HTs on Global/League system
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (?) as reply to (?) | |
| To: ? | ? | ||
| I will not go in to details, but there are some really good reasons why we can't change the series system without doing a total redesign. A total redesign is not something we plan to do as it will be very time-consuming. Very. Or in other words so very time-consuming that it's in fact impossible. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (?7831771.36) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 18.01.2007 at 16:37 | ||
| Reply to (7831762.877)
What do you think about increasing the number of teams in the same group? It will be more realistic and (In my opnion) more fun to play against a bigger number of teams. This questions/suggestion comes from time to time. The main reason behind having “just” 8 teams in each group is that it gives excitement to all or close to all in that group during the whole season. You’re always close to leading/having to qualify/escape degradation and so on. With more teams in the group there would be more “safety” but also a risk of boredom if you’re kind of stuck in the middle not close to either end of the table, or perhaps if your stuck in the bottom you’d be that for more weeks. This could of course be tweaked by changing the number of team promoted and so on. We also have to take in consideration how long a season should be. Extra teams means longer season, at least 4 weeks extra for 2 extra teams per group (and there would be at least 2 since odd numbers wouldn’t be a very good idea ) and that would have implications for new managers for instance. For a new manager taking charge of a team in the bottom of his group table I think every extra week until the new season, and a fresh start on “equal” terms, counts. Here you might object saying that the tempo could increase, meaning we play 2 league matches every week instead of 1. But, we’re quite happy with today’s tempo, it’s part of the Hattrick concept that you don’t have to log in every day to enjoy the game (but that there are things to do everyday if you like to, like watch a match, youth pull, use the conferences, keep an eye on the transfer and so on). To every problem there is of course a solution and it might seem as I’m just pointing out the downsides (and I guess I am…) but I wanted to show some of the things that we need to take into consideration. Every (suggested) change has it’s up- and downsides and we have to think about how the change effects other things, what the change would “cost” (in time and effort) and what it would bring to the game. These and more technical things like re-writing a whole lot of code makes a change like the one you suggested quite a big one. I guess we shouldn’t say it’ll never ever happen but it doesn’t seem likely looking back at earlier discussions about this. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (?7831771.101) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 23.08.2007 at 17:25 | ||
| Reply to (8995830.365)
Would it be possible to change the team assignment routine into a system that encourages retention rather than discourages it? For example, using a "horizontal fill" in the lowest division where new teams are assigned evenly across the division instead of the "vertical fill" where new teams are all assigned into the same series at the same time? The vertical fill system has made it devastatingly difficult to retain new players in the US for years. It's technically possible and also something we should absolutely consider. The first time in a game is very important, if you think it's dull (for whatever reason) you'll hardly stay for long. I would also like to discuss this issue with the community to hear what you think about this, especially the part of it leagues should be filled "vertically" or "horizontally", because I see pros and cons with both. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.111) as reply to (7831771.110) | |
| To: Everyone | 13.09.2007 at 22:44 | ||
| Reply to (8995830.502).
What do you intend to do with the promotion/relegation system? Income doesn't encourage managers to play in higher leagues. They prefer to stay in lower leagues, because they know, that only there they can continue their winning streaks and receive better income. There should be higher attendance in higher leagues, even if the team is not doing so well and it stays on 5th, 6th or 7th place. But here it is, sadly, not the case. It is better to play in a lower league on places 1st-3rd. Rewards (promotion bonuses) are peanuts. I know the myth says so, but you are in fact wrong. Generally playing in a higher division give more income (even if you end up in 7th place) than playing in a lower divison. This was also proved by the community here in global (originally from Germany if I recall correctly though) some months ago, so this myth is busted. I can't find the thread right now, but hopefully someone can help me point it out (send me a HT-mail if so) so I can paste it into this message. Here's the study (thanks for the link Jestar!): (9283980.257) | |||
