There are no numbers to support your theory that people quit after one, or two, seasons because recruiting is open to all divisions.

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Yeeeah, I have one D3 team that I only have so that I can move up to D2 next season in Rupp, so I'm not personally invested in D3. I genuinely think it would be good for the game long-term to improve user retention, and think making D3 a simpler experience recruiting-wise would be a step in that direction. The "you're using the new players argument for personal gain" thing doesn't really apply here, and I would argue that Benis isn't hoping to change things for personal gain either - based on track record, it doesn't look like he needs help with D3 success.

Personal preference, not personal gain. It's feigned concern about how difficult the game *appears* for new players, but the heart of the issue is that they want to be able to sign D1 caliber players in the first period, without actually moving up divisions.

They just don't like the "red light".

"They" = Zorzii? I'm the one talking about UX/UI for new players, and don't actively partake in D3 aside from the one team I'm all but ignoring until I'm able to jump to D2. I have no "personal preference" for D3, I just want there to be more players in each world.

And benis. And spud. And a few others.

You want better player retention, make it easier and faster for players to move up to D1.

Do we have numbers to prove that that's an issue though? I don't disagree with it in theory, but I could have sworn somebody posted numbers about world populations a few months ago that people joined at D3 with the promotion, that number fell off significantly after their first season, and then those new users almost completely disappeared after their second season. I'll look for the thread. That being said, I don't think it's an either/or scenario; I don't see any issue with making it easier to get to D1. I just think the ideal D3 recruiting process would only include the D3 pool of players.

The population numbers are really bad.

and instead of saying "oh these are pretty bad, I wonder what causes it" you get know-it-alls like shoe saying they're "healthy".

hahaha what a joke.

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Yeeeah, I have one D3 team that I only have so that I can move up to D2 next season in Rupp, so I'm not personally invested in D3. I genuinely think it would be good for the game long-term to improve user retention, and think making D3 a simpler experience recruiting-wise would be a step in that direction. The "you're using the new players argument for personal gain" thing doesn't really apply here, and I would argue that Benis isn't hoping to change things for personal gain either - based on track record, it doesn't look like he needs help with D3 success.

Personal preference, not personal gain. It's feigned concern about how difficult the game *appears* for new players, but the heart of the issue is that they want to be able to sign D1 caliber players in the first period, without actually moving up divisions.

They just don't like the "red light".

"They" = Zorzii? I'm the one talking about UX/UI for new players, and don't actively partake in D3 aside from the one team I'm all but ignoring until I'm able to jump to D2. I have no "personal preference" for D3, I just want there to be more players in each world.

And benis. And spud. And a few others.

You want better player retention, make it easier and faster for players to move up to D1.

Do we have numbers to prove that that's an issue though? I don't disagree with it in theory, but I could have sworn somebody posted numbers about world populations a few months ago that people joined at D3 with the promotion, that number fell off significantly after their first season, and then those new users almost completely disappeared after their second season. I'll look for the thread. That being said, I don't think it's an either/or scenario; I don't see any issue with making it easier to get to D1. I just think the ideal D3 recruiting process would only include the D3 pool of players.

1. No, the only data, if it existed, would be a sort of exit survey, and we wouldn't have access to that. But I'll stand by my contention that *of the subset of sports simulation game players who should be interested in this game* the length of real time and cost of seasons to purchase before they can even get to the level of the team they probably had in mind when they joined is (probably by far) the biggest negative to retention. This is based on my experience, my sons experience, and a handful of people that I've tried to get into this game. I'm confident that it's a bigger detriment than how high the OVRs were for the teams at the top of the division in their first year, where they probably weren't reasonably expecting to contend anyway.

2. Regarding that last sentence, to get back to the perception vs reality thing that some here would rather... obfuscate... than answer, at least you have seemed to acknowledge that limiting the pool in this way is likely to make successful recruiting much harder - even if simpler - for new players. A couple of new players have chimed in here, and both have suggested that maybe simplicity isn't such a big deal (again, I think the real target niche audience for this kind of game generally appreciates a little complexity and nuance). So are we at the place where we're talking about simplifying the game to "broaden" the appeal? And if so, is there a line we don't cross, or are we starting down a path of FarmVille?

Somehow I don't see how limiting D3 players to recruiting only the crappiest of talent will enhance their experience.

Posted by Benis on 6/22/2017 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/22/2017 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Yeeeah, I have one D3 team that I only have so that I can move up to D2 next season in Rupp, so I'm not personally invested in D3. I genuinely think it would be good for the game long-term to improve user retention, and think making D3 a simpler experience recruiting-wise would be a step in that direction. The "you're using the new players argument for personal gain" thing doesn't really apply here, and I would argue that Benis isn't hoping to change things for personal gain either - based on track record, it doesn't look like he needs help with D3 success.

Personal preference, not personal gain. It's feigned concern about how difficult the game *appears* for new players, but the heart of the issue is that they want to be able to sign D1 caliber players in the first period, without actually moving up divisions.

They just don't like the "red light".

"They" = Zorzii? I'm the one talking about UX/UI for new players, and don't actively partake in D3 aside from the one team I'm all but ignoring until I'm able to jump to D2. I have no "personal preference" for D3, I just want there to be more players in each world.

Yeah, not sure who else he's referring to when he says 'they'. Projecting again.

That's not what "projecting" means. Projecting would be if I was taking my own preferences and agendas, and reading (or projecting) them into other people's comments.

Your dialectic game is getting pretty weak.

They are your own issues (issues with other people not the game) so yeah, you are.

Stick to obfuscation, benis. Play to your strengths.

Posted by Benis on 6/22/2017 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Yeeeah, I have one D3 team that I only have so that I can move up to D2 next season in Rupp, so I'm not personally invested in D3. I genuinely think it would be good for the game long-term to improve user retention, and think making D3 a simpler experience recruiting-wise would be a step in that direction. The "you're using the new players argument for personal gain" thing doesn't really apply here, and I would argue that Benis isn't hoping to change things for personal gain either - based on track record, it doesn't look like he needs help with D3 success.

Personal preference, not personal gain. It's feigned concern about how difficult the game *appears* for new players, but the heart of the issue is that they want to be able to sign D1 caliber players in the first period, without actually moving up divisions.

They just don't like the "red light".

"They" = Zorzii? I'm the one talking about UX/UI for new players, and don't actively partake in D3 aside from the one team I'm all but ignoring until I'm able to jump to D2. I have no "personal preference" for D3, I just want there to be more players in each world.

And benis. And spud. And a few others.

You want better player retention, make it easier and faster for players to move up to D1.

Do we have numbers to prove that that's an issue though? I don't disagree with it in theory, but I could have sworn somebody posted numbers about world populations a few months ago that people joined at D3 with the promotion, that number fell off significantly after their first season, and then those new users almost completely disappeared after their second season. I'll look for the thread. That being said, I don't think it's an either/or scenario; I don't see any issue with making it easier to get to D1. I just think the ideal D3 recruiting process would only include the D3 pool of players.

The population numbers are really bad.

and instead of saying "oh these are pretty bad, I wonder what causes it" you get know-it-alls like shoe saying they're "healthy".

hahaha what a joke.

Ah, that's more like it.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/22/2017 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Yeeeah, I have one D3 team that I only have so that I can move up to D2 next season in Rupp, so I'm not personally invested in D3. I genuinely think it would be good for the game long-term to improve user retention, and think making D3 a simpler experience recruiting-wise would be a step in that direction. The "you're using the new players argument for personal gain" thing doesn't really apply here, and I would argue that Benis isn't hoping to change things for personal gain either - based on track record, it doesn't look like he needs help with D3 success.

Personal preference, not personal gain. It's feigned concern about how difficult the game *appears* for new players, but the heart of the issue is that they want to be able to sign D1 caliber players in the first period, without actually moving up divisions.

They just don't like the "red light".

"They" = Zorzii? I'm the one talking about UX/UI for new players, and don't actively partake in D3 aside from the one team I'm all but ignoring until I'm able to jump to D2. I have no "personal preference" for D3, I just want there to be more players in each world.

And benis. And spud. And a few others.

You want better player retention, make it easier and faster for players to move up to D1.

Do we have numbers to prove that that's an issue though? I don't disagree with it in theory, but I could have sworn somebody posted numbers about world populations a few months ago that people joined at D3 with the promotion, that number fell off significantly after their first season, and then those new users almost completely disappeared after their second season. I'll look for the thread. That being said, I don't think it's an either/or scenario; I don't see any issue with making it easier to get to D1. I just think the ideal D3 recruiting process would only include the D3 pool of players.

The population numbers are really bad.

and instead of saying "oh these are pretty bad, I wonder what causes it" you get know-it-alls like shoe saying they're "healthy".

hahaha what a joke.

Ah, that's more like it.

I hope it met your high standards of excellence.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/22/2017 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Yeeeah, I have one D3 team that I only have so that I can move up to D2 next season in Rupp, so I'm not personally invested in D3. I genuinely think it would be good for the game long-term to improve user retention, and think making D3 a simpler experience recruiting-wise would be a step in that direction. The "you're using the new players argument for personal gain" thing doesn't really apply here, and I would argue that Benis isn't hoping to change things for personal gain either - based on track record, it doesn't look like he needs help with D3 success.

Personal preference, not personal gain. It's feigned concern about how difficult the game *appears* for new players, but the heart of the issue is that they want to be able to sign D1 caliber players in the first period, without actually moving up divisions.

They just don't like the "red light".

"They" = Zorzii? I'm the one talking about UX/UI for new players, and don't actively partake in D3 aside from the one team I'm all but ignoring until I'm able to jump to D2. I have no "personal preference" for D3, I just want there to be more players in each world.

And benis. And spud. And a few others.

You want better player retention, make it easier and faster for players to move up to D1.

Do we have numbers to prove that that's an issue though? I don't disagree with it in theory, but I could have sworn somebody posted numbers about world populations a few months ago that people joined at D3 with the promotion, that number fell off significantly after their first season, and then those new users almost completely disappeared after their second season. I'll look for the thread. That being said, I don't think it's an either/or scenario; I don't see any issue with making it easier to get to D1. I just think the ideal D3 recruiting process would only include the D3 pool of players.

1. No, the only data, if it existed, would be a sort of exit survey, and we wouldn't have access to that. But I'll stand by my contention that *of the subset of sports simulation game players who should be interested in this game* the length of real time and cost of seasons to purchase before they can even get to the level of the team they probably had in mind when they joined is (probably by far) the biggest negative to retention. This is based on my experience, my sons experience, and a handful of people that I've tried to get into this game. I'm confident that it's a bigger detriment than how high the OVRs were for the teams at the top of the division in their first year, where they probably weren't reasonably expecting to contend anyway.

2. Regarding that last sentence, to get back to the perception vs reality thing that some here would rather... obfuscate... than answer, at least you have seemed to acknowledge that limiting the pool in this way is likely to make successful recruiting much harder - even if simpler - for new players. A couple of new players have chimed in here, and both have suggested that maybe simplicity isn't such a big deal (again, I think the real target niche audience for this kind of game generally appreciates a little complexity and nuance). So are we at the place where we're talking about simplifying the game to "broaden" the appeal? And if so, is there a line we don't cross, or are we starting down a path of FarmVille?

For sure. Number one is why I quit this a decade back. I couldnt pay for a season every month lbs.

Re: Farmville, I get where you're going. Keep in mind I'm still talking D3 only and would just be interested in seeing what that change would do for new users. Wouldn't it also give incentive to learn the game and move up to D2, where you have the freedom to recruit against D1 schools if you so please? I want to say GD has something similar, only the level of gameplanning you can do is more sophisticated at higher levels; I don't think it applies to recruiting. Can any GD users confirm?

Also, not trying to veer us off topic for the sake of Mike's limited ability to comprehend more than one thing at once, but if it were easier to get to D1 would you also want coach firing more of a prevalent thing for unsuccessful coaches in D1?

I think D3 recruiting is broken basically because you cannot recruit during the first session, but D3 is also broken because originality, thinking outside the box, as we saw it before, is now impossible. We are back to branded recipe for success because of what's available talent-wise in the recruiting pool. If I have to decide on a player stats to build something that molds together, it's fun. It lets you express the way you want to build a team, now with D1 players available, you basically need to go for all stats and for complete players, which was not the case before.

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Re: Farmville, I get where you're going. Keep in mind I'm still talking D3 only and would just be interested in seeing what that change would do for new users. Wouldn't it also give incentive to learn the game and move up to D2, where you have the freedom to recruit against D1 schools if you so please? I want to say GD has something similar, only the level of gameplanning you can do is more sophisticated at higher levels; I don't think it applies to recruiting. Can any GD users confirm?

Also, not trying to veer us off topic for the sake of Mike's limited ability to comprehend more than one thing at once, but if it were easier to get to D1 would you also want coach firing more of a prevalent thing for unsuccessful coaches in D1?

Please provide some data that people quit after one, or two, seasons because D3 recruiting is open to all levels of players, snowflake.

Firing coaches when the userbase is down is downright stupid. That's a non-starter, snowflake.

I feel like calling someone snowflake twice in the same post is something someone with "snowflake like" qualities would say.

but who knows why I feel the way I feel

Classic Mike. One of these days we're gonna learn you some synonyms. We'll also improve your reading, or "book-learnin" as they may call it wherever you come from - keep in mind that "I'd be interested in seeing what the change would do for new users" is not the same thing as "look at this data on D3 recruiting!". I maintain that there are a few posts out there that discussed the change in users for the range of seasons where WIS did the "free first season" promo, but I haven't been able to find them.

Keep looking for something to argue, though. You've only made 52k+ posts; surely you'll get better at this given a few thousand more.

Posted by Benis on 6/22/2017 3:43:00 PM (view original):
I feel like calling someone snowflake twice in the same post is something someone with "snowflake like" qualities would say.

but who knows why I feel the way I feel

More appropriately, who cares why you feel the way you feel?

Posted by mbriese on 6/22/2017 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Classic Mike. One of these days we're gonna learn you some synonyms. We'll also improve your reading, or "book-learnin" as they may call it wherever you come from - keep in mind that "I'd be interested in seeing what the change would do for new users" is not the same thing as "look at this data on D3 recruiting!". I maintain that there are a few posts out there that discussed the change in users for the range of seasons where WIS did the "free first season" promo, but I haven't been able to find them.

Keep looking for something to argue, though. You've only made 52k+ posts; surely you'll get better at this given a few thousand more.

Classic dumbass. You don't know that there's a problem, can't prove that there's a problem but think change is needed.

Does dumbassery run in your family? It seems like it.