Comments on: Are Game Worlds Dying? Part 1 – Inactive Managers http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/ Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:50:32 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Football Manager Live Portal | Editorials | Are Game Worlds Dying? Part 5 – Maybe They Should! http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-532 Football Manager Live Portal | Editorials | Are Game Worlds Dying? Part 5 – Maybe They Should! Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:33:20 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-532 [...] the first article we took a good look at Inactive Managers and some of the issues that they cause. Certainly there have been many changes since the first [...] [...] the first article we took a good look at Inactive Managers and some of the issues that they cause. Certainly there have been many changes since the first [...]

]]> By: Big and Tall http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-795 Big and Tall Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:44:44 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-795 good stuff, i think it is lame that inactive teams are rewarded. but i think it may be hard to institute something to stop the abuse. good stuff, i think it is lame that inactive teams are rewarded. but i think it may be hard to institute something to stop the abuse.

]]> By: Mark Burton http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-380 Mark Burton Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:15:25 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-380 Some good responses, and it's clear that this issue is one that concerns many users in the game. @Myron, Real Players is on my list - something that gets raised often enough to take a look at in the near future. Some good responses, and it’s clear that this issue is one that concerns many users in the game.

@Myron, Real Players is on my list – something that gets raised often enough to take a look at in the near future.

]]> By: Myron Shipp http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-379 Myron Shipp Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:11:07 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-379 HI all I agree with most of the points raised and I was about to post a forum thread on my thoughts re the future of the game. Why play FML rather than any of the other football management games? I think the 2 main reasons are the live games with in game chat and the fact that the game has real players. I fear both these factors are being lost in FML which is one of the reasons I have many teams, to try and get to a younger world were real players still exist, the current youth (under 20) world cup is a case in point, every player I have seen and searched for I have been unable to find in the FML database as new players come on to the scene but are not added to the game, new players are regens. An F1 game I play is in season 36, what will happen to FML worlds such as Clough come season 36, I still think that the basic model of FML is wrong and should be more like Hattrick where game worlds are based on countries, and there is only 1 FA this way the inactive teams drop to the bottom and new players rise to the top so that in the top divisions you have all active players, also chat can be in the language of that worlds so everyone who wants to chat in Greek can join Greek world, this is already happening as Greeks head to Keane Aussies to Fowler etc. another alternate idea is to have different flavours of game worlds as Ov Collyer hinted at in a recent podcast, one flavour I would join is a world that resets every 12 seasons and then the new FM10 etc database is used for the next 12 seasons, if you don't like that don't join those worlds stay where you are. In a few years time players like Kofi Danning will be big stars and not in the game so the disclaimer regarding use of real players names will be pointless. for sentimental reasons I have kept my original team in Fowler but have regularly jumped to new game worlds but now I don't know what to do as no new worlds are being launched so I will gradually close my teams till my interest will just be in the youngest team. Rant over Myron HI all
I agree with most of the points raised and I was about to post a forum thread on my thoughts re the future of the game. Why play FML rather than any of the other football management games? I think the 2 main reasons are the live games with in game chat and the fact that the game has real players. I fear both these factors are being lost in FML which is one of the reasons I have many teams, to try and get to a younger world were real players still exist, the current youth (under 20) world cup is a case in point, every player I have seen and searched for I have been unable to find in the FML database as new players come on to the scene but are not added to the game, new players are regens. An F1 game I play is in season 36, what will happen to FML worlds such as Clough come season 36, I still think that the basic model of FML is wrong and should be more like Hattrick where game worlds are based on countries, and there is only 1 FA this way the inactive teams drop to the bottom and new players rise to the top so that in the top divisions you have all active players, also chat can be in the language of that worlds so everyone who wants to chat in Greek can join Greek world, this is already happening as Greeks head to Keane Aussies to Fowler etc. another alternate idea is to have different flavours of game worlds as Ov Collyer hinted at in a recent podcast, one flavour I would join is a world that resets every 12 seasons and then the new FM10 etc database is used for the next 12 seasons, if you don’t like that don’t join those worlds stay where you are. In a few years time players like Kofi Danning will be big stars and not in the game so the disclaimer regarding use of real players names will be pointless. for sentimental reasons I have kept my original team in Fowler but have regularly jumped to new game worlds but now I don’t know what to do as no new worlds are being launched so I will gradually close my teams till my interest will just be in the youngest team.
Rant over
Myron

]]> By: Paul Clark http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-377 Paul Clark Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:13:14 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-377 You're dead right that it has to be a balance.. FML has to be playable for both hardcore and casual players. That's why my suggestion was a trigger period of a season's length. What you're looking to make rules for is the difference between 'casual play' and 'never coming back'. The rules can't be so harsh as to punish players who may only log in once a week, or every 10 days. However, I think if you did a statistical analysis of playing habits you'd find very, very few managers who log in less than once every 2 weeks but still actually play. Of course, come summer people will go on holiday for 2-3 weeks and may not sign in. Its not fair to take their team off them for that... but most active players would prepare for this - use their 'on holiday' days up and maybe let other players know they will be away a while. If, within 24 hours of contract renewal, the game checked manager activity and saw that there had been no player-controlled matches played in the past 4 weeks, then all locked contracts could revert to at least auto-rebid. 99.9% of managers who haven't logged in for 4 solid weeks are not going to return... This would stop good players being wasted in inactive teams for multiple seasons but woulnt hurt those who just log in from time to time. You’re dead right that it has to be a balance.. FML has to be playable for both hardcore and casual players. That’s why my suggestion was a trigger period of a season’s length.

What you’re looking to make rules for is the difference between ‘casual play’ and ‘never coming back’. The rules can’t be so harsh as to punish players who may only log in once a week, or every 10 days. However, I think if you did a statistical analysis of playing habits you’d find very, very few managers who log in less than once every 2 weeks but still actually play.

Of course, come summer people will go on holiday for 2-3 weeks and may not sign in. Its not fair to take their team off them for that… but most active players would prepare for this – use their ‘on holiday’ days up and maybe let other players know they will be away a while.

If, within 24 hours of contract renewal, the game checked manager activity and saw that there had been no player-controlled matches played in the past 4 weeks, then all locked contracts could revert to at least auto-rebid. 99.9% of managers who haven’t logged in for 4 solid weeks are not going to return… This would stop good players being wasted in inactive teams for multiple seasons but woulnt hurt those who just log in from time to time.

]]> By: Jordan Cooper http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-376 Jordan Cooper Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:49:40 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-376 Very good comments, guys! I think too many of us are looking at inactivity from the wrong user's perspective. It's been said to death that the main priority has been on user retention and increasing the "churn" rate. While I do agree that the current FML model makes it so inactive clubs have a significant enough impact on others, it's also important to note that we cannot punish it to the point where people who have spent time away feel like they can never get back to where they stood. A system that makes it so a user can leave for X amount of time, yet still come back to a reasonable status compared to that of which he left is one of the paramounts of a good retention rate. Punishing people for inactivity just pushes them FURTHER away from playing... It's quite likely many users have not returned because they assume that there club is now in such a condition that they'd need to start all over again. (not that this is the case, but it's a perception) Finding the compromise between keeping inactive teams in a state that their manager can easily return as well as having it so they don't significantly harm the economy/progression for the active teams is probably very important to get right ASAP in order to see FML develop a larger user base. Very good comments, guys! I think too many of us are looking at inactivity from the wrong user’s perspective. It’s been said to death that the main priority has been on user retention and increasing the “churn” rate. While I do agree that the current FML model makes it so inactive clubs have a significant enough impact on others, it’s also important to note that we cannot punish it to the point where people who have spent time away feel like they can never get back to where they stood.

A system that makes it so a user can leave for X amount of time, yet still come back to a reasonable status compared to that of which he left is one of the paramounts of a good retention rate. Punishing people for inactivity just pushes them FURTHER away from playing… It’s quite likely many users have not returned because they assume that there club is now in such a condition that they’d need to start all over again. (not that this is the case, but it’s a perception)

Finding the compromise between keeping inactive teams in a state that their manager can easily return as well as having it so they don’t significantly harm the economy/progression for the active teams is probably very important to get right ASAP in order to see FML develop a larger user base.

]]> By: Dan Stevens http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-375 Dan Stevens Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:34:03 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-375 We will never be able to stop a certain level of inactvity and I myself am guilty of this when my work crops up and I simply dont have the time to play, I think that players should be deciding not to have their contacts extended in any way if they arnt being played so that a team will gradually empty if a manager does not sign in and they will then have to build from scratch if/when they come back At least this will stop players rotting in squads and not progressing as they should do and perhaps promote a healthier marketplace. We will never be able to stop a certain level of inactvity and I myself am guilty of this when my work crops up and I simply dont have the time to play, I think that players should be deciding not to have their contacts extended in any way if they arnt being played so that a team will gradually empty if a manager does not sign in and they will then have to build from scratch if/when they come back

At least this will stop players rotting in squads and not progressing as they should do and perhaps promote a healthier marketplace.

]]> By: Tom Hales http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-370 Tom Hales Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:53:09 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-370 Great article Mark :) I think Paul has some really good points about 'punishments' (bad wording, I know  :-P ) for inactive managers. Given the fact that FAO's removal of teams from an FA are used on the basis of being inactive for four weeks, why not apply the same for auto-extends? It would certainly go al ong way to aiding player progression etc. in GWs. Great article Mark :)

I think Paul has some really good points about ‘punishments’ (bad wording, I know  :-P ) for inactive managers. Given the fact that FAO’s removal of teams from an FA are used on the basis of being inactive for four weeks, why not apply the same for auto-extends? It would certainly go al ong way to aiding player progression etc. in GWs.

]]> By: Paul Clark http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-368 Paul Clark Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:04:40 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-368 I'm pretty sure if you visit the forums of any/every MMO game currently running, you will find posts by doomsayers proclaiming the end - it comes as part of the attitude of your average online gamer. I think it would be fair to add in actions triggered by a certain length of inactivity. Such as: 1. If a manager doesn't log in at all from season start to end, all their players are set to either no renewal or, at least, auto re-bid. 2. Managers who have been inactive for the length of a full season have their club accounts frozen - or - are forced to pay stadium maintenance etc at a level sufficient to make sure they cant return to millions of profit at a later date. Perhaps the most simple solution would be to make the players less forgiving of playing for inactive teams. If the manager hasnt logged in and played any games then the players get very unhappy, refuse to re-sign and walk away for free... Free... i.e. the team doesn't get the AF either. I could write about this all day.... damn you 3000 character limiter!! :( I’m pretty sure if you visit the forums of any/every MMO game currently running, you will find posts by doomsayers proclaiming the end – it comes as part of the attitude of your average online gamer.

I think it would be fair to add in actions triggered by a certain length of inactivity. Such as:

1. If a manager doesn’t log in at all from season start to end, all their players are set to either no renewal or, at least, auto re-bid.
2. Managers who have been inactive for the length of a full season have their club accounts frozen – or – are forced to pay stadium maintenance etc at a level sufficient to make sure they cant return to millions of profit at a later date.

Perhaps the most simple solution would be to make the players less forgiving of playing for inactive teams. If the manager hasnt logged in and played any games then the players get very unhappy, refuse to re-sign and walk away for free… Free… i.e. the team doesn’t get the AF either.

I could write about this all day…. damn you 3000 character limiter!! :(

]]> By: Guest http://www.gameworldone.com/2009/09/29/are-game-worlds-dying-part-1-inactive-managers/#comment-367 Guest Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:44:15 +0000 http://www.gameworldone.com/?p=1655#comment-367 Really good article. Player development is a HUGE problem. If you compare players in a 10 season old GW, you only have 1/10 of the quality compared to the starting players. Locking of players in inactive accounts should be adressed as well. If there are too many CPU matches, players should be rejecting auto-extends and go to rebid. Really good article.

Player development is a HUGE problem. If you compare players in a 10 season old GW, you only have 1/10 of the quality compared to the starting players.

Locking of players in inactive accounts should be adressed as well. If there are too many CPU matches, players should be rejecting auto-extends and go to rebid.

]]>