Ideas to fix D3 and new user retention Topic

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
I suggest people use the suggestions forums. This is what it’s here for.
2/15/2019 12:51 PM
Posted by shoe3 on 2/15/2019 12:51:00 PM (view original):
I suggest people use the suggestions forums. This is what it’s here for.
I think Division 3 needs a whole community back and we just don't have it in Phelan a whole California Conference is about 15% and that's a shame.
2/15/2019 12:52 PM
The problem is the cost it takes to make a team good. If you actually do your research beforehand you might need 3 seasons, but usually 4-5. You’d need to be very passionate about this game to spend 40-50 trying to build a team.
2/16/2019 12:21 PM
As a new member here and someone who just finished their first season with a complete rebuild I can see where a casual fan would get frustrated. It is going to realistically take 4-5 seasons to build a conference contender let alone one that can challenge in the national tournament. I am going to implement a new offense which adds to that. The Sim-Al had my team set to a Fastbreak offense and Man-to Man defense which to me do not work well together. I have decided to stick it out and see what happens. I realize it will cost a good amount to make them better.
2/16/2019 1:17 PM
Posted by Tuzotonic on 2/16/2019 1:17:00 PM (view original):
As a new member here and someone who just finished their first season with a complete rebuild I can see where a casual fan would get frustrated. It is going to realistically take 4-5 seasons to build a conference contender let alone one that can challenge in the national tournament. I am going to implement a new offense which adds to that. The Sim-Al had my team set to a Fastbreak offense and Man-to Man defense which to me do not work well together. I have decided to stick it out and see what happens. I realize it will cost a good amount to make them better.
Kind of to my point. For every dedicated new user, you probably have five or more people who aren’t willing to make that commitment.
2/16/2019 1:53 PM
Posted by beachhouse on 2/16/2019 12:21:00 PM (view original):
The problem is the cost it takes to make a team good. If you actually do your research beforehand you might need 3 seasons, but usually 4-5. You’d need to be very passionate about this game to spend 40-50 trying to build a team.
It does cost to make a team good. In real life basketball it doesn't exist. Can turn around in team in one signing and one season.
2/16/2019 2:54 PM
Posted by beachhouse on 2/16/2019 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Tuzotonic on 2/16/2019 1:17:00 PM (view original):
As a new member here and someone who just finished their first season with a complete rebuild I can see where a casual fan would get frustrated. It is going to realistically take 4-5 seasons to build a conference contender let alone one that can challenge in the national tournament. I am going to implement a new offense which adds to that. The Sim-Al had my team set to a Fastbreak offense and Man-to Man defense which to me do not work well together. I have decided to stick it out and see what happens. I realize it will cost a good amount to make them better.
Kind of to my point. For every dedicated new user, you probably have five or more people who aren’t willing to make that commitment.
I’m not concerned about retaining the new players for whom the game is too complicated. They’re not going to like the same sorts of games I like, and I will never advocate for making a game worse, for the sake of simplicity and popularity.

I am, however, very concerned about retaining the sorts of people who should like this kind of game. That’s why I talk so much about letting those folks play the game at the level they want to play, and not holding them back for the sake of sucking more money out of them at lower divisions they have no reason to care about.

That 4-5 season, $40-50 investment is just for starting to get a good *D3* program. If the player is like most of us, they came here wanting to coach at a high level, Big Dance, against power conference schools. If after one season they realize it’s going to take ~2 real life years and perhaps hundreds of dollars to sniff that, a whole lot of them are going to pass. It would be much easier to take if they can be coaching a low level D1 school after one season at a lower division, if they choose - at least then they have a reason to invest in the process, because they can at least build *that* program into the one they had in mind in the first place.
2/16/2019 3:02 PM (edited)
I don't know how you can "fix" DIII without changing DII and DI. I did vote for DIII needing to be fixed but it is a larger symtom of HD 3.0 as a whole being broken.
2/16/2019 3:36 PM
Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/16/2019 3:36:00 PM (view original):
I don't know how you can "fix" DIII without changing DII and DI. I did vote for DIII needing to be fixed but it is a larger symtom of HD 3.0 as a whole being broken.
I don't know if its broken. But you can't have a sim without community acting right. Lets start with that step.
2/16/2019 3:51 PM
Posted by beachhouse on 2/16/2019 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Tuzotonic on 2/16/2019 1:17:00 PM (view original):
As a new member here and someone who just finished their first season with a complete rebuild I can see where a casual fan would get frustrated. It is going to realistically take 4-5 seasons to build a conference contender let alone one that can challenge in the national tournament. I am going to implement a new offense which adds to that. The Sim-Al had my team set to a Fastbreak offense and Man-to Man defense which to me do not work well together. I have decided to stick it out and see what happens. I realize it will cost a good amount to make them better.
Kind of to my point. For every dedicated new user, you probably have five or more people who aren’t willing to make that commitment.
I think this could be partially addressed by revamping the cost structure as I outlined here.
2/16/2019 3:59 PM
I would give the same amount of scouting and recruiting money as in D-1. Same with D-2.

Recruit only in your own division. Add some half stud players if you need to, to make things interesting.

24 hours for recruiting sucks, if you're targeting D-1 players, but in a way you kind of have to to keep up with the competition, so not like you can recruit
D-3 guys.

D-3 recruiting is boring. Fix it so it's just as exciting as D-1.

I would rather watch paint try than recruit in D-3. At least you don't get ****** off watching paint dry, instead of worrying if some higher division team is going to jump your recruit.
2/16/2019 5:37 PM
Regarding the mechanics of recruiting, I think the best thing they could do is remove the division distinctions for the players. Everybody should be in one big pool. But signing tendency should be fluid. A 3 Star point guard should not sign with a D3 school until the final recruiting cycle; but that same guy’s signing tendency might show up as “late” for a D2, “End of Period 1” for a D1 mid-major, and “Early” for a power school.

On the other hand, an unranked PG might sign with a D3 school by the end of period 1, if he’s not getting attention from higher schools.

I think it’s fine the way it is, and I suspect most new players don’t care nearly as much about this as people who played the previous versions of the game. But I think removing pool distinctions and making tendency fluid would be more realistic and intuitive, and probably make D3 recruiting a little more fun.

2/16/2019 8:38 PM
Posted by shoe3 on 2/16/2019 8:38:00 PM (view original):
Regarding the mechanics of recruiting, I think the best thing they could do is remove the division distinctions for the players. Everybody should be in one big pool. But signing tendency should be fluid. A 3 Star point guard should not sign with a D3 school until the final recruiting cycle; but that same guy’s signing tendency might show up as “late” for a D2, “End of Period 1” for a D1 mid-major, and “Early” for a power school.

On the other hand, an unranked PG might sign with a D3 school by the end of period 1, if he’s not getting attention from higher schools.

I think it’s fine the way it is, and I suspect most new players don’t care nearly as much about this as people who played the previous versions of the game. But I think removing pool distinctions and making tendency fluid would be more realistic and intuitive, and probably make D3 recruiting a little more fun.

You would need to increase the scouting budget for DIII if you combine all recruits into one pool. Otherwise, the DIII schools in heavily populated states would never use FSS and would do asst coach exclusively...IMHO.

If that is repeating a point you have already (indirectly) agreed to as stated earlier, my apologies.
2/16/2019 8:43 PM
Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/16/2019 8:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 2/16/2019 8:38:00 PM (view original):
Regarding the mechanics of recruiting, I think the best thing they could do is remove the division distinctions for the players. Everybody should be in one big pool. But signing tendency should be fluid. A 3 Star point guard should not sign with a D3 school until the final recruiting cycle; but that same guy’s signing tendency might show up as “late” for a D2, “End of Period 1” for a D1 mid-major, and “Early” for a power school.

On the other hand, an unranked PG might sign with a D3 school by the end of period 1, if he’s not getting attention from higher schools.

I think it’s fine the way it is, and I suspect most new players don’t care nearly as much about this as people who played the previous versions of the game. But I think removing pool distinctions and making tendency fluid would be more realistic and intuitive, and probably make D3 recruiting a little more fun.

You would need to increase the scouting budget for DIII if you combine all recruits into one pool. Otherwise, the DIII schools in heavily populated states would never use FSS and would do asst coach exclusively...IMHO.

If that is repeating a point you have already (indirectly) agreed to as stated earlier, my apologies.
For sure, the scouting budget would have to be reworked. That’s always the sticking point when this idea gets floated. It would probably take beta testing, which means it won’t happen until the next big update (if ever).
2/16/2019 8:46 PM
1|2|3...10 Next ▸
Ideas to fix D3 and new user retention Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.