4/27/2013 3:40 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 4/27/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I was just responding to your post.  Saying "everyone" was a bit of a stretch, but I think this thing gained steam after the dshook30 poaching incident and it seems that peoples' "cheating" radars are quite sensitive these days.  It may be the rule, but it's a dumb rule.  Enforcing a dumb rule doesn't solve this problem, and for only ONE person to suffer under a rule that's probably/eventually going to change or that a solution will be created for, is bullshit.  Whatever happens going forth, billyg will always be the one that was most ****** by this, and by a wide margin, and if you think he's not ****** because he's done talking about it, you're crazy.

I speak out because we need a resolution, not a hanging and claiming the problem is solved.

What kind of responses have you gotten on this matter by submitting tickets?
4/27/2013 7:29 PM
Posted by milwood on 4/27/2013 11:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 4/27/2013 12:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie on 4/26/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by crazyivan on 4/26/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
as long as WIS is getting $12/season, i don't think they're much interested in enforcing a rule that will lower their profits.

If the bottom line is the main concern regarding this issue, I would suggest that in the long run, a game with fairly enforced rules and reasonable competitive balance is the best way to attract and retain players. Catering to established players at the expense of fairness (perceived or real) limits long term growth potential.

I think most new players look at 2 things when deciding if they are going to stay in this game. 1) Is it a fair game? and 2) Is there a reasonable chance for me to be successful? If a player answers 'no' to either, it's probably going to be a one-and-done. That can't be good for profits, especially when a lot of those new players come in with discounts.
 

i think some people are characterizing the defense as, some people want the rules not to apply to them. rather, some people think its a stupid rule, and should be changed. i dont think hardly anyone is arguing for keeping the rule, but not enforcing it - that is just retarded.

Well sure, that's not my argument either. The point is, that WAS the status quo (before you were bitten) - a rule wasn't being enforced. That is going to be seen as a fairness issue. 

And beyond that, if the answer is to do away with the restriction completely, I think we're back to the 2nd question -  does a player feel there a reasonable chance to be successful in that environment? I can tell you, it would be a lot more intimidating knowing not only am I up against more experienced coaches, but also coaches who may have access to multiple scouting budgets etc to use against me. From a profit standpoint, I don't think looking the other way OR removing the restriction completely is a better answer than due diligence to enforce existing rules and restrictions.

Posts like these make me think that the "innocent bystanders" don't understand how much (or actually little) buying FSS with a second school affects the recruiting process, and that's why I really think everyone should do it for at least one season to at least understand the concept/action, first hand.

Again, there are so many solutions to the FSS issue in HD, but instead one coach is singled out and made an example of, and that still really burns my ***.  Choose a solution, don't knee-jerk to a perceived "problem"...stinenavy (dshook30?)...

There is a good chance I am missing something here and I really don't want  to go back and reread all about these multiple team threads.  I have engaged in too many battles (I only play DIII and DII) especially in my first several season.  Some I won, but most I lost.  I know, based on the back and forth scholarship messages, that I have been very close on a few of those battles I lost.  If I had the, say, $2,500 extra at DIII that I saved on FSS because I bought them with another one of IDs (I only have one ID) I am sure I would have won at least a couple of those battles. 

I haven't done it first hand, but I could project how differently my recruiting battles could go if I had that extra money in the lower divisions. 

I agree that Gillespie is probably getting screwed by CS not being more diligent in enforcing the rules, but if they were more diligent he would have been asked to move from one of his schools anyway.

I also disagree with another statement that I read in one of the posts, that if CS did enforce the 1000 mile rule that there would be a mass exodus of coaches.  I understand that many teams would go back to simmy control and that is a bad thing, but why would the coaches leave the game entirely?  They go from loving the game so much that they have 15 teams to hating the game and leaving because now they can only have 10 teams?  That just doesn't seem logical to me.


im not sure about anyone else, but i never intended to say the 1000 mile rule being enforced would cause a mass exodus - that was in reference to the multiple teams in a world, issue. some coaches would give up on the game, others wouldnt, but youd have a LOT less teams full right off the bat. maybe guys would pick their teams back up but its a lot easier to coast in a world you are in, than to pick up a new team in a new world and work your way up. many coaches only want to play d1, and having to play 6-10 seasons of d2-d3 to get there, just isnt worth it. 

i wouldnt be surprised if you shed 10% or more of all teams by enforcing the multiple team rule (which isnt banned now, but seble suggested it). you might lose more from coaches saying, this is the last straw, but i dont think it would be anywhere close to half, or anything. the issue with games like this is the "network effect" is fully in play - the more players, the better system, and it increases exponentially. so to me, losing 10% of teams is huge.
4/27/2013 11:59 PM
Billyg, not only would the game be losing 10% of its teams/users, but look at the quality of players it would be losing as well, and that makes it a bigger deal as far as I'm concerned.
4/28/2013 12:10 AM
Posted by stinenavy on 4/27/2013 3:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 4/27/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I was just responding to your post.  Saying "everyone" was a bit of a stretch, but I think this thing gained steam after the dshook30 poaching incident and it seems that peoples' "cheating" radars are quite sensitive these days.  It may be the rule, but it's a dumb rule.  Enforcing a dumb rule doesn't solve this problem, and for only ONE person to suffer under a rule that's probably/eventually going to change or that a solution will be created for, is bullshit.  Whatever happens going forth, billyg will always be the one that was most ****** by this, and by a wide margin, and if you think he's not ****** because he's done talking about it, you're crazy.

I speak out because we need a resolution, not a hanging and claiming the problem is solved.

What kind of responses have you gotten on this matter by submitting tickets?
I don't think anything can be done to get billyg's team(s) back.  I did send a ticket voicing my displeasure over his team removal and they said thanks for the feedback.

I haven't sent a ticket since, but I feel like a lot of coaches here don't understand that the 1000 mile rule doesn't eliminate cheating.  A while back I had 2 teams, 1200 miles apart, I used the "dummy" team to buy FSS for my "real" team and under the rule, this was and still is a legitimate play/act within the game.  A lot of people look at this and think it's ridiculous that users are allowed to have multiple teams in the same world at all, and it's a fair critique, but the fact that WIS has let it go on so long, unchecked, it would be rather devastating to the HD community and their business in general...it's no longer a single-pronged affect.  Unlike a lot of people, I'm thinking this through, thoroughly, and maybe I should send in a ticket going forward, but I haven't because the way things are personally don't directly affect me at the moment.

Like it or not YOU, stinenavy, started this, and we have to clean up the collateral damage that you didn't foresee.  How about you do your part and go on another manhunt so we can see another lynching, eh?  That'll really end the problem, wouldn't it....

4/28/2013 12:12 AM
I enjoy threads like this one so much. You can learn a lot about other players in these.
4/28/2013 12:19 AM (edited)
But Colonels, according to such luminaries as Tbird and others, the ONLY reason those coaches are successful IS because they have multiple teams in a world.  Don't mind the fact that those same coaches are also ultra-successful in worlds where they only have a single team, nope it's all about having the advantage of multiple teams.

Some folks have even went on to say that those coaches championships should come with "asterisks", even though the majority of those titles were won with single teams in their respective worlds.  It's funny really, you've got idiots claiming the only way that certain coaches are successful is through the use of multiple teams, yet they give no explanation whatsoever about those other single teams that win and win and win.  Wonder why that is?  Selective amnesia maybe?

By the way, you're correct.  That would be a lot of talented coaches leaving teams in the hands of Sim AI.  Of course, that probably what the whiners want.  See they can beat Sim teams but they can't beat the good human coaches.  Simple solution, try to get rid of as many good coaches as possible in order for them to have an easier chance to win.  Of course, in those type situations, I'd be attaching an asterisk to THEIR titles, but whatever.
4/28/2013 12:20 AM
Posted by angmar on 4/28/2013 12:19:00 AM (view original):
But Colonels, according to such luminaries as Tbird and others, the ONLY reason those coaches are successful IS because they have multiple teams in a world.  Don't mind the fact that those same coaches are also ultra-successful in worlds where they only have a single team, nope it's all about having the advantage of multiple teams.

Some folks have even went on to say that those coaches championships should come with "asterisks", even though the majority of those titles were won with single teams in their respective worlds.  It's funny really, you've got idiots claiming the only way that certain coaches are successful is through the use of multiple teams, yet they give no explanation whatsoever about those other single teams that win and win and win.  Wonder why that is?  Selective amnesia maybe?

By the way, you're correct.  That would be a lot of talented coaches leaving teams in the hands of Sim AI.  Of course, that probably what the whiners want.  See they can beat Sim teams but they can't beat the good human coaches.  Simple solution, try to get rid of as many good coaches as possible in order for them to have an easier chance to win.  Of course, in those type situations, I'd be attaching an asterisk to THEIR titles, but whatever.
Lol +1
4/28/2013 1:59 AM
the reality is that these same coaches were accused of using multiple teams to share scouting info and thus, to win championships, since before potential even existed. so tbird does kind of have you there.
4/28/2013 3:05 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/28/2013 1:59:00 AM (view original):
the reality is that these same coaches were accused of using multiple teams to share scouting info and thus, to win championships, since before potential even existed. so tbird does kind of have you there.
And how were they sharing scouting info since before potential existed, when scouting info didn't exist before potential was implemented?  Inquiring minds want to know.  Drink another one, your mind isn't clear enough yet.  Or did my sarcasm radar not pick something up?
4/28/2013 3:25 AM
Posted by angmar on 4/28/2013 3:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/28/2013 1:59:00 AM (view original):
the reality is that these same coaches were accused of using multiple teams to share scouting info and thus, to win championships, since before potential even existed. so tbird does kind of have you there.
And how were they sharing scouting info since before potential existed, when scouting info didn't exist before potential was implemented?  Inquiring minds want to know.  Drink another one, your mind isn't clear enough yet.  Or did my sarcasm radar not pick something up?
are you familiar with scouting evaluations (scouting trips)?
4/28/2013 3:51 AM (edited)
Posted by dacj501 on 4/28/2013 3:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by angmar on 4/28/2013 3:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/28/2013 1:59:00 AM (view original):
the reality is that these same coaches were accused of using multiple teams to share scouting info and thus, to win championships, since before potential even existed. so tbird does kind of have you there.
And how were they sharing scouting info since before potential existed, when scouting info didn't exist before potential was implemented?  Inquiring minds want to know.  Drink another one, your mind isn't clear enough yet.  Or did my sarcasm radar not pick something up?
are you familiar with scouting evaluations (scouting trips)?
Let me type this very slowly so everyone can understand........there was no potential before FSS was implemented, they came about at exactly the same time.  There were no high, average, and low categories.  What you saw was what you got.  Scouting trips were strictly a recruiting tool, nothing more, nothing less and no different from a home visit or a campus visit.  It didn't matter what the scouting trips said because what the player's ratings showed what was you got.  If it was under 20 or so, it improved very slowly.  21-70, it improved at a much faster pace.  80+, back to very slowly again.  The scouting trip "info" you're talking about, didn't have things like "MASSIVE" upside because that sort of thing DIDN'T EXIST.  And those didn't exist because potential didn't exist.  They were a package deal, both introduced to the game at the exact same time.  So yes, I'm very familiar with scouting trips.  My question now becomes, Dacj, did you play the game before potential was introduced and if you did, why don't you know this?
4/28/2013 3:51 AM
I did not play the game before potential, although now that you have clearly spelled it out for me it seems like something that I should have reasonably been able to intuit myself. I too am confused then how one could exchange info that did not apparently exist. Thank you for point out my error. 

ETA: That sounds pretty boring actually, and I am glad they changed it...
4/28/2013 3:53 AM
Posted by dacj501 on 4/28/2013 3:53:00 AM (view original):
I did not play the game before potential, although now that you have clearly spelled it out for me it seems like something that I should have reasonably been able to intuit myself. I too am confused then how one could exchange info that did not apparently exist. Thank you for point out my error. 

ETA: That sounds pretty boring actually, and I am glad they changed it...
Sorry to come across as a smartass, it's late and I'm tired.  I really do think (at least I hope) that CBG meant that sarcastically.  If he didn't, then I'M the one who is confused.  Apologies again for the "tone" of my post.
4/28/2013 3:59 AM (edited)
Posted by dacj501 on 4/28/2013 3:53:00 AM (view original):
I did not play the game before potential, although now that you have clearly spelled it out for me it seems like something that I should have reasonably been able to intuit myself. I too am confused then how one could exchange info that did not apparently exist. Thank you for point out my error. 

ETA: That sounds pretty boring actually, and I am glad they changed it...
It wasn't so much boring as it was different.  Back then, you were able to mold players more to your liking.  In other words, there weren't "hard caps" on the categories.  Now, if a player's LP caps at 50, that's all you get, period.  Back then, you could take that 50, continue to pump minutes into the category and take it up to say an 80 or 85 before you finished.  Just different.  I actually prefer the old way over potential as we have it now, but since it'll never go back to that I've just adjusted.  There are certainly pros and cons to both ways.  Most people seem to prefer the game with potential as opposed to without, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but there are still a few who wouldn't mind it a bit if there were a "pre-potential" world.  I, for one, would have a team in that world for sure. 
4/28/2013 3:59 AM
Posted by angmar on 4/28/2013 3:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 4/28/2013 3:53:00 AM (view original):
I did not play the game before potential, although now that you have clearly spelled it out for me it seems like something that I should have reasonably been able to intuit myself. I too am confused then how one could exchange info that did not apparently exist. Thank you for point out my error. 

ETA: That sounds pretty boring actually, and I am glad they changed it...
Sorry to come across as a smartass, it's late and I'm tired.  I really do think (at least I hope) that CBG meant that sarcastically.  If he didn't, then I'M the one who is confused.  Apologies again for the "tone" of my post.
One could read sarcasm into my first response I suppose as well. I could just as clearly gone with "Scouting trips?" and avoided any misunderstanding. I didn't give it enough thought. No worries! 
of 4

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.