Posted by mbriese on 6/12/2017 4:39:00 PM (view original):
I would love D3 if D3 teams could only recruit players from their division. I understand how the system worked with pulldowns and I get how it works now as well, but I've also spent a ton of time on the forums reading about how the game works. I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion, but I think D3 should be a "beginners" league with more parity than it currently has, and reducing the amount of teams loaded with D1 players would be a huge step in making it that way.

I realize this would probably require there to be more D3 recruits, but I would definitely stay with a D3 team for a long while if there weren't any pulldowns from D2 or D1.

There already are a TON of D3 players generated, I have learned that it's a waste of time and scouting money when there are better D2 and D1 options available. That being said it would make more sense for D3 to be only able to recruit D3 players and maybe the occasional D2 pull down.

And you'd force n00bs to battle established vets over players. That's not a recipe for n00b success.

I actually like that D3 feels distinctly different from D2 now. Going forward I'll probably have teams in all 3 divisions because I enjoy the variety.

Also, it's not a terribly surprising that 2 a day worlds attract more hardcore players who gravitate towards D1.

Then let us sign players during first session. Make it a real market.

I don't think numbers like these indicate that people necessarily like D1 better than D2 or D3. I think they indicate that 3.0 is doing a very poor job of attracting and retaining new users. People at D1 have been playing the game for awhile and like it. A good % of D2/D3 are people who have only had a couple seasons with the game and aren't sure if they want to play it for dozens of seasons.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2017 6:27:00 PM (view original):
And you'd force n00bs to battle established vets over players. That's not a recipe for n00b success.

Yes, they'd have to battle vets for D3 recruits, but I think that's better than battling SIMs for D3 recruits who will automatically lose to the D1 recruits vets can pull down anyways.

Also, it's not all about making success easier for n00bs, but giving them a new player experience that's easier to digest. Recruiting is complex enough for a user's first season without having to look through old posts on the forums to discover how D3 teams can sign D1 recruits on the last cycle of session 2 of recruiting. I know you'll want to say "they can learn like the rest of us", but the fact of the matter is that most users aren't going to consistently pay for a game that they don't understand or that they never have a chance of winning.

Posted by mbriese on 6/12/2017 6:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2017 6:27:00 PM (view original):
And you'd force n00bs to battle established vets over players. That's not a recipe for n00b success.

Yes, they'd have to battle vets for D3 recruits, but I think that's better than battling SIMs for D3 recruits who will automatically lose to the D1 recruits vets can pull down anyways.

Also, it's not all about making success easier for n00bs, but giving them a new player experience that's easier to digest. Recruiting is complex enough for a user's first season without having to look through old posts on the forums to discover how D3 teams can sign D1 recruits on the last cycle of session 2 of recruiting. I know you'll want to say "they can learn like the rest of us", but the fact of the matter is that most users aren't going to consistently pay for a game that they don't understand or that they never have a chance of winning.

Losing battles to 100 season veterans is better than losing to SIMAI? Not sure I follow that logic.

Pitting n00bs against established vets is not going to give them a better chance at winning. Everyone learns in their own way. There is nothing you can do to make a n00b learn faster. Or slower for that matter. They're going to put in the amount of effort their comfortable with. I think you're in the "mileage" thread. There is no way in hell I'm checking to see if I'm closer/further than another user recruiting. That may be a very effective strategy. It's also a fun-drainer for me. I'm not a n00b and that's more effort than I'm comfortable with.

I disagree, but I know it's pointless to try to convince you and I'm not interested in another long useless thread where you get your jollies off berating strangers on the internet. I'll leave it at this: a part of almost every successful marketing strategy for building a new audience includes simplifying the user experience and/or user interface, and making content and/or process easy to digest. That goes for products, websites, games, whatever.

I enjoy the level of minutiae HD allows you to get down to in order to gain a strategic advantage in recruiting. I also spend a lot of time manipulating data at my job, so nerdy statistical things like that are kind of second nature to me at this point. To each their own I guess.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/12/2017 6:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2017 6:27:00 PM (view original):
And you'd force n00bs to battle established vets over players. That's not a recipe for n00b success.

Yes, they'd have to battle vets for D3 recruits, but I think that's better than battling SIMs for D3 recruits who will automatically lose to the D1 recruits vets can pull down anyways.

Also, it's not all about making success easier for n00bs, but giving them a new player experience that's easier to digest. Recruiting is complex enough for a user's first season without having to look through old posts on the forums to discover how D3 teams can sign D1 recruits on the last cycle of session 2 of recruiting. I know you'll want to say "they can learn like the rest of us", but the fact of the matter is that most users aren't going to consistently pay for a game that they don't understand or that they never have a chance of winning.

Losing battles to 100 season veterans is better than losing to SIMAI? Not sure I follow that logic.

Pitting n00bs against established vets is not going to give them a better chance at winning. Everyone learns in their own way. There is nothing you can do to make a n00b learn faster. Or slower for that matter. They're going to put in the amount of effort their comfortable with. I think you're in the "mileage" thread. There is no way in hell I'm checking to see if I'm closer/further than another user recruiting. That may be a very effective strategy. It's also a fun-drainer for me. I'm not a n00b and that's more effort than I'm comfortable with.

Well the argument is that the vets will fill their teams with D1 players and crush the noobs and their D3 players when they play each other. In either system there will be a learning curve (battling vets for recruits or getting blown out by vastly superior teams).

Anytime I see a new user in my conference I reach out and let them know I am willing to answer questions and direct them to the forums. Many don't respond, but there's not much else vets can do to help with the learning curve.

Posted by mbriese on 6/12/2017 7:18:00 PM (view original):
I disagree, but I know it's pointless to try to convince you and I'm not interested in another long useless thread where you get your jollies off berating strangers on the internet. I'll leave it at this: a part of almost every successful marketing strategy for building a new audience includes simplifying the user experience and/or user interface, and making content and/or process easy to digest. That goes for products, websites, games, whatever.

I enjoy the level of minutiae HD allows you to get down to in order to gain a strategic advantage in recruiting. I also spend a lot of time manipulating data at my job, so nerdy statistical things like that are kind of second nature to me at this point. To each their own I guess.

Then you create a n00b world. Only allow users to stay 3 seasons. Of course, because the internet is what the internet is, aliases are created, they take the team they built under the other username and destroy n00bs anyway.

There is no solution to making the new user experience easier or better. All you're suggesting is creating a different problem. It's as simple as that.

Posted by zagsrulez on 6/12/2017 3:48:00 PM (view original):
What do you dislike about DIII compared to DI?

The disparity between the human teams and SIM teams was there in 1.0 and 2.0 but with DIII schools now being able to recruit DI players, coupled with the ignorant SIM recruiting logic, makes DIII seem like shooting fish in a barrel. I can still see the appeal for DIII if I were in a mostly full human conference but with 300+ openings in DIII, there are very few of those. Also, the importance of school location has been magnified in 3.0 to the point of stupidity. Bless everyone who enjoys that setup. It is simply not for me.

I can see that. Fortunately, I've been in a full conference during my D3 experience.

New coach signups are now over and we're at 69 D3 teams

Congrats to Tark for being the first world ever to have fewer than 70 D3 teams!

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2017 11:44:00 AM (view original):
Maybe 2 a day worlds aren't all the rage the 2 a day users make them out to be.

Bingo!

Or has many have said before, the new system is more time consuming which makes it more difficult to be in a 2 a day world.