Its been two months. Topic

Posted by phalla on 11/13/2015 2:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by hughesjr on 11/10/2015 9:11:00 PM (view original):
bob .. didn't know you were the community .. I am also very excited about it.
Bob can represent the community for me!

I have NO excitement for nearly all of the proposals.

They are better forgotten.
Count me among "the community" which would rather see most of the proposed changes scrapped and forgotten.

The game is absolutely fine the way it is. A few small tweaks could help here and there, but I do NOT want to see wholesale changes on the scale Seble has mentioned.

+1

11/15/2015 2:22 AM
Posted by lmschwarz on 11/15/2015 2:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by phalla on 11/13/2015 2:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by hughesjr on 11/10/2015 9:11:00 PM (view original):
bob .. didn't know you were the community .. I am also very excited about it.
Bob can represent the community for me!

I have NO excitement for nearly all of the proposals.

They are better forgotten.
Count me among "the community" which would rather see most of the proposed changes scrapped and forgotten.

The game is absolutely fine the way it is. A few small tweaks could help here and there, but I do NOT want to see wholesale changes on the scale Seble has mentioned.

+1

+2
11/15/2015 5:17 AM
Posted by emy1013 on 11/15/2015 5:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by lmschwarz on 11/15/2015 2:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by phalla on 11/13/2015 2:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by hughesjr on 11/10/2015 9:11:00 PM (view original):
bob .. didn't know you were the community .. I am also very excited about it.
Bob can represent the community for me!

I have NO excitement for nearly all of the proposals.

They are better forgotten.
Count me among "the community" which would rather see most of the proposed changes scrapped and forgotten.

The game is absolutely fine the way it is. A few small tweaks could help here and there, but I do NOT want to see wholesale changes on the scale Seble has mentioned.

+1

+2
+3

What they need to do is MARKETING, not wholesale changes.
11/15/2015 7:44 AM
im still torn about this like I've said multiple times.  I like someof the ideas on how recruiting changes.

But really it's not anything I'd want changed, it's like putting a band-aid on a scratch on your knee while you bleed out from the abdomen.  You can keep the current recruiting and see a better fix atm:

1.  Cut recruiting cash by 50% at D1.  I also would like the idea of potentially 100% carryover if all scholarships are filled.
2.  Change the prestige formula and weight it more current, allowing low level teams to rise up farther and not let bad big 6 teams stay at their jobs with occasional NT appearances.
3.  Firings/Hirings, should not be able ot keep big 6 jobs without consistent NT success, PI bids should drop big 6 schools not help them keep their jobs.
4.  Recruit generation, this is the biggest fix imo.  Get rid of the 95/95 ath/def starting 5's at power schools.  Rarely any school should hit 90/90 ath def for their starting five.

Those are the 4 biggest, fix those and everything else could stay the same and you would see a much better game.  It's more lifelike at the higher D1 schools and the lower D1 schools actually have a point besides being a stepping stone.

No one should realyl want or think Cal Irvine should compete for a NC,but it shouldn't require a Super conference to build up low end teams to be able to compete.
11/15/2015 9:44 AM
Posted by the0nlyis on 11/15/2015 9:44:00 AM (view original):
im still torn about this like I've said multiple times.  I like someof the ideas on how recruiting changes.

But really it's not anything I'd want changed, it's like putting a band-aid on a scratch on your knee while you bleed out from the abdomen.  You can keep the current recruiting and see a better fix atm:

1.  Cut recruiting cash by 50% at D1.  I also would like the idea of potentially 100% carryover if all scholarships are filled.
2.  Change the prestige formula and weight it more current, allowing low level teams to rise up farther and not let bad big 6 teams stay at their jobs with occasional NT appearances.
3.  Firings/Hirings, should not be able ot keep big 6 jobs without consistent NT success, PI bids should drop big 6 schools not help them keep their jobs.
4.  Recruit generation, this is the biggest fix imo.  Get rid of the 95/95 ath/def starting 5's at power schools.  Rarely any school should hit 90/90 ath def for their starting five.

Those are the 4 biggest, fix those and everything else could stay the same and you would see a much better game.  It's more lifelike at the higher D1 schools and the lower D1 schools actually have a point besides being a stepping stone.

No one should realyl want or think Cal Irvine should compete for a NC,but it shouldn't require a Super conference to build up low end teams to be able to compete.
1. Agree, not the carryover since it will help out A+ rep teams again, Low-end D1 team need all the money they can spare to battle, but at the same time, won't be able to carryover a lot since you have to hit from everywhere to land good prospects.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

5. Make starting gig Worth a lot, cost a lot to offer. Make minutes be Worth something too, cost a lot too. When a guy likes your school, he likes it and it means that you have the edge to grab him or get rid of it. Reduce cost for travelling and recruiting afar from campus.

I'd say mid-major coaches should also be fired if they can't get to the PIT consistently. I want mid-major to play a bigger role in the new formula. And to me.
11/15/2015 11:41 AM
I really like the idea of making the starting gig more important too, and from my understanding, it will play a bigger role on some players. That would also be an equalizer because teams that are already very strong will not take giving a starting spot away lightly. And this, as well as minutes seems realistic to me. Also, and I am not sure about this, in the current engine, I don't think that giving additional minutes over 10 makes much difference. I know sometimes in recruiting I will promise 10 minutes, and in a tight battle I will increase it to 15, but I have never seen that cause any improvement in my recruiting position. I think it should be sort of significant.
11/15/2015 5:22 PM
Posted by chapelhillne on 11/15/2015 5:22:00 PM (view original):
I really like the idea of making the starting gig more important too, and from my understanding, it will play a bigger role on some players. That would also be an equalizer because teams that are already very strong will not take giving a starting spot away lightly. And this, as well as minutes seems realistic to me. Also, and I am not sure about this, in the current engine, I don't think that giving additional minutes over 10 makes much difference. I know sometimes in recruiting I will promise 10 minutes, and in a tight battle I will increase it to 15, but I have never seen that cause any improvement in my recruiting position. I think it should be sort of significant.
I've advocated this for quite a while, but if you're going to significantly increase the value of promises you have to also significantly increase the penalties for breaking them - to the point where the season after you break promises, potential recruits see them as a negative, since all the elite players would know each other from summer showcases and AAU and the like.

Also, I wouldn't be opposed to all recruits having some expectation of PT as freshman, on a sliding scale. A top 30 overall recruit might want 10 minutes at A+ Duke, start + 15 minutes at B+ NC State, start + 30 minutes at C+ Charlotte.
11/15/2015 6:58 PM
I'm with most of you that there are areas in the game that need fixing, not complete overhauls. My top fixes would be:

1) Change the prestige formula and weight it more current, allowing low level teams to have a higher ceiling and not let bad Big 6 teams have such a high floor.
2) Firings/Hirings - should not be able to keep Big 6 jobs without consistent NT success. PI bids should lower Big 6 prestige, not help them keep their jobs.
3) Make a start offer worth much more as well as the penalty for not following through on the promise.

11/16/2015 3:04 PM
And... Make the first recruiting cycle more than 2 hours. Allow people to start the first cycle much earlier like it is in GD
11/17/2015 9:24 AM
◂ Prev 12
Its been two months. Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.