Posted by CoachSpud on 10/6/2016 12:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/6/2016 12:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/5/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):
" No matter what game WIS implements, we can't control that some coaches just aren't that good and will never reach the top, and some coaches will learn the system and dominate. WIS trying to artificially fix that is flawed. "

Close. It is the misconception that WIS was trying to fix that that is flawed. Largely, though, this thread has shaped up. Good to see some discussion of the game here.

I'm not sure I understand your statement, or maybe I do. I'm assuming the "misconception" WIS was trying to fix is the statement I made. So your statement is the fact that some coaches just aren't that good should not be a real thing? or that some coaches will always be dominant regardless of the game should not happen. How is someone going to create a game like that based on people's strategies and skills? Some people just don't have those capabilities. The only way you can create a system where everyone will be a winner is a system based not on skill, but luck. Please clarify, because I don't think WIS fixed any of the core issues of the game.

This -- "we can't control that some coaches just aren't that good and will never reach the top, and some coaches will learn the system and dominate" -- is true of both HD2.0 and HD3.0.

It isn't a problem and WIS knows that.

They didn't try to fix a problem that doesn't exist, and the presumption that they did is flawed.

thx, shill

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/6/2016 12:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 10/6/2016 12:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/6/2016 12:12:00 AM (view original):
You should have participated in beta and the beta forums.

I did.

Any other irrelevant comments?

Then you didn't need to ask a question. You already knew the answer from the beta forums.

Any other irrelevant questions?

While acknowledging that I'm feeding the troll, my impact on wis will be more relevant than yours will ever be.

I obviously didn't find the answer in beta nor in the forums. You obviously feel you did discover the inner workings of wis desires for HD, so exhibit your reading comprehension skills and tell us.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/6/2016 12:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/6/2016 12:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/5/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):
" No matter what game WIS implements, we can't control that some coaches just aren't that good and will never reach the top, and some coaches will learn the system and dominate. WIS trying to artificially fix that is flawed. "

Close. It is the misconception that WIS was trying to fix that that is flawed. Largely, though, this thread has shaped up. Good to see some discussion of the game here.

I'm not sure I understand your statement, or maybe I do. I'm assuming the "misconception" WIS was trying to fix is the statement I made. So your statement is the fact that some coaches just aren't that good should not be a real thing? or that some coaches will always be dominant regardless of the game should not happen. How is someone going to create a game like that based on people's strategies and skills? Some people just don't have those capabilities. The only way you can create a system where everyone will be a winner is a system based not on skill, but luck. Please clarify, because I don't think WIS fixed any of the core issues of the game.

This -- "we can't control that some coaches just aren't that good and will never reach the top, and some coaches will learn the system and dominate" -- is true of both HD2.0 and HD3.0.

It isn't a problem and WIS knows that.

They didn't try to fix a problem that doesn't exist, and the presumption that they did is flawed.

there were scores of good ideas in circulation 2 and 3 years ago - along lines of above post. And others. Could have tried several of them as steps to enhance the game without the big rewrite. Its their game and they decided not to do so.

"Some of the changes made were specifically to target the fact that some people constantly remained at the top"

That is true, poncho, as is most of the rest of your post. Strictly speaking, what WIS addressed was the fact that they could remain there almost without challenge and enjoyed some advantages built into the game that suppressed competition. This -- "we can't control that some coaches just aren't that good and will never reach the top, and some coaches will learn the system and dominate" -- is still true of both HD2.0 and HD3.0. However, remaining at the top will now require more skill.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/6/2016 12:46:00 PM (view original):
"Some of the changes made were specifically to target the fact that some people constantly remained at the top"

That is true, poncho, as is most of the rest of your post. Strictly speaking, what WIS addressed was the fact that they could remain there almost without challenge and enjoyed some advantages built into the game that suppressed competition. This -- "we can't control that some coaches just aren't that good and will never reach the top, and some coaches will learn the system and dominate" -- is still true of both HD2.0 and HD3.0. However, remaining at the top will now require more skill.

I'll agree it will take more skill. This always goes back to the default of it literally could have been a removal or cap of carry over and better job logic with more firings. Ultimately, I wouldn't mind seeing them do away with baseline prestige and make school prestige dynamic and natural. This would remove the need for people to have to be at a UNC (unless it was more about just being at UNC for them). This would help fix the issue stated above as well, and you could build a powerhouse program anywhere.

At D1 it will take more skill.

At D3 it removed the skill.

I can only speak for myself as someone that has been in the Wooden world since Season One with not a lot of credits as many other successful coaches have built up. A coach with a lot of all time victories in the world. Someone that has put a lot of money into What If Sports. Actually, I may not want to know how much money I have actually spent with this company. It's hard to say goodbye but sometimes that is just what we need to do. The latest recruiting update has some work that needs to be done before it will run smoothly and I wish WIS the best going forward. It has been a great run and sometimes you just need to realize that it is time to get off the ride and move on in life to the many other things that are out there to experience. I will miss the fellow users, will always have the great memories of the game and perhaps I just hung around longer than I should have...

I'm relatively new to this game, being only in my fourth season, and had been pretty excited about the release of 3.0. As someone who joined recently, it was obvious that there were some problems that needed to be addressed in order for the game to retain its long term viability. The interface was very dated, and the site support and documentation was all ancient to the point that when I first joined I was afraid the game itself was on its last legs.

As such, I was very happy to see the 3.0 release feature an upgraded interface, which, while still not stellar, at least no longer looks like it's from the 90s. However, the fact that the developers rolled out a major upgrade, and not only did absolutely nothing of substance to provide any guide that could actually help users understand how to operate in the new format (and instead had to rely on a couple of users, to whom I am very grateful), but instead continue to have links to FAQs and other sources that contain incorrect information and, in fact, left everyone hanging immediately after the release by having the lead developer depart without any communication, not just about him leaving but also about anything, at all, is rather mind boggling.

Aside from that, the new recruiting system just might succeed in killing the game, where the complete lack of support has failed to do so. When I joined earlier this year on the free season offer after the NCAA tourney, I recruited three others to join with me, and we had an absolute blast playing the game together. We were all looking forward to the upgrade as something that would hopefully make the game even better. However, after now having actually seen the results of the upgrade, all three of the others are planning on quitting, which likely will lead to me leaving, as well. While I actually like the idea of allowing scouting in season, WIS has turned it into something that feels more like work than a game. If you want to truly maximize your scouting experience, you have to spend way too much time, which at the end of the day yields only a small amount of benefit. Requiring 25x the effort to get a 15% benefit is just ridiculous. This could be justified if, in fact, scouting was actually fun to do. I had been rather looking forward to the notion of "finding" recruits, as it is in theory a cool idea to be able to discover new talent and be able to go after them. However, the implementation is not fun at all. When you find someone, you have no idea even if they are any good or anyone you want to go after because you still have to scout them an additional 2-3 levels just to find out if they are even worth thinking about. How is that fun?

Then, at the end of the day, if you actually do want to go after a player, and recruit them heavily, if anyone else went after them to the point where you are at least relatively close, whether or not that player signs with you its a totally random end game outcome. In a simulation game, this is entirely unacceptable. It would be like if the outcomes of the actual simulated games were instead based solely on a distribution around the point spread rather than built up based on randomly simulated individual possessions. If you wanted to incorporate randomness into the recruiting process, then the randomness should be around how much impact the actual recruiting actions had on the recruit. If the amount of benefit each AP or CV or the like had was allowed to vary (and this variance could be modified by all sorts of things, such as division, prestige, or even the very flawed preferences), then you could still involve some randomness, but enable coaches to respond to the randomness accordingly to add more strategy to the randomness. Then, whoever was ahead at the end of the day would actually get the recruit to sign, much like whoever has the most points at the end of the game wins. As it is, it's like you give the team that's behind a chance to make a 100 foot shot, award it 50 points and let them win the game.

Add to the above that the way the new features were implemented make no sense (how the levels are set for the various game play preferences, not to mention what preferences were actually chosen, are just absurd), and it's hard for me to try to defend to my friends why it's worth staying around to continue playing. I wish I could, because even with all of the flaws, I would personally enjoy the ability to continue playing with them. Honestly, it's really sad that such a good core product has been mismanaged so spectacularly. Hopefully the new devs will be able to start setting things straight, but it might be too late.

That seems like a thoughtful post ... until you start to spot the outright fallacies, such as "Then, at the end of the day, if you actually do want to go after a player, and recruit them heavily, if anyone else went after them to the point where you are at least relatively close, whether or not that player signs with you its a totally random end game outcome." Once you see the spin, the post is just another "I don't like it" post from someone who hasn't taken the time to learn the game, for whatever his reason. I offer thread below as the counterpart, written by those who have taken the time and have learned the game.

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=495608

seems to me that cavs impressions as a rather new player are entirely valid in that context - the impression of the game on rather new participants is very important

they are more valid than Spud's claims to deep expertise based on modest experience

Spud is well placed to explain the views of someone with some but limited experience - and I would urge him not to criticize folks who sincerely express the impressions the game makes

WIS should care about that impression

Ah, let's see ... ignoring your snark ...
"seems to me that cavs impressions as a rather new player are entirely valid in that context - the impression of the game on rather new participants is very important" I would not disagree with that. There are some newcomers who will take the time to learn the game and some who won't. What WIS needs to do is encourage the latter to become the former. Those of us who like the game should be supportive of that entire process, including our forum support.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/9/2016 9:01:00 PM (view original):
Ah, let's see ... ignoring your snark ...
"seems to me that cavs impressions as a rather new player are entirely valid in that context - the impression of the game on rather new participants is very important" I would not disagree with that. There are some newcomers who will take the time to learn the game and some who won't. What WIS needs to do is encourage the latter to become the former. Those of us who like the game should be supportive of that entire process, including our forum support.

How about you not be rude to these people then? Instead of saying they have a 'spin' and start telling them they need to take the time to learn the game and act rude, how about you start asking questions and trying to understand this person's perspective?

Your 'support' is ridiculous. If you really want to encourage people to play this game and make the forums more welcoming to new folks then start acting like it. Lead by example.

I hope cavs sticks around a little longer and continues to play. I actually really like the new recruiting personally. I'm finding it to be a lot of fun. But of course, others will disagree. And if they don't like it, then that's their opinion and they have the right to have it. And there doesn't need to be some sort of 'spin' or ulterior motive. They may just not like it. Thanks for sharing the story cavs, I think this is pretty insightful and provides some idea of what a new person thinks/feels about 3.0.