Benis, you're the one who said 111 was "pretty good". If it's down, then that's not healthy, nor is it pretty good.

But none of that disputes what I said, which is that it was never a good idea to have multiple lower divisions in this game, and especially not a good idea to offer incentive for people to park in them.

2-a-day worlds attract users who intend to move up quickly. You agreed with this at the outset of the thread. It wasn't controversial for you until I said it, in response to someone rehashing the "time consuming" argument.

111 is pretty good. If it was 111 in D2 and D3, I'm going to say, it's looking pretty good overall. I'd be happy with that.

But you're acting like it's VERY good. Like D1 is at 200 or something.

So you gain 7 D1 users but lose 25 D2/D3. That's a healthy sign?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2017 9:15:00 AM (view original):
It's not realistic to think a new user is going to have 6 teams in the first year. They won't. But the idea should be to get them in, get them started and get them motivated to stay. The current set-up doesn't really motivate anyone to stay. There's a 50/50 chance you get a bad team and have no idea what you're doing. 7-20 isn't a real motivator to renew. But, you re-up and maybe move to D2. You pick a better team and, with more knowledge, have more success. Then you find out, if you can repeat that success for 3-4 more seasons, you can have a bottom-feeder D1. Ugh.

Yes. The one thing they can do to retain new users most efficiently is reduce the number of seasons it takes people to get into the place they want to be - which, for most users, is at least the D1 mid-major level with a chance to compete for credits. Expecting them to be happy staying at Christopher Newport for dozens of years, and calling the game unhealthy if they don't, is a pretty dumb way to evaluate.

Hey! Christopher Newport is a sweet gig.

Posted by Benis on 6/15/2017 9:28:00 AM (view original):
111 is pretty good. If it was 111 in D2 and D3, I'm going to say, it's looking pretty good overall. I'd be happy with that.

But you're acting like it's VERY good. Like D1 is at 200 or something.

So you gain 7 D1 users but lose 25 D2/D3. That's a healthy sign?

No, that's not how I'm "acting". What I said was that it's a sign of health when D1 is outperforming the lower divisions. You said D1 was pretty good. I took you at your word. My mistake.

Except you glossed over the fact that D2/D3 populations are HORRIBLE. an all time low.

If D1 was growing and D2/D3 were stable, that would be healthy.

D1 hovering around 100 and D2/D3 decreasing isn't healthy.

Where do you think D1 users come from? If more users move up to D1 next season and we don't get new users to replace them the numbers will be even worse. That's the bottom line.

2 a days is not a good starting point for new users. It isn't. The best those worlds can hope for is, when new users decide to add teams, they think "Twice the games!!!!" and not, as I did, "****, I gotta check every 3 hours during recruiting? Screw that. That's a job!!!!!"

And what you're saying applies to users who have at least 1 season in another world under their belt. What you're saying makes no sense for a brand new user who is playing the game for the very first time and just trying out the game.

If you say so. Does any other world have fewer D3 users?

OK then.

Posted by Benis on 6/15/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Except you glossed over the fact that D2/D3 populations are HORRIBLE. an all time low.

If D1 was growing and D2/D3 were stable, that would be healthy.

D1 hovering around 100 and D2/D3 decreasing isn't healthy.

Where do you think D1 users come from? If more users move up to D1 next season and we don't get new users to replace them the numbers will be even worse. That's the bottom line.

Except, as you have already acknowledged, 2-a-day worlds are especially attractive for people who want to move up. They aren't good starting places for new players, because 3 months of playing time is twice as expensive. Not a place to learn the game. The numbers aren't good, but the conclusions you're drawing aren't good, either.

Again, if you want better retention, push for a quicker path for people to get into D1. For a niche game such as this, that's the killer.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2017 9:38:00 AM (view original):
2 a days is not a good starting point for new users. It isn't. The best those worlds can hope for is, when new users decide to add teams, they think "Twice the games!!!!" and not, as I did, "****, I gotta check every 3 hours during recruiting? Screw that. That's a job!!!!!"

That's the reason I joined a 2 a day world, PACE, having to check every 3 hours is better than once every 24 hours. Keeps me entertained, even if it is just for maybe 15 minutes at a time.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2017 9:49:00 AM (view original):
If you say so. Does any other world have fewer D3 users?

OK then.

Good point. Allen and Iba D3 are at 85 users. Absolutely booming.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/15/2017 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/15/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Except you glossed over the fact that D2/D3 populations are HORRIBLE. an all time low.

If D1 was growing and D2/D3 were stable, that would be healthy.

D1 hovering around 100 and D2/D3 decreasing isn't healthy.

Where do you think D1 users come from? If more users move up to D1 next season and we don't get new users to replace them the numbers will be even worse. That's the bottom line.

Except, as you have already acknowledged, 2-a-day worlds are especially attractive for people who want to move up. They aren't good starting places for new players, because 3 months of playing time is twice as expensive. Not a place to learn the game. The numbers aren't good, but the conclusions you're drawing aren't good, either.

Again, if you want better retention, push for a quicker path for people to get into D1. For a niche game such as this, that's the killer.

Yes they're attractive for folks racing to D1. This is obviously true.

But some people like the speed of D2 and D3 in 2 a day worlds. They like it that way and have no intention of moving up.

My conclusions are spot on. The game is not doing a good job of attracting and retaining new users. Period.

How are the 1x worlds doing? Are the populations awesome?

Is 85 more than 65?

OK then.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/15/2017 9:59:00 AM (view original):
Is 85 more than 65?

OK then.

And next month 65 will be more than 45. Yahoo.