Posted by ryan75 on 10/1/2015 8:21:00 AM (view original):
Oldresorter here with my alias account, since several oldtimers (Rails, Davis, mets, acn, fd343, sorry if I missed some) have joined in the discussion here something struck me about 'change', that I wonder if you guys notice too.  It seemed to me in the 'old' game, the changes came piecemeal, and the user community sort of felt part of the change, almost trying to make the changes work.  Even then, many of the changes had consequences that nobody could have predicted, but the issues always seemed to get sorted out, then the community moved on to the next issue.

Now, with the more massive change approach, it feels much more like change is being rammed down the group's you know what's (pick your least favorite orifice).  I doubt seble can understand how it makes the 30-50% of the community feel who have been getting up early each morning and checking in several times a day for the last 10 years or so playing what has to be described as an obsession.  I sure wish he'd LISTEN, and attempt to make a more piecemeal approach to fixing things.  The game 'might' be fixed with some pretty minor changes, which once he rewrote the software to something he understood could be made in fairly rapid order.  This seems so fundamentally 'simple' to me, that it is enormously frustrating that the message is not being HEARD.

Am I missing the boat with these observations?

first, i am deeply offended by the first part. anyway on a serious note, completely agree, seble is not going to walk away from something major here, so my goal this whole time has been to get to a piecemeal approach, or to reduce the scope modestly, steering away from things seble considers small that are essential like dropdowns/pulldowns. but, i think he is not on board with that at all. he says, the game needs change! and it probably does, but i don't think we need to take an axe to all of recruiting in one fell swoop. he pretty much has said, no way, its too much work to do it in blocks, we are going to get a huge change but not to worry because we will beta test it.

the thing that scares me the most, i asked him a few questions, will there be dropdowns/pulldowns, and how will we know who is immediately recruitable, if he sticks with moving them all into the same division for scouting purposes? will there be any distance advantage? if/how we know the recruit's new preferences like the off/def of the school and the other random crap he threw in there? his answer was, these are the details we will figure out as we go. details! good grief. i couldn't think of a nice way to reply so i didn't. if those are the details in his world, we are in for a rough ride.

 

Quote post by grimacedance on 10/1/2015 4:11:00 PM:

What I would like to see is this: start with the big change of in-season recruiting. This would allow seble to do his overhaul of the code and institute the game's biggest change (which I am in favor of -- if the 3 or 4 recruiting days fall at an inconvenient time when you can't devote several hours to them, your team suffers. I would rather spend 10 mins every day doing some recruiting than compressing it into a 4 day period).  During this period, recruit generation, pulldowns, scouting, etc. all remain the same as now. 
 

 

i would actually be very in favor of in season recruiting. its the balance of the proposed changes that i don't want any part of.

Posted by metsmax on 10/1/2015 1:46:00 PM (view original):
I think approach being taken is unwise for the product.

That said, I wont bail completely, but i have trimmed and will trim further my teams.  I'll see what its like but I fear the worst.  And I think a bunch could be improved with much less effort and change

This is my feeling as well.

I think the problem for seble and the folks at Fox is they are trying to create a product with some growth that can attract more coaches.  Given the current disparity between "Haves and Have Nots" there is no way to attract those coaches.  I have been in both camps before.  I had a couple of A+ programs before I quit the game for 35 seasons and then came back.  When you come back you cannot step into an A program and I now know the hopelessness of new coaches.  It is not much fun if you do not have any hope of getting to a A level program.

I was able to obtain both of my previous  A+ programs because I started in the world from the beginning (when it opened).  If you don't start near the beginning of a World, it is VERY difficult to get there.  Since there will not be any New Worlds opening up anytime soon, or ever for that matter, there is little hope for new coaches.

Seble and Fox are struggling with trying to create a game with growth without alienating the 50 to 100 long time coaches that have been playing and paying forever.  It is a tough balance with really only two solutions.  Status quo and remain a small game catering to those 50-100 long time coaches, or overhaul things to create a more level playing field so that everyone feels like they can build a "Hoops Dynasty" over time.

Posted by weirdrash on 10/1/2015 9:55:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem for seble and the folks at Fox is they are trying to create a product with some growth that can attract more coaches.  Given the current disparity between "Haves and Have Nots" there is no way to attract those coaches.  I have been in both camps before.  I had a couple of A+ programs before I quit the game for 35 seasons and then came back.  When you come back you cannot step into an A program and I now know the hopelessness of new coaches.  It is not much fun if you do not have any hope of getting to a A level program.

I was able to obtain both of my previous  A+ programs because I started in the world from the beginning (when it opened).  If you don't start near the beginning of a World, it is VERY difficult to get there.  Since there will not be any New Worlds opening up anytime soon, or ever for that matter, there is little hope for new coaches.

Seble and Fox are struggling with trying to create a game with growth without alienating the 50 to 100 long time coaches that have been playing and paying forever.  It is a tough balance with really only two solutions.  Status quo and remain a small game catering to those 50-100 long time coaches, or overhaul things to create a more level playing field so that everyone feels like they can build a "Hoops Dynasty" over time.

Won't matter what kind of game they turn this into if there is no advertising to go along with it.  A legitimate concern for Seble and Fox should be that this update is pushed out mangled and flawed (as per the usual.  Sorry but it's true.  The track record here in regards to any big update or change is pretty pitiful), a large part of the long time coaches get fed up and drop teams, there's no advertising to bring in new blood, and the game finally withers and dies.  Given what's happened in the past with these major updates, they're probably at pucker factor five right about now.

In short, with no advertising of any kind at the current moment, should this new update be as bad as the initial potential roll out was, it could very well spell the end of this game, which would be a shame.  This isn't a chicken little moment, the guys that were here when the potential debacle happened will know just how bad this could actually get.  I hope it doesn't.  I hope I'm wrong, bad wrong.  I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by weirdrash on 10/1/2015 9:55:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem for seble and the folks at Fox is they are trying to create a product with some growth that can attract more coaches.  Given the current disparity between "Haves and Have Nots" there is no way to attract those coaches.  I have been in both camps before.  I had a couple of A+ programs before I quit the game for 35 seasons and then came back.  When you come back you cannot step into an A program and I now know the hopelessness of new coaches.  It is not much fun if you do not have any hope of getting to a A level program.

I was able to obtain both of my previous  A+ programs because I started in the world from the beginning (when it opened).  If you don't start near the beginning of a World, it is VERY difficult to get there.  Since there will not be any New Worlds opening up anytime soon, or ever for that matter, there is little hope for new coaches.

Seble and Fox are struggling with trying to create a game with growth without alienating the 50 to 100 long time coaches that have been playing and paying forever.  It is a tough balance with really only two solutions.  Status quo and remain a small game catering to those 50-100 long time coaches, or overhaul things to create a more level playing field so that everyone feels like they can build a "Hoops Dynasty" over time.

i think its pretty obvious that you are creating a false dichotomy here, the situation is way more complex than that. 

i do think there is a legitimate debate to be had about advantages top tier d1 schools should have, but this isn't it... if you pay just a little bit of attention, many of the most successful and vocal vets, with the top d1 programs, are the biggest proponents of changes to level the field. just because everyone doesn't see eye to eye on the solutions, it doesn't mean the motives are wrong. for example, many of us see recruit generation, not an unfocused massive overhaul, as the best way to start addressing the problem - and we've been beating that drum for years. isn't that recruit gen change the EXACT biggest thing helping the haves today? i wonder why so many of those, who directly benefit the most from it, are against it? well, the answer is simple - the most competitive among us want a competitive game, we aren't looking for a handout - and frankly, we don't need it. we love this game, at least as much as any of you guys, and want what is best for it. what im saying is this - the changes that will alienate the top 50-100 coaches, have nothing to do with how those changes personally cater to that group. the changes that will alienate the top 50-100 coaches, are the changes that are bad for the game as a whole.

a number of coaches have painted issues as the haves vs the have-nots in the past, and its unfair, short sighted, and plain wrong. i'm not sure if that is what you are getting at here, but i sure hope not, you'd be alienating the very folks who have been 100 times as vocal as you in pushing for a more level d1 landscape. regardless - its a false premise, a false choice, which you are describing - what is good for the top 50 to 100 long time coaches (i sure hope the number isn't that small these days!), is what is good for the game as a whole. there need to cater is the need to cater to reason, no more, no less.

Posted by gillispie1 on 10/2/2015 1:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by weirdrash on 10/1/2015 9:55:00 PM (view original):
I think the problem for seble and the folks at Fox is they are trying to create a product with some growth that can attract more coaches.  Given the current disparity between "Haves and Have Nots" there is no way to attract those coaches.  I have been in both camps before.  I had a couple of A+ programs before I quit the game for 35 seasons and then came back.  When you come back you cannot step into an A program and I now know the hopelessness of new coaches.  It is not much fun if you do not have any hope of getting to a A level program.

I was able to obtain both of my previous  A+ programs because I started in the world from the beginning (when it opened).  If you don't start near the beginning of a World, it is VERY difficult to get there.  Since there will not be any New Worlds opening up anytime soon, or ever for that matter, there is little hope for new coaches.

Seble and Fox are struggling with trying to create a game with growth without alienating the 50 to 100 long time coaches that have been playing and paying forever.  It is a tough balance with really only two solutions.  Status quo and remain a small game catering to those 50-100 long time coaches, or overhaul things to create a more level playing field so that everyone feels like they can build a "Hoops Dynasty" over time.

i think its pretty obvious that you are creating a false dichotomy here, the situation is way more complex than that. 

i do think there is a legitimate debate to be had about advantages top tier d1 schools should have, but this isn't it... if you pay just a little bit of attention, many of the most successful and vocal vets, with the top d1 programs, are the biggest proponents of changes to level the field. just because everyone doesn't see eye to eye on the solutions, it doesn't mean the motives are wrong. for example, many of us see recruit generation, not an unfocused massive overhaul, as the best way to start addressing the problem - and we've been beating that drum for years. isn't that recruit gen change the EXACT biggest thing helping the haves today? i wonder why so many of those, who directly benefit the most from it, are against it? well, the answer is simple - the most competitive among us want a competitive game, we aren't looking for a handout - and frankly, we don't need it. we love this game, at least as much as any of you guys, and want what is best for it. what im saying is this - the changes that will alienate the top 50-100 coaches, have nothing to do with how those changes personally cater to that group. the changes that will alienate the top 50-100 coaches, are the changes that are bad for the game as a whole.

a number of coaches have painted issues as the haves vs the have-nots in the past, and its unfair, short sighted, and plain wrong. i'm not sure if that is what you are getting at here, but i sure hope not, you'd be alienating the very folks who have been 100 times as vocal as you in pushing for a more level d1 landscape. regardless - its a false premise, a false choice, which you are describing - what is good for the top 50 to 100 long time coaches (i sure hope the number isn't that small these days!), is what is good for the game as a whole. there need to cater is the need to cater to reason, no more, no less.

I think the game has to grow with new coaches and cater to the coaches that have been paying for over 10 years.  Recruit Generation is the biggest complaint and Seble won't fix it.  That one change would be more benificial than a recruiting change.  Just my thoughts.

i really disagree that seble needs to cater to the long term coaches. the long term coaches just want to play a relatively bug and chaos free version of the game that makes sense for everyone. i really don't think the core motives of the long term coaches are different than anyone else. the difference is all perspective (in 90% of cases). the folks who lived through previous updates have felt the pain of mismanaged releases, i think its a lot easier to be an optimist when you don't have 10 years of reality to put that up against. 

the stuff seble has killed it on, was smaller. his adjustment to potential basically saved the game, at the time. his projection report change was outstanding. the one release where he half destroyed this game is the one where he took on a ton, and wasn't able to follow up with all the problems (and its a good thing he did follow up on some of them, fouls/fatigue and shooting %s were totally out of control until he did the follow up adjustment). i think its pretty obvious this current release is more in line with the recruit gen release that caused mass departures of d1 coaches, than his smaller wildly successful releases. this is half of what drives the difference in opinion about his release, it has nothing about personal gain of the folks debating the issues. the other half is just what we think will best fix the problem, and those differences should be encouraged.

the only need to cater to veterans is to put together a release that makes sense in the context of today's game, and that makes sense in the historical context. its not about keeping the top 10 programs per d1 world in their cushy seats. its about there still being a game left to play when the smoke clears...

Posted by grimacedance on 10/2/2015 12:24:00 PM (view original):

I agree that the game has to keep the current coaches and attract new coaches in order to be viable.  And this game is fundamentally messed up at the top.

 

Imagine for a moment that EA Sports decided to revive its college basketball video game. As part of this game, it had an online coach mode where you started at D3 schools and worked your way to the top against other coaches. Your career path would be D3-D2-low major D1-midmajor D1-BCS D1. Sounds kinda interesting, right? Most players would at least take it out for a spin and see how quickly you could get to the top.

 

But once you got through D3 and D2 and got to midmajor D1, you would hit a wall. You couldn't recruit well enough to turn your midmajor into a powerhouse and even if you maxed out the success that you could reasonably have at that school (i.e you got the best recruits that were available to you, coached them to reach their full potential, won games at the clip that could be expected of your position), you still couldn't get a big time job.  Those jobs that everyone wanted (Duke, UK, Kansas, Indiana, UCLA,  UNC, etc.) had to open up and the coaches who were already there never got fired.  As long as they made the NT (a virtual guarantee given their recruiting advantages), they could keep that job forever. So you are stuck coaching at Indiana State or George Mason until one of them gets bored.

Once people realized this, do you think people would play this online mode?  Wouldn't EA Sports need to fix this problem (either by making midmajors more competitive and flattening out D1 or by creating more turnover at the very top via firings and forced retirements) before addressing any other bugs in the game?  I mean, lets face it, when most players play those type of "career mode" sports games, they want to do 1 of 2 things: either take over a name program (UCLA, Florida, Texas, etc.) and turn them into a monster dynasty or take over a less prestigious school (UTEP, Ball State, Western Michigan, etc.) and take it to the top.  HD, for all of the fun it provides, offers the first scenario to only a very select group of coaches and makes the second one impossible.  That is the game's most fundamental flaw.

agree 100%. d1 is hopelessly broken in the two ways you describe. i think you get almost universal agreement on that from long time and newer users.

If all big six teams are taken, you are done!!! It's completly right. Fortunatly, most worlds, except maybe Tarkanian, have some big six teams to fill. Not sure you wil get the one you like, but you still can get it. I saw that you can easily get from a successful stint in DII to DI big six, which could be the best way to get one of these jobs. I don't think there is such a big bug about the job logic. It needs to be soften and it needs to get firing going, even at mid-majors school, once the recruit generation or the recruiting logic is fixed. Not a lot of work to do to make it the best D1 simulation game ever.

Another thing, I know DIII and DII are not logic too. Say I get a winning record at DIII, but my team is B-, I think I should not be able to get better than a C+ team at DII. I'd like the game to be like this so people build up their program, and don't take teams someone else build.

Posted by grimacedance on 10/2/2015 12:24:00 PM (view original):

I agree that the game has to keep the current coaches and attract new coaches in order to be viable.  And this game is fundamentally messed up at the top.

 

Imagine for a moment that EA Sports decided to revive its college basketball video game. As part of this game, it had an online coach mode where you started at D3 schools and worked your way to the top against other coaches. Your career path would be D3-D2-low major D1-midmajor D1-BCS D1. Sounds kinda interesting, right? Most players would at least take it out for a spin and see how quickly you could get to the top.

 

But once you got through D3 and D2 and got to midmajor D1, you would hit a wall. You couldn't recruit well enough to turn your midmajor into a powerhouse and even if you maxed out the success that you could reasonably have at that school (i.e you got the best recruits that were available to you, coached them to reach their full potential, won games at the clip that could be expected of your position), you still couldn't get a big time job.  Those jobs that everyone wanted (Duke, UK, Kansas, Indiana, UCLA,  UNC, etc.) had to open up and the coaches who were already there never got fired.  As long as they made the NT (a virtual guarantee given their recruiting advantages), they could keep that job forever. So you are stuck coaching at Indiana State or George Mason until one of them gets bored.

Once people realized this, do you think people would play this online mode?  Wouldn't EA Sports need to fix this problem (either by making midmajors more competitive and flattening out D1 or by creating more turnover at the very top via firings and forced retirements) before addressing any other bugs in the game?  I mean, lets face it, when most players play those type of "career mode" sports games, they want to do 1 of 2 things: either take over a name program (UCLA, Florida, Texas, etc.) and turn them into a monster dynasty or take over a less prestigious school (UTEP, Ball State, Western Michigan, etc.) and take it to the top.  HD, for all of the fun it provides, offers the first scenario to only a very select group of coaches and makes the second one impossible.  That is the game's most fundamental flaw.

+1, you said much more eloquently what I have been trying to say several times!

Posted by weirdrash on 10/3/2015 9:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grimacedance on 10/2/2015 12:24:00 PM (view original):

I agree that the game has to keep the current coaches and attract new coaches in order to be viable.  And this game is fundamentally messed up at the top.

 

Imagine for a moment that EA Sports decided to revive its college basketball video game. As part of this game, it had an online coach mode where you started at D3 schools and worked your way to the top against other coaches. Your career path would be D3-D2-low major D1-midmajor D1-BCS D1. Sounds kinda interesting, right? Most players would at least take it out for a spin and see how quickly you could get to the top.

 

But once you got through D3 and D2 and got to midmajor D1, you would hit a wall. You couldn't recruit well enough to turn your midmajor into a powerhouse and even if you maxed out the success that you could reasonably have at that school (i.e you got the best recruits that were available to you, coached them to reach their full potential, won games at the clip that could be expected of your position), you still couldn't get a big time job.  Those jobs that everyone wanted (Duke, UK, Kansas, Indiana, UCLA,  UNC, etc.) had to open up and the coaches who were already there never got fired.  As long as they made the NT (a virtual guarantee given their recruiting advantages), they could keep that job forever. So you are stuck coaching at Indiana State or George Mason until one of them gets bored.

Once people realized this, do you think people would play this online mode?  Wouldn't EA Sports need to fix this problem (either by making midmajors more competitive and flattening out D1 or by creating more turnover at the very top via firings and forced retirements) before addressing any other bugs in the game?  I mean, lets face it, when most players play those type of "career mode" sports games, they want to do 1 of 2 things: either take over a name program (UCLA, Florida, Texas, etc.) and turn them into a monster dynasty or take over a less prestigious school (UTEP, Ball State, Western Michigan, etc.) and take it to the top.  HD, for all of the fun it provides, offers the first scenario to only a very select group of coaches and makes the second one impossible.  That is the game's most fundamental flaw.

+1, you said much more eloquently what I have been trying to say several times!

Sure, this is a flaw.

My issue is this: We don't need to overhaul the entire game to fix this one flaw.

Keep all the aspects people enjoy about the game as it is and just address that issue.

MAJOR CHANGES!