Posted by zorzii on 4/27/2018 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/27/2018 8:37:00 AM (view original):
People parked in D2 and D3 because D1 was terrible. I’m not interested in making D1 worse so more people spend longer at D3.

D1 was not terrible, it was healthy. People were not parking... D1 at 3.0 is better. We all agree it makes for better compétition, does not mean we cannot improve D2 and D3.

It was terrible. That’s why 3.0 exists. “Healthy” goes beyond population.

Here’s where people have a serious misunderstanding about how a multi-player game works. Full isn’t ideal. If a world is full, you have a ton of dissatisfaction. Players paying for the game need to feel like they *can* be competitive. 2.0 D1 generally featured the same 15-20 teams in the Elite 8 every season. It was winner’s ball, and it took way too long to be eligible for those clubs, to say nothing about how much money you had to invest once you got to a big 6 doormat to try to rebuild it in a full conference.

The best and ideal version of this game is a D1 that is half to maybe - maybe - 2/3 full. Every big 6 conference at 8-10, a half-dozen mid-majors at 5-8, and the rest at 3-5. Everyone can feel like they are a season or three away from competitive at any given point. There should always be some big 6 jobs available for those who want them. But people should be able to build a “dynasty” from anywhere, though instead of 6 titles in 8 seasons, “dynasty” should be more like real life, where a team like UK gets 7 Sweet 16s and 2 title game appearances in a decade of seasons.

If D1 is functional and competitive, and people aren’t being artificially held back or blocked, it’s *always* going to be more full than lower divisions. Always. That’s healthy. There’s no reason to even have D3 in a college simulation, other than the short-term money grab at the beginning of a world, where everyone is trying to crawl all over each other for the plum positions ultimately in D1.

D3 should be a F2P sandbox with no credits. Then cap to your heart’s delight. As long as people are getting credits for dominating the place where new players have to start, caps are a non-starter.

Posted by mbriese on 4/26/2018 5:47:00 PM (view original):
"Marketplace assertion" - classic Spud, trying to sound smart using his big book-learnin' words.

I think there's a pretty even split on the whole "capping D3 AND D2" thing, but I see less people opposed to capping and sandboxing D3. I think a consensus on literally anything in HD would be a pretty big step towards legitimizing a suggestion.

Re: "LOL THEY ARENT PAYING ATTENTION IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN" - I get it; nobody cares about your negativity. Let people enjoy things!

What are the sandboxing thoughts exactly?

Posted by shoe3 on 4/27/2018 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Here’s where people have a serious misunderstanding about how a multi-player game works. Full isn’t ideal. If a world is full, you have a ton of dissatisfaction. Players paying for the game need to feel like they *can* be competitive. 2.0 D1 generally featured the same 15-20 teams in the Elite 8 every season. It was winner’s ball, and it took way too long to be eligible for those clubs, to say nothing about how much money you had to invest once you got to a big 6 doormat to try to rebuild it in a full conference.

The best and ideal version of this game is a D1 that is half to maybe - maybe - 2/3 full. Every big 6 conference at 8-10, a half-dozen mid-majors at 5-8, and the rest at 3-5. Everyone can feel like they are a season or three away from competitive at any given point. There should always be some big 6 jobs available for those who want them. But people should be able to build a “dynasty” from anywhere, though instead of 6 titles in 8 seasons, “dynasty” should be more like real life, where a team like UK gets 7 Sweet 16s and 2 title game appearances in a decade of seasons.

If D1 is functional and competitive, and people aren’t being artificially held back or blocked, it’s *always* going to be more full than lower divisions. Always. That’s healthy. There’s no reason to even have D3 in a college simulation, other than the short-term money grab at the beginning of a world, where everyone is trying to crawl all over each other for the plum positions ultimately in D1.

D3 should be a F2P sandbox with no credits. Then cap to your heart’s delight. As long as people are getting credits for dominating the place where new players have to start, caps are a non-starter.

I disagree with a ton of what shoe has said in this thread, but I strongly agree that "full isn't ideal" with our current state of affairs. If you think DI recruiting is not particularly fun/poorly designed now -- and I do -- imagine what a debacle it would be with 300+ teams.

And the fact that one of 3.0's strongest proponents says that DI should only be 1/2 to 2/3 full is a damning, damning assessment of 3.0. If you've designed a game -- that is supposed to make money -- so that it only works "well" when halfway full, you maybe should make some changes to your design.

"And the fact that one of 3.0's strongest proponents says that DI should only be 1/2 to 2/3 full is a damning, damning assessment of 3.0. If you've designed a game -- that is supposed to make money -- so that it only works "well" when halfway full, you maybe should make some changes to your design"

Just design the system to generate recruits based upon # of human coached teams. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Maybe they do care a little -- Champions page is fixed, not something that I care too much about, but maybe it's a sign? Nah ....

Posted by johnsensing on 4/27/2018 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/27/2018 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Here’s where people have a serious misunderstanding about how a multi-player game works. Full isn’t ideal. If a world is full, you have a ton of dissatisfaction. Players paying for the game need to feel like they *can* be competitive. 2.0 D1 generally featured the same 15-20 teams in the Elite 8 every season. It was winner’s ball, and it took way too long to be eligible for those clubs, to say nothing about how much money you had to invest once you got to a big 6 doormat to try to rebuild it in a full conference.

The best and ideal version of this game is a D1 that is half to maybe - maybe - 2/3 full. Every big 6 conference at 8-10, a half-dozen mid-majors at 5-8, and the rest at 3-5. Everyone can feel like they are a season or three away from competitive at any given point. There should always be some big 6 jobs available for those who want them. But people should be able to build a “dynasty” from anywhere, though instead of 6 titles in 8 seasons, “dynasty” should be more like real life, where a team like UK gets 7 Sweet 16s and 2 title game appearances in a decade of seasons.

If D1 is functional and competitive, and people aren’t being artificially held back or blocked, it’s *always* going to be more full than lower divisions. Always. That’s healthy. There’s no reason to even have D3 in a college simulation, other than the short-term money grab at the beginning of a world, where everyone is trying to crawl all over each other for the plum positions ultimately in D1.

D3 should be a F2P sandbox with no credits. Then cap to your heart’s delight. As long as people are getting credits for dominating the place where new players have to start, caps are a non-starter.

I disagree with a ton of what shoe has said in this thread, but I strongly agree that "full isn't ideal" with our current state of affairs. If you think DI recruiting is not particularly fun/poorly designed now -- and I do -- imagine what a debacle it would be with 300+ teams.

And the fact that one of 3.0's strongest proponents says that DI should only be 1/2 to 2/3 full is a damning, damning assessment of 3.0. If you've designed a game -- that is supposed to make money -- so that it only works "well" when halfway full, you maybe should make some changes to your design.

It’s the design of recruits as commodities that’s problematic. As long as recruiting is going to be a commodities game based on resource allocation, “full” will never work. It doesn’t mean it can’t be a fun game. I love the current version, and lots of others do, too, though the forum is generally a repository for complaints. But if you want a game like this to be nearing full, you’d have to eliminate resources from the equation altogether (I’ll just point out again, this is exactly what I’ve been pushing for since way before 3.0 beta). If people don’t feel like they can compete, if they sign up and look at a mountain of stacked teams above them with no good way to move up in a reasonable amount of time/$ investment, they’re not going to pay to play. A resource-based game is going to reach a stasis around 1/2 full.

I think of some of the big theme park attractions I’ve been on, like the wizarding world of Harry Potter. The best rides have very long lines. Lots of people want to do it. And it’s designed to let people enjoy the wait. The old version of this game was ostensibly supposed to operate like that, I think. People would enjoy the wait in lower levels. But when you realize those main attractions are never going to open up, it’s pointless. People will not pay to stand in line and never get to the ride, even if the wait is kind of fun. I mean, maybe some will. But you are severely restricting your base by designing the experience like that in the long term. That’s why I suspect the whole novelty of even including lower divisions was ultimately a short-term money grab, and probably behind a lot of the angst now.

“There’s no reason to even have D3 in a college simulation, other than the short-term money grab at the beginning of a world, where everyone is trying to crawl all over each other for the plum positions ultimately in D1.”
That’s an inaccurate statement in an otherwise sound post. Look past your prejudice that it is a “money-grab.” One of the key incentives for someone playing this game is to coach at their alma mater, and there are more D3 programs than programs at higher levels.

“And the fact that one of 3.0's strongest proponents says that DI should only be 1/2 to 2/3 full is a damning, damning assessment of 3.0. If you've designed a game -- that is supposed to make money -- so that it only works "well" when halfway full, you maybe should make some changes to your design.”
Wrong. Read his comments again and see if you understand them. I would add that another reason you don’t want full upper divisions is the logjam that would make for hiring and advancement.

shoe thinks he is the marketplace. You have 20 people telling him he's wrong, but he'll tell you most of the coaches love it. Nevermind the fact that 30% of the user population left and will not be replaced.

It's great that DI is better than before, but you killed 2 other divisions to do it. Even worse, you killed off the 2 divisions that a new user needs to enjoy before ever getting to DI. Your thought process is completely backward, because you don't want to lose DI as it currently is.

Put caps on the division. It will have no effect on DI. If a DI team is worried about a lower division school stealing a player, then that DI team wasn't going to be that good anyways. Without caps, you have the same users camping out taking DI players and running off new users. Under 2.0, I made sweet 16 as a newbie within 4 seasons. It took me 2 seasons to get a strong grasp of recruiting. Under 3.0, assuming the populations were the same, I'd be lucky if make it out of the first round. In the current population scenario, a new user won't even know where to start with a seasoned vet. On my current DIII team I help new guys out and without that assistance I know they wouldn't have a clue how to be stay competitive for awhile.

Posted by l80r20 on 4/27/2018 9:09:00 PM (view original):
“There’s no reason to even have D3 in a college simulation, other than the short-term money grab at the beginning of a world, where everyone is trying to crawl all over each other for the plum positions ultimately in D1.”
That’s an inaccurate statement in an otherwise sound post. Look past your prejudice that it is a “money-grab.” One of the key incentives for someone playing this game is to coach at their alma mater, and there are more D3 programs than programs at higher levels.

“And the fact that one of 3.0's strongest proponents says that DI should only be 1/2 to 2/3 full is a damning, damning assessment of 3.0. If you've designed a game -- that is supposed to make money -- so that it only works "well" when halfway full, you maybe should make some changes to your design.”
Wrong. Read his comments again and see if you understand them. I would add that another reason you don’t want full upper divisions is the logjam that would make for hiring and advancement.

Did we ever establish whether you've seen the movie "Split"?

I think the current recruiting system is much better than the old system..

Prestige was too much of a advantage in the old system, there was only 2 factors and that was prestige and money, now you have multiple preferences that can help or hurt your chance for a recruit.. I see too many opposing coaches chase recruits that I am recruiting where the preferences are stacked in my favor and I shake my head wondering why they are wasting their resources, and then they pull out a battle where I am 65-35 percentage favorite. I like that. It frustrates me but I like that a lot more teams have a chance at competing for recruits instead of the old system where only a few teams had a shot for those same recruits.

Why do we want a system where all the A+ teams pick their recruits and the rest trickle down to the next level of prestigious teams and so on?

Since WIS started showing percentages I have not won a battle for a 1+ star athlete where I was the underdog percentage wise. so I have as much of a reason to cry as anyone else.

I do have a problem with the 1 campus plus 20 home visits system. If you want to win a top recruit you have to do a campus visit, 20 home visits, promise start, 20+ promise minutes or hope no one challenges you for the recruit. . I have freshmen starting that are far inferior to my backups that are All American candidates. That is not very realistic. I think changing to max 10 home visits would be a improvement. 20 makes it so you can chase 2 or 3 recruits, if you dont get them you take a bunch of walk ons. 10 would create more battles among teams and let someone chase 4 to 6 recruits instead of 2 to 3.

Do away with the promise start and promise minutes. Its no longer a tool but something everyone must use to compete for a recruit and it creates a unrealistic result.

One other change I would make. Signing has become too predictable. Make it so there is a percentage that whenever and sign by end of first round could slip into the 2nd round of recruiting and that its possible that players with late signings preferences sign in the first round.

Personally I think they should make D3 free for 4 seasons. After 4 seasons if a person wants to continue playing they either pay full price or they lose their team. To make it so there isn't absent owners you must renew your free season at the end of the season . How much money is WIS making off sim teams? Might as well let someone play for free and learn the game and possibly get hooked compared to sim teams playing for free.


I bet long term they would make more money with this proposal.

And here I stand where I have not won a single recruiting battle, whether the underdog or the leading contender. Yes, I’m very bitter about that!

Plague-

I haven't seen anyone say recently they want to go back to the old system of A+ teams getting players without any fight. I think we can put that one to rest.

Some things you've said are contradictory and don't make sense to me. Help me understand what you're saying.

You think having to offer promises to top level recruits creates an unrealistic result of having to start freshmen over more experienced (and better players). However, you don't think it's unrealistic of having Duke battle Georgia Southern for recruits? Or worst yet - Duke battling D2 Rockhurst? So, do you want realism or not?

And why would going to 10 HVs be a more fun game?? This is one suggestion that continues to blow my mind. You basically want to dumb down the system instead of forcing the user to make some strategic choices and decisions on who they should actually pursue. Instead you want to just send out max effort to 6 players when you only need to sign 3 so you can cover your bases when you lose a battle? How is this a more strategic system? You're just buying more lottery tickets, that's it.