Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 10:28:00 AM (view original):
I don't think WifS would go for FREE D3!!!!, I just don't think it's a bad idea. An introduction to the game.

Reducing D1 credits will not encourage people to move to D1.

Why not just give free seasons to the REAL game? Buy one get one or something like that.

Well I don't think you can do both.

You can't reduce credits at D3 AND allow people to start out at D1. Why would anyone ever play D3? It's already a ghost town and would become moreso if credits were reduced and new people coming in started at D1. Kiss it goodbye.

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2017 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 9:44:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure some will prefer to stay in D2/D3. I certainly wouldn't eliminate them. I would reduce/eliminate credits at those levels. And I still like FREE D3!!! a lot. I'd stay in Smith-Little East as long as my conference mates did without credits even if it were free, reduced, or regular price.

I'm not understanding why you guys think WIS would go for a FREE D3. Reduced credits at D3 to encourage folks to move up is a much better idea.

This is in context of a discussion on whether letting players skip D3 would kill D3. I don’t support just lopping it off, but I agree that this proposed change would further diminish D3 populations. Keeping it as a sandbox is essentially acknowledging that the game has changed. D1 is the feature, D2 is the place where you start or rebuild a career. Keeping D3 as a legacy feature then serves the purpose of letting people keep the toy they’re attached to, and is a novel recruiting idea to get people used to and hooked on the scouting/recruiting system. It’s basically perpetually Free HD, but you keep D3 completely separate from the higher divisions, different pool of recruits, so there’s no cheating. And it’s no longer a credit farm.

I don’t think they will go for it. I do think they should.

I'm in a full conference. I don't care about credits. I'd stay in D3 if my conference mates did. I think I said this already.

Now, if all of us could get in one D1 conference, maybe that's an option. But it won't happen.

FWIW, FC Dynasty is free. I played 4-5 seasons of it before I got bored.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):
FWIW, FC Dynasty is free. I played 4-5 seasons of it before I got bored.

I play it. It’s fine, as long as you accept the game is what it is. There aren’t going to be any updates, or fancy lifetime records pages. If you get in a world with a dozen other players, it can be fun, especially when someone is ambitious enough to organize a “champions league” of exhibition games.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2017 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):
FWIW, FC Dynasty is free. I played 4-5 seasons of it before I got bored.

I play it. It’s fine, as long as you accept the game is what it is. There aren’t going to be any updates, or fancy lifetime records pages. If you get in a world with a dozen other players, it can be fun, especially when someone is ambitious enough to organize a “champions league” of exhibition games.

So its like current 3.0......

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2017 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2017 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 9:44:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure some will prefer to stay in D2/D3. I certainly wouldn't eliminate them. I would reduce/eliminate credits at those levels. And I still like FREE D3!!! a lot. I'd stay in Smith-Little East as long as my conference mates did without credits even if it were free, reduced, or regular price.

I'm not understanding why you guys think WIS would go for a FREE D3. Reduced credits at D3 to encourage folks to move up is a much better idea.

This is in context of a discussion on whether letting players skip D3 would kill D3. I don’t support just lopping it off, but I agree that this proposed change would further diminish D3 populations. Keeping it as a sandbox is essentially acknowledging that the game has changed. D1 is the feature, D2 is the place where you start or rebuild a career. Keeping D3 as a legacy feature then serves the purpose of letting people keep the toy they’re attached to, and is a novel recruiting idea to get people used to and hooked on the scouting/recruiting system. It’s basically perpetually Free HD, but you keep D3 completely separate from the higher divisions, different pool of recruits, so there’s no cheating. And it’s no longer a credit farm.

I don’t think they will go for it. I do think they should.

Only way to do this without needing to create a brand new world is to make D1/D2 not scoutable from D3. So it's really not a separate pool, just a cap. Otherwise that's quite a bit of effort for little reward.

I still don't see the benefits. Mike and his buddies are chilling at D3 playing for free when they could potentially be playing at D2/D1 and spending money.

Well, for those who believe you have to learn at the lower levels before being ready to play D1, it would be a place to learn.

I skipped over some bitchy arguments in this conversation so it might have already been mentioned, but rather than having a "sandbox" D3, why not just do tiered pricing and rewards? Sure, start at D1 if you like, but it's "higher stakes" than learning in lower divisions, and you'll have to start out at a less-than-optimal job. You could instead start at D3 ($3 per season) to learn before you start building your coaching resume at DII ($6 per season) to land a job in D1 ($12 per season) that you actually want, scaling the rewards at each level the same way.

Cost/benefit wise, they'd make much more money going that route even if it only increases occupancy to 50% in each world.

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2017 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2017 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/1/2017 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 9:44:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure some will prefer to stay in D2/D3. I certainly wouldn't eliminate them. I would reduce/eliminate credits at those levels. And I still like FREE D3!!! a lot. I'd stay in Smith-Little East as long as my conference mates did without credits even if it were free, reduced, or regular price.

I'm not understanding why you guys think WIS would go for a FREE D3. Reduced credits at D3 to encourage folks to move up is a much better idea.

This is in context of a discussion on whether letting players skip D3 would kill D3. I don’t support just lopping it off, but I agree that this proposed change would further diminish D3 populations. Keeping it as a sandbox is essentially acknowledging that the game has changed. D1 is the feature, D2 is the place where you start or rebuild a career. Keeping D3 as a legacy feature then serves the purpose of letting people keep the toy they’re attached to, and is a novel recruiting idea to get people used to and hooked on the scouting/recruiting system. It’s basically perpetually Free HD, but you keep D3 completely separate from the higher divisions, different pool of recruits, so there’s no cheating. And it’s no longer a credit farm.

I don’t think they will go for it. I do think they should.

Only way to do this without needing to create a brand new world is to make D1/D2 not scoutable from D3. So it's really not a separate pool, just a cap. Otherwise that's quite a bit of effort for little reward.

I still don't see the benefits. Mike and his buddies are chilling at D3 playing for free when they could potentially be playing at D2/D1 and spending money.

“You can't reduce credits at D3 AND allow people to start out at D1. Why would anyone ever play D3? It's already a ghost town and would become moreso if credits were reduced and new people coming in started at D1. Kiss it goodbye.” - Benis, above

First, call it a separate pool, call it a cap. As long as non-paying customers can’t scout or recruit from the higher pool, there’s no functional difference. Non-issue.

More importantly, the benefit is that you don’t have to kiss D3 goodbye if you eliminate incentives for D3 and let people start at D1. You can come up with some other ideas, like using it as a promotional tool to encourage the people who may not want to spend money to see if they like the game to give it a try.

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!"

Posted by mbriese on 12/1/2017 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Cost/benefit wise, they'd make much more money going that route even if it only increases occupancy to 50% in each world.

Increasing occupancy to 50% in each world is a pipe dream. You can maybe get D1 to 50%. Never D2 or D3, especially not with tiered credits. The only way to do that is to open new worlds, which creates the original conditions of the “race” for the top D1 jobs; but that’s not a long term situation, attrition will set in hard after a few seasons; then you’re also siphoning teams off from other worlds. Most of us don’t have unlimited entertainment budgets to throw at this.

What they want is new users, not sucking more money out of existing users. If we agree that starting off at D3 and having to spend 7-8 seasons of investment at programs most potential users don’t care about to get to the level they probably want to play is an obstacle to new user recruitment and retention - and maybe you don’t agree, that’s fine - then removing that obstacle is the first order of business.

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.