floated around was you could do as you said but also take your old roster of players with you. I would have no problem if they did so with one of my worlds/teams but I would be happiest if I had the team that I had recruited. This is how a merge is done in HBD. I think it would work well.

As far as having worlds that reset, if that's what you were ok with then fine. They could have 2 or 3 new worlds run this way.The rest would be as they are now.

You said what I was trying to say...in fact, I probably got the idea from you a while back!