Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/8/2017 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 4:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/8/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/8/2017 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 2:58:00 PM (view original):
If a CEO of a company came out and told me that our product isn't selling because the consumer doesn't want to adjust - I'd sell my stock so fast I wouldn't even care how much I was selling it for.

You’re not a shareholder, so this is obfuscation. If you like it, play. If you don’t, find something else.

If you want to argue for changes, then discuss on the merits of those changes. Falling back on “look how many people left” is asinine. It’s not your job to worry about how many other people play.

Keep sticking your head in the sand poopman.

I've argued plenty for changes and stated many times what benefits I think they'll bring.

As for my shareholder comment-

The more and more you talk about the business aspects of this game (because in case you forgot, this is a business that intends to make money), you show you have no CLUE what you're talking about.

I don’t talk about the business aspects of the game, because I don’t pretend it’s within my scope to do so. I know it makes you think you have won an argument, so keep on if you want.

"Every tech update in history suffers attrition. Some people don’t like their cheese being moved. The attrition represents people who, for whatever reason, don’t want to adjust."

This isn't you talking about the business aspects of the game?

That’s me responding to your asinine obfuscations.

You arent a WIS shareholder. Stop pretending you have data, insight, or interest in their bottom line, revenue, target market, price points, goals, etc. The game isn’t worse because x number of users decided they didn’t want to play anymore.

It means it's making less money.

Maybe. So? I play games on websites that would make more money if they involved pink flying unicorns with k-pop and porn. I don’t judge how much I value a game based on how many other people like it.

I'm not sure FOX gave a damn about the pennies per day WifS brought in. SportsHub, considerably smaller, probably does. If you impatient bastards would give them a few minutes, they might address some issues. It's entirely possible, and probable, that they're trying to determine what's a real problem and what's "But I don't like it because I can't win 31 games every season" whining.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/8/2017 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/8/2017 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 4:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/8/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/8/2017 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 2:58:00 PM (view original):
If a CEO of a company came out and told me that our product isn't selling because the consumer doesn't want to adjust - I'd sell my stock so fast I wouldn't even care how much I was selling it for.

You’re not a shareholder, so this is obfuscation. If you like it, play. If you don’t, find something else.

If you want to argue for changes, then discuss on the merits of those changes. Falling back on “look how many people left” is asinine. It’s not your job to worry about how many other people play.

Keep sticking your head in the sand poopman.

I've argued plenty for changes and stated many times what benefits I think they'll bring.

As for my shareholder comment-

The more and more you talk about the business aspects of this game (because in case you forgot, this is a business that intends to make money), you show you have no CLUE what you're talking about.

I don’t talk about the business aspects of the game, because I don’t pretend it’s within my scope to do so. I know it makes you think you have won an argument, so keep on if you want.

"Every tech update in history suffers attrition. Some people don’t like their cheese being moved. The attrition represents people who, for whatever reason, don’t want to adjust."

This isn't you talking about the business aspects of the game?

That’s me responding to your asinine obfuscations.

You arent a WIS shareholder. Stop pretending you have data, insight, or interest in their bottom line, revenue, target market, price points, goals, etc. The game isn’t worse because x number of users decided they didn’t want to play anymore.

It means it's making less money.

Maybe. So? I play games on websites that would make more money if they involved pink flying unicorns with k-pop and porn. I don’t judge how much I value a game based on how many other people like it.

Not maybe. Its simple math.

But hopefully Seble and his new team don't have bills to pay and are working pro bono.

“Its simple math.”

The math is simple if you have access to information like how many users (not teams) left, how many credits they were buying, and how many incentive credits were awarded. Losing a segment of the customer base that didn’t value the game enough to pay for it isn’t much of a loss. Sure those incentive credits are still mostly getting awarded (except for the sims that make the tournament), but if that’s a problem, it can be addressed by changing the incentive structure, which probably should have happened long ago.

Hell, I’d support capping recruits for D3, if the incentives were erased, and the game was free to play.

"Losing a segment of the customer base that didn’t value the game enough to pay for it isn’t much of a loss. "

Lulz.

Yeah, I don't get that. The reward system is what it is. Wanna give me rewards? Sweet. I'll use them.

But it is funny when someone says "I haven't paid for a team in 4 years but, if they don't fix -insert personal gripe-, I'm gone!!!"

Then the rewards just go to the next guy.

Let's say you have have 10 people playing and top 3 are playing for free. So you get money from 7 people. Those 3 people leave and you're left with 7 people. Those top 3 people play for free and now you get money from 4 people.

4 is less than 7.

Lol I love those “done paying, only using the tons of credits I have left” threats. Can’t wait til I build up the notoriety and success to say those comments.

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 6:29:00 PM (view original):
"Losing a segment of the customer base that didn’t value the game enough to pay for it isn’t much of a loss. "

Lulz.

I’m sure that’s funny somehow, but I'm thinking maybe you’re reading what you want to read here and not what I wrote. The math is only “simple” if you know how much those users were typically spending on a season, because at least some of those teams were occupied by users who had been playing on earned credits for a long time, and weren’t interested in actually paying for the game. That affects the simplicity of “the math” when you make a claim like less users = less money.

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 6:48:00 PM (view original):
Then the rewards just go to the next guy.

Let's say you have have 10 people playing and top 3 are playing for free. So you get money from 7 people. Those 3 people leave and you're left with 7 people. Those top 3 people play for free and now you get money from 4 people.

4 is less than 7.

But we're still done with the ***** and moan guy who doesn't pay to play, right? It's a win.

My outlandish claim that having 3300 occupied teams is more profitable than 2400 occupied teams.

CRAZYYYYY

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 7:14:00 PM (view original):
Seeing the chronic crybabies leave is a win. If I say "hell" in this forum, someone reports me. Possibly you. This is the biggest whiny, crybaby forum on WifS. Every game action is designed to personally ruin their game. Most of the posters here have the testosterone of a 9 y/o girl. I'm just not saddened to see them take their ball and go home.

But then again, who really cares what you think? Other than a couple of kiss *** followers of yours, your opinion usually falls on deaf ears.

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 6:48:00 PM (view original):
Then the rewards just go to the next guy.

Let's say you have have 10 people playing and top 3 are playing for free. So you get money from 7 people. Those 3 people leave and you're left with 7 people. Those top 3 people play for free and now you get money from 4 people.

4 is less than 7.

Nope, not that simple.

Developers want customers who are willing to pay for the product, like producers of any good and service. So right off the bat, those 7 who stay are individually much more valuable, even if they don’t always *have* to pay. They accept that sometimes they may pay, and will generally accept a more competitive game, seasons they have to pay more for. Keeping those customers will always take priority over the people who are only interested in freebies.

Beyond that, as I said, the incentive structure can always be changed, if necessary. A lot of people have been speculating for a long time that it may not make sense to offer full incentives to the lower divisions.

Thanks for checking in, thecheater17. If there's anyone less popular than me in this whiny forum, it's you. You know, because of the proud cheating.