I had and have some problems with 3.0, which I thought was not fully thought through in several important respects. I've been running on credits and finding that some aspects of the changes are quite good

The absence of support on even the easy and clear glitches has been frustrating

This episode is even more disappointing. It is cavalier disregard of customers - they communicated in two threads. Said they would announce what they decided to do. Seems that they decided to turn off the glitch - we think. And seems they decided not to undo the bad effects of the use of the glitch.

not the way one should communicate with customers in my opinion

They always come back.

this may not be a popular opinion but if i'm WIS what do i care if some longtime players leave? apparently 2.0 was catered to veteran coaches entrenched at the top programs, while everyone else had no shot. so i can either retain the winning veteran coaches who are piling up $100's in credits (aka not making me a penny) and risk losing the actual paying customers who'll leave because they have no shot at winning....or i can roll out 3.0 and make the game enjoyable for a wider audience. a paying audience. this isn't an "everyone deserves a medal for trying" argument like some try to turn it into, it's a business. it's like a bartender catering to his regulars who get free drinks while ignoring the paying customer. makes no sense.

Posted by MWalpole on 7/22/2017 1:06:00 AM (view original):
this may not be a popular opinion but if i'm WIS what do i care if some longtime players leave? apparently 2.0 was catered to veteran coaches entrenched at the top programs, while everyone else had no shot. so i can either retain the winning veteran coaches who are piling up $100's in credits (aka not making me a penny) and risk losing the actual paying customers who'll leave because they have no shot at winning....or i can roll out 3.0 and make the game enjoyable for a wider audience. a paying audience. this isn't an "everyone deserves a medal for trying" argument like some try to turn it into, it's a business. it's like a bartender catering to his regulars who get free drinks while ignoring the paying customer. makes no sense.

Lots of flawed premises in this post. When the bartender starts catering to the "paying customer," he shouldn't start insulting or ignoring his regulars. If the people who have left were players who were playing on credits, they had also invested lots of money to get to the point to where they were good enough to play on credits -- alienating your loyalest customers is an idiotic business strategy. And, as many threads have noted, the amount of credits being dished out per season are static -- therefore, WIS' goal should be to maximize the number of players. To use your bartender analogy, if the bar HAS to give out 20 and only 20 free drinks per night, ******* off the regulars so they leave is going to result in less revenue, since the free drinks are being given out one way or the other.

But even granting your premise that 2.0 was "catered to veteran coaches entrenched at the top programs" (which I also dispute, but that's here nor there for the moment), revamping to 3.0 did not have to have been botched so badly. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that WIS cares about making the game enjoyable for a wider audience -- they rolled out a horribly flawed game, and have shown no interest in fixing the obvious and often-noted flaws. That to me is by far the most infuriating part of 3.0. I mean, they still haven't even fixed the national champions page.

That premise is also flawed, JSS. You say the game is flawed. If I'm fresh off the boat, it's simply the way the game is set up. I either like it or I don't. If I'm fresh off the boat, I like it. I can be out-recruited by vets that know the tricks but still have a chance to win that 60/40. And, all the while, I'm learning. And I don't give a damn about the national champions page.

I'm not fresh off the boat. I played 20+ seasons of 1.0. IMO, it sucked. It was a race to the high prestige schools and the winners stayed there. Which was fine except, if you were on a recruit and UNC/Kentucky/etc came calling, it was time to move on. Great for for the UNCs but not so much for anyone else.

there is some good progress in 3.0 - but lack of post launch effort is really annoying. Even if no big or even medium fixes, at least devote the effort to fix the obvious glitches. Beta was short. And after any beta one expects some further debugging after launch. Less than minimal attention.

Posted by MWalpole on 7/22/2017 1:06:00 AM (view original):
this may not be a popular opinion but if i'm WIS what do i care if some longtime players leave? apparently 2.0 was catered to veteran coaches entrenched at the top programs, while everyone else had no shot. so i can either retain the winning veteran coaches who are piling up $100's in credits (aka not making me a penny) and risk losing the actual paying customers who'll leave because they have no shot at winning....or i can roll out 3.0 and make the game enjoyable for a wider audience. a paying audience. this isn't an "everyone deserves a medal for trying" argument like some try to turn it into, it's a business. it's like a bartender catering to his regulars who get free drinks while ignoring the paying customer. makes no sense.

Lot of truth in that post. And Mike's.

As for "alienating your loyalest customers is an idiotic business strategy," I think you misrepresent that. They lost freeloaders who whined constantly, not their "loyalest." The forums are still too toxic with whining, not conducive to encouraging newbies.

Posted by MWalpole on 7/22/2017 1:06:00 AM (view original):
this may not be a popular opinion but if i'm WIS what do i care if some longtime players leave? apparently 2.0 was catered to veteran coaches entrenched at the top programs, while everyone else had no shot. so i can either retain the winning veteran coaches who are piling up $100's in credits (aka not making me a penny) and risk losing the actual paying customers who'll leave because they have no shot at winning....or i can roll out 3.0 and make the game enjoyable for a wider audience. a paying audience. this isn't an "everyone deserves a medal for trying" argument like some try to turn it into, it's a business. it's like a bartender catering to his regulars who get free drinks while ignoring the paying customer. makes no sense.

JS's first paragraph in his post is spot on so I won't repeat it.

MWalpole - in theory, you are definitely correct. You want to make the game more enjoyable for a wider audience. I 100% agree there. Unfortunately, 3.0 as a whole, has not done that. If it did, then the populations wouldn't be at an all time low. There are aren't many new players.

So basically what happened - they changed the game into something the vets didn't like so they left but were unable to replace them with people who DO like the new game.

In 2.0 I was waiting for my credits to run out with my one basketball team. With 3.0 I added 4 more basketball teams. Worthy was good competition in the MWC in Rupp. I might not have always received his best shot because he was leaving and we totally disagreed on the 3.0 vs. 2.0 debate but worthy was still a quality player and conference mate.

As for mullycj, I have Baylor in Smith and look forward to running into your Wisconsin juggernaut in the NT.

Not possible. I heard everyone who played 2.0 hates 3.0.

in a perfect world, if things were going well WIS would post their profitability for HD for a nice "here you go.....we're making more money so shut the hell up!" moment. obviously that won't happen so no one will ever know if 3.0 is helping or hurting their bottom line. as someone who never played 2.0, but did play GD and HATED it, i absolutely love 3.0 to the point where it's becoming an obsession. i've even got my brother to play and he loves it too. the game will be fine in the long run, I'm just hoping we can get to the point where the forum is something other than people complaining about how much better things used to be. that isn't helpful to new users or fun to read.

Just a quick thought for y'all to think about. I did not run on credits until I decided to. I had 2 or more teams at varying levels. My elite Smith Syracuse team earned me regular credits for NT runs....my UNLV Rupp team rebuild did not. Nor did any of my other rebuilds in lower D1 and lower Big 6 schools. Some credits but not regular.I usually bought a 10-pack and was discounted the credits earned over those ten seasons with the schools.....still a paying customer.

There are coaches who are elite one team coaches who WIS does not make a dime on. I think losing my type of coach is what hurts the game. We still payed, played, promoted and helped anyone we could.

I like some things about 3.0....some I do not. It was just not done right from day 1 and continues to be ignored by WIS. Hence no more cash from this guy.

Worthy, for the record I don't want you to think my "coasting on credits" comments are directed towards you, just speaking in generalities. Also, I'm curious (because I don't foresee myself ever actually winning one) but how much do you get in credits for a NT win?

Posted by MWalpole on 7/22/2017 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Worthy, for the record I don't want you to think my "coasting on credits" comments are directed towards you, just speaking in generalities. Also, I'm curious (because I don't foresee myself ever actually winning one) but how much do you get in credits for a NT win?

• Lose opening round game: $3 in credits
• Lose second round game: $5 in credits
• Lose Sweet 16 game: $10 in credits
• Lose Elite 8 game: $15 in credits
• Lose Final Four game: $20 in credits
• Lose Championship game: 4,000 reward points
• National Champion: 6,000 reward points