Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/8/2017 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/7/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/7/2017 12:07:00 PM (view original):
I agree totally with Stewdog. I think this is really hurting the game. It's a big reason I am cutting down from a high of 10 teams (every world). For those that say it is not good for the game for a team to go to the final 4 75% of the time, it's not because the game is causing those teams to go there. It is because Stewdog is a great coach. So, he is basically being punished because he is a good recruiter. Every coach has the same chance to build a good program, and ones that are able to do it should not be punished. For those that have not been able to do it, the idea is to study how to be a better recruiter and game planner so that you can get to that level, not bring the successful coaches down. I still do not know what the solution is totally, but a start would be to make D1 teams much more powerful than D2 teams. It would not be nearly so frustrating to lose to a lower level D1 team.

It’s not hurting the game, it’s changing the game. Players who don’t adjust their expectations and gameplay are bound to be frustrated.

The unrealistic part to me is not that a team 5 prestige levels down could have a chance if their effort was much higher (and we can presume it was, I think). What is entirely unrealistic here is if the only other team to really challenge for a recruit good enough for an A+ team to promise minutes to is a D2. Coaches of high prestige teams were accustomed to winning those recruits with no challenge. That was the gameplay problem 3.0 intended to fix.

It is actually working as intended. This has been the game for over a year now. If you haven’t adjusted, that’s a user issue of gameplay and expectations, not a fault of the system.

I tired of these crappy arguments. Why are people leaving then? So it's hurting the game.

It really is a crappy argument. Consumer is boss. They're the ones that tell you if your product is good or not.

Imagine if all consumer products companies worked this way

Oh, you don't like how our new Nike shoes feel? Not our fault, you need to adjust.
Yeah we changed the flavor of Kraft Mac n Cheese. Don't like it? Adjust or GTFO
Big deal that you no longer like the way your clothes smell after you're done doing laundry. Get used to the new scent, it's better. Trust me.

Consumer products are developed to suit different customers in different parts of the market. That’s why there are lots of brands of shoes, cheese, and laundry detergent.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/8/2017 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/7/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/7/2017 12:07:00 PM (view original):
I agree totally with Stewdog. I think this is really hurting the game. It's a big reason I am cutting down from a high of 10 teams (every world). For those that say it is not good for the game for a team to go to the final 4 75% of the time, it's not because the game is causing those teams to go there. It is because Stewdog is a great coach. So, he is basically being punished because he is a good recruiter. Every coach has the same chance to build a good program, and ones that are able to do it should not be punished. For those that have not been able to do it, the idea is to study how to be a better recruiter and game planner so that you can get to that level, not bring the successful coaches down. I still do not know what the solution is totally, but a start would be to make D1 teams much more powerful than D2 teams. It would not be nearly so frustrating to lose to a lower level D1 team.

It’s not hurting the game, it’s changing the game. Players who don’t adjust their expectations and gameplay are bound to be frustrated.

The unrealistic part to me is not that a team 5 prestige levels down could have a chance if their effort was much higher (and we can presume it was, I think). What is entirely unrealistic here is if the only other team to really challenge for a recruit good enough for an A+ team to promise minutes to is a D2. Coaches of high prestige teams were accustomed to winning those recruits with no challenge. That was the gameplay problem 3.0 intended to fix.

It is actually working as intended. This has been the game for over a year now. If you haven’t adjusted, that’s a user issue of gameplay and expectations, not a fault of the system.

I tired of these crappy arguments. Why are people leaving then? So it's hurting the game.

It really is a crappy argument. Consumer is boss. They're the ones that tell you if your product is good or not.

Imagine if all consumer products companies worked this way

Oh, you don't like how our new Nike shoes feel? Not our fault, you need to adjust.
Yeah we changed the flavor of Kraft Mac n Cheese. Don't like it? Adjust or GTFO
Big deal that you no longer like the way your clothes smell after you're done doing laundry. Get used to the new scent, it's better. Trust me.

Consumer products are developed to suit different customers in different parts of the market. That’s why there are lots of brands of shoes, cheese, and laundry detergent.

Shoe : It's time you zip it. I had respected you. But defending this makes you sound like someone with low iq.

Posted by zorzii on 10/8/2017 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/8/2017 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/7/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/7/2017 12:07:00 PM (view original):
I agree totally with Stewdog. I think this is really hurting the game. It's a big reason I am cutting down from a high of 10 teams (every world). For those that say it is not good for the game for a team to go to the final 4 75% of the time, it's not because the game is causing those teams to go there. It is because Stewdog is a great coach. So, he is basically being punished because he is a good recruiter. Every coach has the same chance to build a good program, and ones that are able to do it should not be punished. For those that have not been able to do it, the idea is to study how to be a better recruiter and game planner so that you can get to that level, not bring the successful coaches down. I still do not know what the solution is totally, but a start would be to make D1 teams much more powerful than D2 teams. It would not be nearly so frustrating to lose to a lower level D1 team.

It’s not hurting the game, it’s changing the game. Players who don’t adjust their expectations and gameplay are bound to be frustrated.

The unrealistic part to me is not that a team 5 prestige levels down could have a chance if their effort was much higher (and we can presume it was, I think). What is entirely unrealistic here is if the only other team to really challenge for a recruit good enough for an A+ team to promise minutes to is a D2. Coaches of high prestige teams were accustomed to winning those recruits with no challenge. That was the gameplay problem 3.0 intended to fix.

It is actually working as intended. This has been the game for over a year now. If you haven’t adjusted, that’s a user issue of gameplay and expectations, not a fault of the system.

I tired of these crappy arguments. Why are people leaving then? So it's hurting the game.

It really is a crappy argument. Consumer is boss. They're the ones that tell you if your product is good or not.

Imagine if all consumer products companies worked this way

Oh, you don't like how our new Nike shoes feel? Not our fault, you need to adjust.
Yeah we changed the flavor of Kraft Mac n Cheese. Don't like it? Adjust or GTFO
Big deal that you no longer like the way your clothes smell after you're done doing laundry. Get used to the new scent, it's better. Trust me.

Consumer products are developed to suit different customers in different parts of the market. That’s why there are lots of brands of shoes, cheese, and laundry detergent.

Shoe : It's time you zip it. I had respected you. But defending this makes you sound like someone with low iq.

How will I ever go on?

"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."

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh man, oh man. wait wait

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ow ow that hurt.

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.

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.

F*** this game. I’m gunna ride on the thousands of credits I have piled up while complaining every step of the way, then I’m out. Duces.

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.

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.

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.

If the complaining consumers are currently producing no revenue, are unlikely to produce in the future, and they're monopolizing a part of my product that a paying customer is likely to want to pay for, I'm delighted to see the complainer leave.

I suspect stewdog has figured this out. He probably has no leverage here except to try to make revenue customers angry.

But I could be wrong. Stewdog, when's the last time you paid to play HD?

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.

You aren’t a game developer, benis. You don’t think about the game beyond your own nose. The changes you argue for are generally very bad, outside of the occasional slam dunk that virtually everyone gets right, like the considering list.

My head isn’t in the sand. This game is much better than the predecessor. It’s more competitive, and more realistic. Yes, even when oddities like the OP occur. Because it is more realistic for the #50 pg in the country to go D2 when a couple D1s kinda sorta would like to have him than it is for any D1 team to go to the final 4 8 years in a row, or for any D1 team to be comprised entirely of NBA caliber players, or for any D1 to recruit a class full of 4-5 star players with no serious challengers.

Stewdog got a class of 2 5-stars and a 4-star, and is complaining - threatening to quit entirely - because he lost out on one. Give me a break. When games get dominated by whales like that, it is the developers responsibility to adjust the game to promote good competitive gameplay. That is literally the job of the developer of online multi-player games. If those players don’t want to adjust, they can find other waters to swim in. We are not obligated to accept a less-competitive and less realistic simulation simply because there are a lot of people who liked it the old way.

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.

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?

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.

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.