The adjective "Destroying" I used in my post was from a previous poster's (George633) comments: "" So, no, I do not expect a redo and that Seble will manage to finish the destruction of this game that was started a little over a handful of years ago.".

Inititally I was going state that I would not have used that term but in reality and contemplation it is an accurate description-.

Simple Definition of destroy

emy - you are taking the matter much more seriously than me. i dropped my last personal team and am in full DGAF mode. obviously, misspelling there can't explode your head.. well, i thought it was obvious, apparently i was mistaken.

taniajane - your 2nd to last paragraph is way off. the whole numbering scheme makes no sense, why is today's HD 2.0, i don't know. what is 1.0? anyway, today's version (or a month's ago depending on your world) was where seble rewrote the engine sim engine because he couldn't code in the language old admin wrote in - not 3.0. also, fox did not buy the software - they bought the company. the kinds of things you are talking about getting as guarantees, that is not the norm when you buy a company. sometimes the founder will be required to stay on to assist with the transition, maybe a couple key people, but that's it - and tarek stayed around for over 5 years. its not uncommon to have developers who code in different languages (most developers can code capably in at least a few), and to have different software written in the company use different languages, and to slowly transition various components from one language to another, based on what is deemed most practical going forward. in short, what you are describing as extraordinary is actually extremely common in software companies.

Emy - thanks for your comments, I did that survey many years ago both as an offering to the HD community as well as because I felt the HD Admin at the time would genuinely receive it and engage in dialogue about it. And actually knew how to modify/program the HD code.

Gee Gillespie this sure clears it up "...was where seble rewrote the engine sim engine because he couldn't code in the language old admin wrote in .." Yet "sometimes the founder will be required to stay on to assist with the transition, maybe a couple key people, but that's it - and tarek stayed around for over 5 years. its not uncommon to have developers who code in different languages (most developers can code capably in at least a few)---"


So do we have a case of a Very Slow Learner that in Five years can not learn the code? Tell me again how this is "actually extremely common in software companies." Sorry perhaps it is "Common" for you but not for any intelligent and diligent programmer. Not buying that load of garbage as an excuse or an example of a programmer that has 5 years to learn with the previous and original writer and just "could not understand it".

"If only we would have had something similar to that before this nightmare of an update occurred, then maybe Seble could have gotten a better grasp of where the community wanted to go with the game."

Well, he has this thread now ... and what he learns from it is to wear earplugs.

earplugs seem to be the response rather than the learning...

As a software developer for almost 30 years, I can tell you that software can become outdated. Tools, development environments inevitable change and no IT department wants to keep some Windows NT machine running just so you can compile some code which requires some 3rd party library written 20 years ago. At some point, decisions are made to either spend the time/resources to rewrite the code or start development on a new product.

Even as newer operating systems come on line, Microsoft will deprecate functions that are no longer safe thus requiring entire sections of code to be rewritten which if a programmer isn't even familiar with said code, is a huge task onto itself.

good stuff about programming becoming outdated. Makes sense to me.

two small - half full type - comments about the update.

First off, with all these top coaches leaving or at least cutting back, should be easy pickings for those top 'fully on board' coaches who are left - right?

Second, if the recruits get spread around more evenly, the game becomes more about game planning and team planning strategy, less about recruiting, again, that is a good thing for top coaches - isn't it?

before the nu game emerged as seble's plan, there had been years of discussion of how the game could be improved. Much of it thoughtful and productive ideas from people who had played the game for a long time.

Some bits of that are in the new game. A lot of it isnt.

There is a long tradition of mostly produyctive and constructive suggestions. Ignored by admin.

Posted by taniajane on 9/9/2016 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Gee Gillespie this sure clears it up "...was where seble rewrote the engine sim engine because he couldn't code in the language old admin wrote in .." Yet "sometimes the founder will be required to stay on to assist with the transition, maybe a couple key people, but that's it - and tarek stayed around for over 5 years. its not uncommon to have developers who code in different languages (most developers can code capably in at least a few)---"


So do we have a case of a Very Slow Learner that in Five years can not learn the code? Tell me again how this is "actually extremely common in software companies." Sorry perhaps it is "Common" for you but not for any intelligent and diligent programmer. Not buying that load of garbage as an excuse or an example of a programmer that has 5 years to learn with the previous and original writer and just "could not understand it".

I don't think Tarek stayed that long.

Tarek did not stay that long after FOX took over WIS, but unless you know him personally, we do not know if he had another alias and continued to play the game. Yet, I am reasonably sure it was not 5 years. (?)

There is very little that a veteran coach would have recommended that is being implemented. Mamxet, if you can identify something, I would sure like to know it. :)

OR makes a point that game planning will become more important with the new system than under the so called 2.0. This would be a valid assumption, but it is missing the history behind the changes to the game since FOX acquired the game.

It is not clear to me whether FSS was Tarek's idea, or the incoming group's. There is no question that it was poorly implemented and that a dispute between Tarek and the power's that be transpired. It took them quite awhile to iron out the issues with FSS, and since I think Tarek understood the game, I am not inclined to give the current bunch much credit as they have had no history of competency.

What makes OR's argument leak is that there was another group of changes that Seble's bunch did and which were never discussed, or announced. When I first started playing this game, the 'Gold Standard' for calculating DEF was the number of 3 pt. shots the other team made with some other adjustments considered. At one point, I noticed a lot of peculiar things happening with games and wrote Seble about this.

He admitted to me that the logic had been changed and that he wanted more "creativity" being used in game planning. Never mind that it flew in the face of what would have been a normal simulation of RL. Seble's interpretation of HCA and the number of 3 pt. shooting was based, in part, on how RPI.Com calculated it, but the way they do it flies in the face of what Stats Inc., Elias, and the NCAA say about these things.

As some of you may remember, there were tons of 3 pt. shots being thrown up, and I know of one team that was over 1000 attempts. Seble told me that it was an aberration, but it was clear he toned down the number of 3 pt. shots; probably after repeated complaints. This had two impacts on the game. I still was seeing teams that were in the 700-1000 range on attempts. Second, we started seeing teams making '4' 3 pt. attempts per game. Logically, you would want to cut off the lane, or play the post, but if you do that, there is a pretty good chance you are going to get killed. So, the number of 3 pt. attempts was reduced, but the flawed logic is still in the game. I will maintain that it is still there.

Yes, I know someone is asking why the issue over the 3 pt. attempt. Seble looked at schools that never made the NT that threw up a lot and felt that everyone should be doing it. Historically, what separated the BCS schools from the lower conference teams was the LP game. Now, the Butler's of the world have caught up there. Yet, a typical BCS team will be somewhere around 30-36% of their shots as 3 pt. attempts, and you rarely see those teams that shoot more than that in the NT.

A coach that use to be in Smith told me that he had helped with the mathematics of the original version of the game. He was very successful at the game, so I decided to ask him about why he did the same thing every game. It was suggested he could not tell me that since they have always tried to be tight lipped about the logic, but I came away from those discussions convinced there was something synergistic in the game planning on DEF and OFF. It use to be that the -5 was the primary aberration DEF, but now you will see all kinds of things working which flies in the face of logic.

Among what was surely a number of coaches, I suggested that the logic in the Team Game Planning be improved. Seble told me that it was always that way, but that doesn't make what is there right. Further, they cosmetically made changes to the page, but there is no real change where game planning would become more meaningful. This is why I think OR's hope better game planning will make a difference in the game, but I am going to maintain it is flawed and has not been corrected; primarily because Seble doesn't see that it is flawed.

george could be. My comments were based on two things, i.e. about gameplanning being more important vs recruiting that is.

First in the beta, the entire world top team is Dartmouth, using my custom rankings is a 70.4 team. In our ACC IBA conference the 6th best team in that conference is 70.4, the best, Ga Tech 75.0. The 25the best teams also have a pretty big gap, 66.1 vs 62.0. Assuming recruit generation did not change, that mean more balance after those top 25 teams. Hence how one manages the team is more important, vs the strength of the team's roster per se, simply given the games are likely to be closer given how more bunched up ratings are.

Second, in playing the beta, I've been sort of screwing around with recruiting, testing some things, one time I didn't even do it, and I still got two final fours and a title game in four years, with 3 teams ranked in the top 3 and the 4th year 9th ranked. I did not game plan ever (you can't really in the beta) but I'm doing my usual team planning, which as teams get more even, in my opinion makes a huge difference in results.

Just my opinion in my conclusion about strategy becoming more important again vs recruiting, or let's say the gap closed some. I sure haven't given it the detail of thought you've put into it with all these little twists and turns you describe. I have no way of knowing how to deal with that info really, it honestly makes my head hurt trying to think about it - LOL. As you know from discussions we've had, I'm not big on game planning for a single game anyhow, so alot of what you are saying, I really never have looked very closely at. I'm pretty good playing a base defensive system, with a few wrinkles here and there. Then again, although I still win some, I don't win the way I used to. And I sure can't beat everyone with bad teams the way I used to. So you might be right with your line of thought.

Still, I think the 3.0 release will yields opportunity for top coaches, old ones who stuck with it, and new ones who master it quicker than everyone else. Same as the game always has. Time will tell I guess.

Posted by oldresorter on 9/9/2016 4:18:00 PM (view original):
george could be. My comments were based on two things, i.e. about gameplanning being more important vs recruiting that is.

First in the beta, the entire world top team is Dartmouth, using my custom rankings is a 70.4 team. In our ACC IBA conference the 6th best team in that conference is 70.4, the best, Ga Tech 75.0. The 25the best teams also have a pretty big gap, 66.1 vs 62.0. Assuming recruit generation did not change, that mean more balance after those top 25 teams. Hence how one manages the team is more important, vs the strength of the team's roster per se, simply given the games are likely to be closer given how more bunched up ratings are.

Second, in playing the beta, I've been sort of screwing around with recruiting, testing some things, one time I didn't even do it, and I still got two final fours and a title game in four years, with 3 teams ranked in the top 3 and the 4th year 9th ranked. I did not game plan ever (you can't really in the beta) but I'm doing my usual team planning, which as teams get more even, in my opinion makes a huge difference in results.

Just my opinion in my conclusion about strategy becoming more important again vs recruiting, or let's say the gap closed some. I sure haven't given it the detail of thought you've put into it with all these little twists and turns you describe. I have no way of knowing how to deal with that info really, it honestly makes my head hurt trying to think about it - LOL. As you know from discussions we've had, I'm not big on game planning for a single game anyhow, so alot of what you are saying, I really never have looked very closely at. I'm pretty good playing a base defensive system, with a few wrinkles here and there. Then again, although I still win some, I don't win the way I used to. And I sure can't beat everyone with bad teams the way I used to. So you might be right with your line of thought.

Still, I think the 3.0 release will yields opportunity for top coaches, old ones who stuck with it, and new ones who master it quicker than everyone else. Same as the game always has. Time will tell I guess.

I agree.

In beta the prestiges were bizarrely seemingly set at random - making observations about current beta teams very difficult to compare to actual world gameplay. Same with recruiting results - almost like the deck was stacked in beta toward the goal of a greater appearance of parity.

I also find juxtaposing coaching as game-planning seemingly excluding recruiting as not part of coaching to be problematic. Being a real life coach involves both of the above, and if you can only do one well then you can be a good but not great coach.

OR, first, I have always considered you one of the class guys in the game. Never have I seen any example of your success impacting your behavior, which cannot be said about others.

I will agree that guys who grasp the game will still be able to adjust, and on that point, there is no debate. Yet, there are a number of questions that arise for me regarding the changes. First, I would ask why? Why wasn't the old system improved upon, and I don't buy all of their comments about actively recruiting new guys to play the game. WHY wasn't that done a long time ago.

What I was trying to do was point out that the logic in the game is already flawed and that we might be better off playing poker, or some other game based on chance than a simulation of a college sport. I have known and understood the imperfections in the game for some time now and have purposed to continue to play. The problem for me now is that none of the improvements many of us would have suggested have been implemented and we are now going to have to deal with an approach that has obvious issues.

Though I did not participate in the play testing of the 'beta', I have been watching and discussing the actions of two different coaches; one in Rupp and the other in Wooden. I am getting a feel for the scouting, which in some ways, is not that difficult. The why keeps running through my mind as I see it. Further, I don't want to say anything any more negative about this than what has already been done by myself, but it puzzles me where some of these ideas came to fruition.

Mamxet, there was one change I can identify for sure. For many years, I have suggested to them they increase the number of color coding in recruiting. Well, it looks like we got that one. Surely, I must be missing something.

Also, I do not like the randomness of the recruiting itself. In recent seasons, I have lost three recruiting battles and one other major issue that each time HD admitted were due to some 'glitch'. Tarek would have made those right, but there has been nothing on the part of this group to change things that went wrong. I have read whether it is right, or not that you could still be 'very high' on the player's list, but that there be a 69% chance you will still lose a recruiting battle; especially to some lower prestige team. I am not going to yell socialism here, but do have to wonder about the logic. Yes, I can point out high profile cases where guys did uncommit, but I seriously doubt the numbers are as high as the new system suggests.

Guys do not understand recruiting battles now, and a lot of them will be losing battles that defy explanation. I am not going to be one who feels comfortable that their system is working properly.