Posted by zorzii on 3/15/2019 9:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/14/2019 9:00:00 PM (view original):
“Having DIII teams that are good enough to make the DI NT is just dumb.”

Having D3 at all is dumb, but here we are.

Like i mentioned before, my pre-3.0 championship caliber D3 team was beating SimAI big 6 programs by 40 points. That roster absolutely could have made the D1 NT from a mid major or low D1 conference.

It's not dumb. It used to be really fun. I had as much fun at D3 than anywhere else. Now, it's just a broken recruiting system that make you wait forever… while you hope to get your D1 players to sign. And it's getting to a location where D2 and D1 teams won't annoy your recruiting too much.

If D3 was a game where ratings were in the 300-400 range, I'd definitely pick up a team. I liked taking heavily flawed players and trying to make a great team. That was part of the fun and charm of D3.

Posted by zorzii on 3/15/2019 9:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/14/2019 9:00:00 PM (view original):
“Having DIII teams that are good enough to make the DI NT is just dumb.”

Having D3 at all is dumb, but here we are.

Like i mentioned before, my pre-3.0 championship caliber D3 team was beating SimAI big 6 programs by 40 points. That roster absolutely could have made the D1 NT from a mid major or low D1 conference.

It's not dumb. It used to be really fun. I had as much fun at D3 than anywhere else. Now, it's just a broken recruiting system that make you wait forever… while you hope to get your D1 players to sign. And it's getting to a location where D2 and D1 teams won't annoy your recruiting too much.

It was a poor game design choice. But it made someone a lot of money for a while, so kudos, I guess? As I said above:

• ...I do think it’s silly that D3 is part of this game. No other college sport game ever created found it necessary to start down that low. It’s a novelty, and it’s fine, and I’m not suggesting it be lopped off. But it isn’t where you increase retention, because for the vast majority of folks interested in a college basketball simulation, D3 is not where they plan to play.

As for “waiting”, 1) you don’t have to scout only D1 players. In fact, you probably shouldn’t, some of the best players I’ve had at D3 are the internationals from the D2 pool. And 2) you had to wait in the previous version, too. Recruiting didn’t even start until after the season, there was nothing to do until after the tournament. At least now, you’re making choices. You can cast a wide net, you can focus in, you can choose the region you want to hit. Lots of things you can do that weren’t really part of the process before. Waiting isn’t your issue, zorzii.

Shoe doesn't get that the "vets" saying the all the players in the same pool is stupid are the ones already dominating D3. They get it, understand the system, take advantage of its brokenness, and feed off the noobs. So when THEY say its broken, it probably is. Because guess what? Those guys like ONLY are making more money of this broken system now than they ever did.

Posted by Benis on 3/15/2019 9:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 3/15/2019 9:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/14/2019 9:00:00 PM (view original):
“Having DIII teams that are good enough to make the DI NT is just dumb.”

Having D3 at all is dumb, but here we are.

Like i mentioned before, my pre-3.0 championship caliber D3 team was beating SimAI big 6 programs by 40 points. That roster absolutely could have made the D1 NT from a mid major or low D1 conference.

It's not dumb. It used to be really fun. I had as much fun at D3 than anywhere else. Now, it's just a broken recruiting system that make you wait forever… while you hope to get your D1 players to sign. And it's getting to a location where D2 and D1 teams won't annoy your recruiting too much.

If D3 was a game where ratings were in the 300-400 range, I'd definitely pick up a team. I liked taking heavily flawed players and trying to make a great team. That was part of the fun and charm of D3.

+1

Posted by mullycj on 3/15/2019 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Shoe doesn't get that the "vets" saying the all the players in the same pool is stupid are the ones already dominating D3. They get it, understand the system, take advantage of its brokenness, and feed off the noobs. So when THEY say its broken, it probably is. Because guess what? Those guys like ONLY are making more money of this broken system now than they ever did.

I am a mediocre owner and haven't paid for a while, getting free games… And I only do it at D2 with three teams since I am just getting to the NT with my D1 teams not really going deep. Imagine Only… He has credits to last forever.

Posted by mullycj on 3/15/2019 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Shoe doesn't get that the "vets" saying the all the players in the same pool is stupid are the ones already dominating D3. They get it, understand the system, take advantage of its brokenness, and feed off the noobs. So when THEY say its broken, it probably is. Because guess what? Those guys like ONLY are making more money of this broken system now than they ever did.

The vets saying the system is broken are guys who mainly play in higher divisions, complaining about lower division teams locking up players they want to consider backups.

But while you’re in story mode, tell us that story about the time when new players used to be able to compete with veteran D3 teams on equal footing? And tell us again how forcing newcomers to directly compete with veterans for the best recruits in a limited pool is actually going to *benefit the newcomer*.

The problem isn’t that new players are intimidated by those big scary overall team ratings. The problem is that the game doesn’t do a good job of letting them know their options, so unless they read the forums and/or get a mentor, they don’t know how to do it. That can (and should) be fixed without whacking game economics.

ETA - and I pity the new folks who do venture to the forums, with drivel like this topic constantly blaring at them.

Posted by zorzii on 3/15/2019 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/15/2019 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Shoe doesn't get that the "vets" saying the all the players in the same pool is stupid are the ones already dominating D3. They get it, understand the system, take advantage of its brokenness, and feed off the noobs. So when THEY say its broken, it probably is. Because guess what? Those guys like ONLY are making more money of this broken system now than they ever did.

I am a mediocre owner and haven't paid for a while, getting free games… And I only do it at D2 with three teams since I am just getting to the NT with my D1 teams not really going deep. Imagine Only… He has credits to last forever.

This is a central point of contention, I think. Concerning retention, the game developers really shouldn’t be listening to 0nly, or similar players, at all, when it comes to the type of game they want. The opinion of folks who don’t have to (or refuse to) pay for the game is essentially meaningless. The opinion that matters is that of the folks who are willing and able to monetize, the folks who play the game for love of the competition, not for love of winning and dominating. That’s why I cringe every time I see someone mock someone else’s winning percentage or number of Sweet 16 appearances. That line of reasoning just tells me you don’t understand what this is about *at all*.

Do not be fooled. 0nly is not arguing, and never has argued for anything other than a system that he can *know* and manipulate.

Posted by mullycj on 3/15/2019 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Shoe doesn't get that the "vets" saying the all the players in the same pool is stupid are the ones already dominating D3. They get it, understand the system, take advantage of its brokenness, and feed off the noobs. So when THEY say its broken, it probably is. Because guess what? Those guys like ONLY are making more money of this broken system now than they ever did.

Haha it's funny cause it's true. I remember him specifically saying how easy it would be for him (and others like him) to dominate if they launched 3.0.

Surprise surprise

Posted by Benis on 3/15/2019 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/15/2019 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Shoe doesn't get that the "vets" saying the all the players in the same pool is stupid are the ones already dominating D3. They get it, understand the system, take advantage of its brokenness, and feed off the noobs. So when THEY say its broken, it probably is. Because guess what? Those guys like ONLY are making more money of this broken system now than they ever did.

Haha it's funny cause it's true. I remember him specifically saying how easy it would be for him (and others like him) to dominate if they laughed 3.0.

Surprise surprise

What’s extra funny is when he goes on a tirade and gets rage-banned for 6 months because something doesn’t go his way.

Yes......that was extra funny. I wish the ban wasn't permanent so we could see another one. I try my best but am a NOOB compared to his rants.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/15/2019 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 3/15/2019 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/15/2019 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Shoe doesn't get that the "vets" saying the all the players in the same pool is stupid are the ones already dominating D3. They get it, understand the system, take advantage of its brokenness, and feed off the noobs. So when THEY say its broken, it probably is. Because guess what? Those guys like ONLY are making more money of this broken system now than they ever did.

I am a mediocre owner and haven't paid for a while, getting free games… And I only do it at D2 with three teams since I am just getting to the NT with my D1 teams not really going deep. Imagine Only… He has credits to last forever.

This is a central point of contention, I think. Concerning retention, the game developers really shouldn’t be listening to 0nly, or similar players, at all, when it comes to the type of game they want. The opinion of folks who don’t have to (or refuse to) pay for the game is essentially meaningless. The opinion that matters is that of the folks who are willing and able to monetize, the folks who play the game for love of the competition, not for love of winning and dominating. That’s why I cringe every time I see someone mock someone else’s winning percentage or number of Sweet 16 appearances. That line of reasoning just tells me you don’t understand what this is about *at all*.

Do not be fooled. 0nly is not arguing, and never has argued for anything other than a system that he can *know* and manipulate.

Disagree. When coaches like Only tell Seble that noobies will have no chance in DIII with the current system they BETTER listen. Noobies getting quashed probably has a lot to do with low new user retention. And if you remember correctly ONLY argued AGAINST this system that he could easily manipulate.

Several of us did as well. Not because we couldn't win in this system, but because of its flaws. But we all digress. The pop numbers seem to side with us that this new system not only doesn't hold onto new players, it slowly bleeds away existing players.

LMAO! Only has the same chance of "knowing and manipulating" the game as every other coach. The fact that he does it better than most is not a negative thing. He puts in the time to be successful. I've been playing since 2006 and I still have the same fun as I did over a decade ago. In my opinion the game is no better or no worse than it was back then either. I have a D1, D2 and a D3 team. They all present different challenges to being successful. I will say I like 3.0 better as a low level D1 coach but I liked the previous build better at D2 and D3. Just my opinion. Nonetheless, the game is just as fun as it has always been, imo.

Posted by mullycj on 3/15/2019 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/15/2019 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 3/15/2019 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 3/15/2019 9:22:00 AM (view original):
Shoe doesn't get that the "vets" saying the all the players in the same pool is stupid are the ones already dominating D3. They get it, understand the system, take advantage of its brokenness, and feed off the noobs. So when THEY say its broken, it probably is. Because guess what? Those guys like ONLY are making more money of this broken system now than they ever did.

I am a mediocre owner and haven't paid for a while, getting free games… And I only do it at D2 with three teams since I am just getting to the NT with my D1 teams not really going deep. Imagine Only… He has credits to last forever.

This is a central point of contention, I think. Concerning retention, the game developers really shouldn’t be listening to 0nly, or similar players, at all, when it comes to the type of game they want. The opinion of folks who don’t have to (or refuse to) pay for the game is essentially meaningless. The opinion that matters is that of the folks who are willing and able to monetize, the folks who play the game for love of the competition, not for love of winning and dominating. That’s why I cringe every time I see someone mock someone else’s winning percentage or number of Sweet 16 appearances. That line of reasoning just tells me you don’t understand what this is about *at all*.

Do not be fooled. 0nly is not arguing, and never has argued for anything other than a system that he can *know* and manipulate.

Disagree. When coaches like Only tell Seble that noobies will have no chance in DIII with the current system they BETTER listen. Noobies getting quashed probably has a lot to do with low new user retention. And if you remember correctly ONLY argued AGAINST this system that he could easily manipulate.

Several of us did as well. Not because we couldn't win in this system, but because of its flaws. But we all digress. The pop numbers seem to side with us that this new system not only doesn't hold onto new players, it slowly bleeds away existing players.

New players aren’t getting “quashed”, not anymore than they ever have. 0nly isn’t “dominating” any more than he ever did (D2 and D3, as lots of people have mentioned and suspected, his main problem seems to be that the way he wants to play doesn’t work very well at D1 - because people like him are locking up his backup options). 0nly did not argue against the system that he could manipulate. He wanted a system he could manipulate at the top. Caps benefit D1 teams the most - swing for the fences without the consequences of striking out. That’s why you aren’t arguing for Sim AI to simply recruit better and harder, or for some of those players to choose Juco instead of showing up to the lower level team they signed with. Caps would benefit you.

This is simply not a reason retention remains poor. It’s a solution in search of a problem, textbook example. If you care about new player retention, stop coming up with reasons to keep the time and cost to getting to D1 so high.

Posted by texrangers25 on 3/15/2019 12:00:00 PM (view original):
LMAO! Only has the same chance of "knowing and manipulating" the game as every other coach. The fact that he does it better than most is not a negative thing. He puts in the time to be successful. I've been playing since 2006 and I still have the same fun as I did over a decade ago. In my opinion the game is no better or no worse than it was back then either. I have a D1, D2 and a D3 team. They all present different challenges to being successful. I will say I like 3.0 better as a low level D1 coach but I liked the previous build better at D2 and D3. Just my opinion. Nonetheless, the game is just as fun as it has always been, imo.

I agree entirely. The game will always be dominated by the people who know it best, and there’s no sense in fighting that either way. There’s no getting around it. And he’s certainly smart regarding efficient ways to get top level D2 and D3 players. That’s why I think it’s always been a mistake for people to use parity terminology (especially the ridiculous “participation trophy” stuff). Parity has never been the goal. It’s about competitiveness, not parity. The cream is going to rise to the top. The question is 1) whether there is upward mobility for new cream to rise, and 2) is there competitiveness, or we playing winner’s ball?

I coach a D2 team. I have resources for 2 scholarships. I need a guard, I’d like to get 2. So most of my resources are devoted to my top guard choice, and I’ve split the remainder on a couple backup options, hoping that 1) I win my top choice via battle, and 2) I get one of the other two options. The worst outcome for me is that I lose the battle, and both of my other two options are picked off by lower level teams. I have to make choices, I have to prioritize.

Consider my position in relation to a top level D3 team who might be challenging me for those backup options, and a random new D3 player. Who benefits the most from caps? The new player? Of course not. I would benefit most from caps, because I could go all in for the guy I really want, and have my pick among a large pool of backup options patiently waiting for me. The top level D3 team is going to get hers regardless. Prestige and preferences are going to swing toward the top in situations where new players have to challenge for top recruits. But the game as it is, the new player could just as easily be the team challenging to lock in my backup options. They have the same access as A+ D3 teams, assuming they know how the system works, and how to scout.

Caps benefit folks at the top.