Why would you not want your company to grow? Why would sportshub purchase WIS with the intention of just doing "meh".

Could they not open more worlds if needed? I think they could.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Assuming this game never existed, a sim basketball game comes out today and only features D1, does anyone say "Huh, I wonder why they didn't have D2/D3 included in this game? That's just weird!"

Using this line of reasoning, they could open D1-only worlds.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 12:31:00 PM (view original):
The ONLY reason I wouldn't do away with D3 is because people are there. Once again, people hate when you take their ****. HATE IT!!!

This game no longer supports 10,000+ school options. It doesn't even support half of that. There really is no need for 10 worlds, 3 levels of 300+. There simply is not.

I’ve said this a bunch of times, I think from a user experience standpoint, there is a sweet spot for population, and it is by conference and region, not by world. In a commodities game, you don’t want to feel crowded, especially if you’re stuck on the bottom. I think the sweet spot is generally 8-10 for Big 6 conferences where the teams have a higher baseline prestige to work with; 5-8 for conferences that want to be “mid-major” caliber; and <5 for low D1. So the sweet spot for a world is probably going to be south of 50% full overall for D1.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Assuming this game never existed, a sim basketball game comes out today and only features D1, does anyone say "Huh, I wonder why they didn't have D2/D3 included in this game? That's just weird!"

Using this line of reasoning, they could open D1-only worlds.

The obvious answer to the top question is no. I’ve said this a bunch, too. A lot of the problems (if they are seen as problems, again, we’re not shareholders, we don’t have access to the bottom lines, goals, or mission of the development team) this game is experiencing now could have and should have been foreseen from the outset, and come down to forced stratification being a short-term model for profitability. In the long term, it’s a model for frustration, dissatisfaction, and eventual attrition.

I think the game needs to check recruiting carefully. And check what made the game more competitive and more attractive. It seems to have lost touch with what customers want. But as everyone says, give the job logic a fix and help people get to D1 faster by lessening what needs to be achieved before getting there.

That's not really true. As I've said, repeatedly, your "problem" is my "feature". There is no consensus, on this board or within every HD world, of what the customers want.

From an individual standpoint, the game 10 years ago was neither competitive or attractive.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2017 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 12:31:00 PM (view original):
The ONLY reason I wouldn't do away with D3 is because people are there. Once again, people hate when you take their ****. HATE IT!!!

This game no longer supports 10,000+ school options. It doesn't even support half of that. There really is no need for 10 worlds, 3 levels of 300+. There simply is not.

I’ve said this a bunch of times, I think from a user experience standpoint, there is a sweet spot for population, and it is by conference and region, not by world. In a commodities game, you don’t want to feel crowded, especially if you’re stuck on the bottom. I think the sweet spot is generally 8-10 for Big 6 conferences where the teams have a higher baseline prestige to work with; 5-8 for conferences that want to be “mid-major” caliber; and <5 for low D1. So the sweet spot for a world is probably going to be south of 50% full overall for D1.

The way I heard it when I started was that the sweet spot was 8-10 humans for every conference. That's why some Big 6 conferences are terrible and some Mid-Major and Low D1 conferences are dominant. Is that wrong shoe?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 2:15:00 PM (view original):
That's not really true. As I've said, repeatedly, your "problem" is my "feature". There is no consensus, on this board or within every HD world, of what the customers want.

From an individual standpoint, the game 10 years ago was neither competitive or attractive.

it was also more popular.

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2017 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 2:15:00 PM (view original):
That's not really true. As I've said, repeatedly, your "problem" is my "feature". There is no consensus, on this board or within every HD world, of what the customers want.

From an individual standpoint, the game 10 years ago was neither competitive or attractive.

it was also more popular.

Pet rocks and hula hoops were once popular.
10 years ago, tiny phones were popular.

Times change, bud.

I don't think there are less people interested in college hoop, the game has lost something, Mike.

the problems with the hiring logic have continued - and are more of a problem in 3.0 because starting at a new job is harder (in general)

lowering the thresholds on hiring - I'd start with just a modest change - should not be hard and could help the game a lot.

Good point. 2015 was SOOOOOOO long ago

I really do the love the cop out excuses I read on these forums.

Gee golly, I guess people don't like these types of games anymore!

NFL ratings are down

I guess people don't like football anymore! Fad over!