Posted by crabman26 on 10/17/2018 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Pulling from an old thread...

”...think about the previous version of the game. Recruiting was just as complex, and also featured drop downs and pull downs; and pulling it off required more detailed knowledge about the formulas determining those outcomes than they do now. Players on championship teams were literally unavailable to new players and lower prestige teams. They were locked out by vision. But D2 and D3 was more populated. Not because the game was easier for new players (retention has always sucked, which was a reason 3.0 was launched in the first place), but because more players were parked in D2 and D3. They were parked, because D1 was bad.”

I do agree D1 sucked, the top schools could suck up anyone they wanted just smothering the mid majors. Im not saying 2.0 was better than 3.0. Maybe we should have had a 2.5?

IMO, the biggest mistake they made - and it was a significant mistake - in 3.0 was not including a major fix to jobs, to significantly decrease the years and dollars it takes to get folks to a team they care about. There was still going to be attrition, but maintaining that ridiculous structural barrier of forced years in lower division teams makes the goal of new player retention a perpetual aspiration.

Posted by crabman26 on 10/17/2018 6:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/17/2018 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/17/2018 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/17/2018 5:56:00 PM (view original):
The DI populations are actually up since after he initially post-upgrade attrition, while DII and DIII continue to plummet, which does lend some support to those who think it might be time to just ax DII and DIII. That might be the way to go.

Yep, I honestly believe its part of the retention problem. It really blows having to work your way up to a crappy D1 school by starting at D3.

Just let them start at the crappy D1 school.

D2/D3 populations were pretty healthy before. The change has made D3 worse which includes the introduction to the game. That's why the D3 numbers are low. No new people and no one sticks around for more than 1 season!

Good point, they were healthier. I know this isnt a popular opinion, but it'd be nice if D2 could only recruit D2, and same with D3.
I dont recall 2.0 ever allowing me to recruit top guys at their positions from D2 schools, or if it did I dont ever remember being a legit threat to a D1 school....now they are legit threats.

This just means you almost have to recruit D1 type players at both D2 and D3.

I think that opinion is/was VERY popular. For me personally, it completely ruined D3.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/17/2018 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/17/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Pulling from an old thread...

”...think about the previous version of the game. Recruiting was just as complex, and also featured drop downs and pull downs; and pulling it off required more detailed knowledge about the formulas determining those outcomes than they do now. Players on championship teams were literally unavailable to new players and lower prestige teams. They were locked out by vision. But D2 and D3 was more populated. Not because the game was easier for new players (retention has always sucked, which was a reason 3.0 was launched in the first place), but because more players were parked in D2 and D3. They were parked, because D1 was bad.”

I do agree D1 sucked, the top schools could suck up anyone they wanted just smothering the mid majors. Im not saying 2.0 was better than 3.0. Maybe we should have had a 2.5?

IMO, the biggest mistake they made - and it was a significant mistake - in 3.0 was not including a major fix to jobs, to significantly decrease the years and dollars it takes to get folks to a team they care about. There was still going to be attrition, but maintaining that ridiculous structural barrier of forced years in lower division teams makes the goal of new player retention a perpetual aspiration.

Agreed completely....its the #1 reason I havent taken on anymore teams....I really have no desire to sit through all the time it takes to get to a decent D1 team

Posted by Benis on 10/17/2018 7:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/17/2018 6:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/17/2018 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/17/2018 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/17/2018 5:56:00 PM (view original):
The DI populations are actually up since after he initially post-upgrade attrition, while DII and DIII continue to plummet, which does lend some support to those who think it might be time to just ax DII and DIII. That might be the way to go.

Yep, I honestly believe its part of the retention problem. It really blows having to work your way up to a crappy D1 school by starting at D3.

Just let them start at the crappy D1 school.

D2/D3 populations were pretty healthy before. The change has made D3 worse which includes the introduction to the game. That's why the D3 numbers are low. No new people and no one sticks around for more than 1 season!

Good point, they were healthier. I know this isnt a popular opinion, but it'd be nice if D2 could only recruit D2, and same with D3.
I dont recall 2.0 ever allowing me to recruit top guys at their positions from D2 schools, or if it did I dont ever remember being a legit threat to a D1 school....now they are legit threats.

This just means you almost have to recruit D1 type players at both D2 and D3.

I think that opinion is/was VERY popular. For me personally, it completely ruined D3.

I agree this ruined DIII. You could have negated all of the same issues that were negated by other changes in 3.0 and still prevented the cross-division competitiveness. Part of what I thought was so fun about DIII, and frankly helpful in learning the game overall, was having to learn how to assemble teams with very imperfect players.

"Part of what I thought was so fun about DIII, and frankly helpful in learning the game overall, was having to learn how to assemble teams with very imperfect players."

This is EXACTLY how I feel. That's what made D3 unique in my opinion. I really don't see the point in playing D3 right now. Worlds are ridiculously empty and as Dahs pointed out in another thread, you're basically on easy mode the whole time. Not much of a challenge to get to S16 let alone try to get a tourney bid.

I guess, an alternative to actually fully axing DII and DIII would be to make them separate games. As a new player, you pick what division you want to play, and then coach in that division. So, if you wanted to start in DI, you could, and then work your way up from a D prestige team as desired. Or, if you wanted to play DII or DIII, you could do that, and the players available to recruit in each would be limited to the players currently generated for those divisions.
Separating the divisions like this would improve game play in each of them, I think.
That being said, if you didn't have to play your way through DII and DIII to get to DI, not sure how many folks would be interested, but that's fine. You could have fewer DII and DIII worlds for those who do.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/18/2018 5:01:00 PM (view original):
I guess, an alternative to actually fully axing DII and DIII would be to make them separate games. As a new player, you pick what division you want to play, and then coach in that division. So, if you wanted to start in DI, you could, and then work your way up from a D prestige team as desired. Or, if you wanted to play DII or DIII, you could do that, and the players available to recruit in each would be limited to the players currently generated for those divisions.
Separating the divisions like this would improve game play in each of them, I think.
That being said, if you didn't have to play your way through DII and DIII to get to DI, not sure how many folks would be interested, but that's fine. You could have fewer DII and DIII worlds for those who do.

I thought of something very similar.

Its like choosing the difficulty when playing a video game. Want the extreme challege, play D1 right away. Or if you want to ease your way in then go to D3.

Then to prevent vets from camping at D3 and dominating, reduce or eliminate reward credits at that level.

Posted by Benis on 10/18/2018 1:42:00 PM (view original):
"Part of what I thought was so fun about DIII, and frankly helpful in learning the game overall, was having to learn how to assemble teams with very imperfect players."

This is EXACTLY how I feel. That's what made D3 unique in my opinion. I really don't see the point in playing D3 right now. Worlds are ridiculously empty and as Dahs pointed out in another thread, you're basically on easy mode the whole time. Not much of a challenge to get to S16 let alone try to get a tourney bid.

I agree with this as well, although I only had one D3 team, I think, since 3.0. But it basically, to me, involves getting a ton of players from D1 unlocked, then waiting to see who is left at the end. I do think that being able to recruit up 2 divisions is bad for D3. Even if they would just be able to recruit D2 and D3 players would be a lot better.

They used to start reducing rewards at the lower levels after a certain number of championships. It wasn't popular. Coaches who had established dynasties at D3, at a time when it was highly populated, didn't think there was any reason they should be rewarded less than coaches who had chosen to move up. Given the current population imbalances between the levels, maybe it would be seen as more reasonable.

Agree with every point on D3. We have been saying the same thing from the start of 3.0. It used to be really fun at D3, pulling down some D2 recruits, not all were pullable, setting your chemistry differently, lacking talent at key spots… Now, recruiting is just waiting forever for your D1 babies to accept your schollies. Unfortunate. It's a quick fix. Just get teams to recruit up to 500 max or something like that.

Posted by l80r20 on 10/20/2018 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone kept the record for the most whining in one thread? This thread is a contender, for sure.

hi spud. I think you might be a contender for "most posts despite not having an active team."

I'd love to play a version of HD with players who were CLEARLY worse than a D1 player. Where 50 defense is really good and players hardly (or if ever) reach 90 in any field. I think it would be a ton of fun trying to create a winning team with lots of these flawed players. It would also FEEL like a different game from D1/D2.

Posted by Benis on 10/22/2018 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I'd love to play a version of HD with players who were CLEARLY worse than a D1 player. Where 50 defense is really good and players hardly (or if ever) reach 90 in any field. I think it would be a ton of fun trying to create a winning team with lots of these flawed players. It would also FEEL like a different game from D1/D2.

D3 was legit fun in 1.0 and 2.0.

I remember my first season, Season 1 Allen, I went something like 4-23 at Santa Cruz and immediately got addicted to the game despite my complete incompetence. Those were the days...