Early Entries/Attention Points Needs a Hotfix Topic

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
The way college basketball really works is a poor model to sell to the public. After all, no one has ever coached 70 seasons of basketball. They died before that happened. Surely, in the name of realism, you're not suggesting long-term HD coaches be exterminated, right?
If I were king of HD, one of the first things I'd do is start a system of opening a new world every April and October, with worlds ending after 50 seasons. I'd close all the existing worlds around the end of 2017.

The current infinite-life model has proven to be unsustainable.
12/1/2016 2:41 PM
Posted by kcsundevil on 12/1/2016 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Poor, poor gamerz-justis-warrierz. Thx 4 the LOLZ.

Seriously though. Exit trolling is lame. Man up and go away.
You seem friendly.
I am pretty friendly, but the dipshittery makes me feisty.
12/1/2016 2:44 PM
Posted by kcsundevil on 12/1/2016 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
The way college basketball really works is a poor model to sell to the public. After all, no one has ever coached 70 seasons of basketball. They died before that happened. Surely, in the name of realism, you're not suggesting long-term HD coaches be exterminated, right?
If I were king of HD, one of the first things I'd do is start a system of opening a new world every April and October, with worlds ending after 50 seasons. I'd close all the existing worlds around the end of 2017.

The current infinite-life model has proven to be unsustainable.
This is actually a pretty good idea, but I don't know that it would ever get traction.
12/1/2016 2:48 PM
Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 2:10:00 PM (view original):
Benis and bhan - you're reading an insinuation where there was none. Pay attention to the context here. The response I made was in context of benis discussing whether there are coaches who left specifically because of how EEs are treated in 3.0. Whoever those coaches might be, the game doesn't miss them. That doesn't presume that everyone who has left, left for that reason. That's your assumption, not mine. The ones mentioned recently, and I'd add vandydave to that list, certainly don't fit there. Cream rises to the top, and those guys would have likely stayed at the top in 3.0. That's the primary way you know snafu's "participation trophy" rant is entirely bullshit.

As ive said many times, there are valid reasons to not like 3.0. For most, I suspect it breaks down to either a preference for a deterministic rather than probabilistic model for recruiting, or/and a general reluctance to learn a new system. I can understand either of those. But to the extent that it's true - if it's true - that coaches left because they don't like having to compete for recruits with lower prestige teams, recruits they are used to getting with no challenge, the game doesn't and won't miss them. I'll stand by that. If you or your friends don't fit in that box, there's no reason to assume I put them there.
Fair enough on the insinuation, or lack thereof. One final thought, though - I don't think "coaches who thought EE's were handled poorly in 3.0 and have left" automatically means "coaches who dislike fair competition". Many of those coaches didn't like the new EE, could've found a different way to compete very well (many of them are coaches who adjusted just fine to 2.0 years ago), BUT exited because they simply didn't like how the transition was handled and what was prioritized in the new build.
12/1/2016 3:03 PM
Posted by bhansalid00 on 12/1/2016 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 2:10:00 PM (view original):
Benis and bhan - you're reading an insinuation where there was none. Pay attention to the context here. The response I made was in context of benis discussing whether there are coaches who left specifically because of how EEs are treated in 3.0. Whoever those coaches might be, the game doesn't miss them. That doesn't presume that everyone who has left, left for that reason. That's your assumption, not mine. The ones mentioned recently, and I'd add vandydave to that list, certainly don't fit there. Cream rises to the top, and those guys would have likely stayed at the top in 3.0. That's the primary way you know snafu's "participation trophy" rant is entirely bullshit.

As ive said many times, there are valid reasons to not like 3.0. For most, I suspect it breaks down to either a preference for a deterministic rather than probabilistic model for recruiting, or/and a general reluctance to learn a new system. I can understand either of those. But to the extent that it's true - if it's true - that coaches left because they don't like having to compete for recruits with lower prestige teams, recruits they are used to getting with no challenge, the game doesn't and won't miss them. I'll stand by that. If you or your friends don't fit in that box, there's no reason to assume I put them there.
Fair enough on the insinuation, or lack thereof. One final thought, though - I don't think "coaches who thought EE's were handled poorly in 3.0 and have left" automatically means "coaches who dislike fair competition". Many of those coaches didn't like the new EE, could've found a different way to compete very well (many of them are coaches who adjusted just fine to 2.0 years ago), BUT exited because they simply didn't like how the transition was handled and what was prioritized in the new build.
I agree. That's why I brought vandydave up. He and I obviously didn't agree on 3.0, but I have a ton of respect for him, and no doubt he would have been a great coach in 3.0. It's the guys spouting off about "participation trophies" who I generally wonder about.
12/1/2016 3:17 PM
Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
The way college basketball really works is a poor model to sell to the public. After all, no one has ever coached 70 seasons of basketball. They died before that happened. Surely, in the name of realism, you're not suggesting long-term HD coaches be exterminated, right?
That is a rather specious argument. This game started out as a sophisticated college basketball simulation. The original design did its best to control for variables in such a way as to mimic (within the possible realm of what can be mimicked in a game) certain aspects of the coaching experience; working your way up from a nobody DIII school into your dream job at a Big 6, hopefully learning to win, dominating your competition, and establishing a dynasty (hence the name, Hoops Dynasty). Baseline prestige was meant to reflect the real life dominance of certain programs, and to allow for a higher tier of schools, just like in the real world. It was never supposed to be a level playing field. UNH is not supposed to be competing for national championships, it is supposed to be a stepping stone. Jackson State is not supposed to be competing for 5 star recruits. Nobody should be able to build a dynasty at Army, or Hofstra, or Boston University. It goes against the intent and design of a basketball simulation. The competition is supposed to be for the top spots at the top schools, just like in the real world. Kentucky and Duke and UConn should have a marked advantage in recruiting, so much so that they can basically cherry pick the recruits they want and get them unless there is a spectacular recruiting effort from a St. Johns, or Wake Forest, or similar almost elite program. They should never have to compete against Jackson State or UNH because those battles would never, EVER, happen in the real world. Encouraging them to happen here is a distinct step away from any semblance of a simulation and large jump towards a pay to play system that makes sure everybody can get a nice 5-star recruit. You pay your subscription fee, you get to bring 5 stars to BU. This level playing field marks the destruction of real competition in HD. There is nothing to aspire too, nothing that rewards skill, just go "All-in" on a recruit and hope your name get picked out of the hat. HD 3.0 is the absence of competition, it is a lottery. In competition there are distinct advantages and disadvantages among the participants--it is not a level playing field. In HD 3.0, everybody can throw their ticket in the hat and everyone gets a chance.

And shoe, I am not exit trolling, I am trying to express my distaste in a public forum in the hopes that there are other long time coaches who agree with me and that the devs will take notice. I am not even exiting, I have too many free seasons left from winning so god damned much.
I don't particularly care what word you use to describe the argument.

WifS is running a business. Businesses require customers. The race to Duke, Kentucky and UConn was completed 10+ years ago. So, if you're selling your business do you lead with "Join. You can get Army or Hofstra or Boston University but all the good jobs were taken in 2005. Sorry that you were only 7 then and had never heard of HD but, if you join now, you can always be a 2nd class citizen. Good luck!!!"?

There is no skill in having a built-in advantage, acquired years ago, to all the best players. It's plain-*** ludicrous to imply there is.

I especially like your last line. Why would the devs listen to someone who hasn't paid a dime to the site in who knows how long? Again, it's called a "business" not "snafu's playground".
12/1/2016 3:32 PM
Posted by shoe3 on 12/1/2016 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kcsundevil on 12/1/2016 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
The way college basketball really works is a poor model to sell to the public. After all, no one has ever coached 70 seasons of basketball. They died before that happened. Surely, in the name of realism, you're not suggesting long-term HD coaches be exterminated, right?
If I were king of HD, one of the first things I'd do is start a system of opening a new world every April and October, with worlds ending after 50 seasons. I'd close all the existing worlds around the end of 2017.

The current infinite-life model has proven to be unsustainable.
This is actually a pretty good idea, but I don't know that it would ever get traction.
You're probably right. However, S47 and on would probably be a nightmare. And can you imagine the complaining in S50 when the man on top says "This is bullshit. I'm finally on top and it's over. I'm done with this ****!!!"
12/1/2016 3:35 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
The way college basketball really works is a poor model to sell to the public. After all, no one has ever coached 70 seasons of basketball. They died before that happened. Surely, in the name of realism, you're not suggesting long-term HD coaches be exterminated, right?
That is a rather specious argument. This game started out as a sophisticated college basketball simulation. The original design did its best to control for variables in such a way as to mimic (within the possible realm of what can be mimicked in a game) certain aspects of the coaching experience; working your way up from a nobody DIII school into your dream job at a Big 6, hopefully learning to win, dominating your competition, and establishing a dynasty (hence the name, Hoops Dynasty). Baseline prestige was meant to reflect the real life dominance of certain programs, and to allow for a higher tier of schools, just like in the real world. It was never supposed to be a level playing field. UNH is not supposed to be competing for national championships, it is supposed to be a stepping stone. Jackson State is not supposed to be competing for 5 star recruits. Nobody should be able to build a dynasty at Army, or Hofstra, or Boston University. It goes against the intent and design of a basketball simulation. The competition is supposed to be for the top spots at the top schools, just like in the real world. Kentucky and Duke and UConn should have a marked advantage in recruiting, so much so that they can basically cherry pick the recruits they want and get them unless there is a spectacular recruiting effort from a St. Johns, or Wake Forest, or similar almost elite program. They should never have to compete against Jackson State or UNH because those battles would never, EVER, happen in the real world. Encouraging them to happen here is a distinct step away from any semblance of a simulation and large jump towards a pay to play system that makes sure everybody can get a nice 5-star recruit. You pay your subscription fee, you get to bring 5 stars to BU. This level playing field marks the destruction of real competition in HD. There is nothing to aspire too, nothing that rewards skill, just go "All-in" on a recruit and hope your name get picked out of the hat. HD 3.0 is the absence of competition, it is a lottery. In competition there are distinct advantages and disadvantages among the participants--it is not a level playing field. In HD 3.0, everybody can throw their ticket in the hat and everyone gets a chance.

And shoe, I am not exit trolling, I am trying to express my distaste in a public forum in the hopes that there are other long time coaches who agree with me and that the devs will take notice. I am not even exiting, I have too many free seasons left from winning so god damned much.
I don't particularly care what word you use to describe the argument.

WifS is running a business. Businesses require customers. The race to Duke, Kentucky and UConn was completed 10+ years ago. So, if you're selling your business do you lead with "Join. You can get Army or Hofstra or Boston University but all the good jobs were taken in 2005. Sorry that you were only 7 then and had never heard of HD but, if you join now, you can always be a 2nd class citizen. Good luck!!!"?

There is no skill in having a built-in advantage, acquired years ago, to all the best players. It's plain-*** ludicrous to imply there is.

I especially like your last line. Why would the devs listen to someone who hasn't paid a dime to the site in who knows how long? Again, it's called a "business" not "snafu's playground".
Spoken like someone who has never earned they way up the ladder of anything. When finally got my break at a Big 6 School (Nova) I took it over after a few years of Sim control and at a c+ prestige. In my conference division were 3 of the winningest coaches in HD history. They had a ridiculous advantage in recruiting, and that is where the competition came from, that is where I found the motivation to become better. I didn't sign up for this game to be handed victories and recruits, I signed up for the competition. As such, I learned how to recruit against the big boys, I put in the effort and time, and I built Nova up into a yearly contender, a program that didn't have much competition for recruits because I earned that position in the harshest of climates against the hardest of competition. Now my competition came from the other elite schools. I had learned how to succeed and was rewarded with competing at a new, higher level against the finest coaches in the game. That is where the fun was in this sim, you could progress. Now that everyone gets to play for the 5-stars, the fun is gone. There is no progression because recruiting an elite team means getting penalized and dropped down to give the other people a chance. It is no longer possible to build a dynasty in "Hoops Dynasty", now you can merely hope to be slightly above average. But hey, good ol Jackson State gets a 5 star recruit every now and then so they are happy. Now it is precisely the "everybody gets a trophy" scenario. That worthless, coddled millennial mentality has all but ruined the game that I loved. Go play with your soccer trophies.

12/1/2016 3:50 PM
Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by snafu4u on 12/1/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
The way college basketball really works is a poor model to sell to the public. After all, no one has ever coached 70 seasons of basketball. They died before that happened. Surely, in the name of realism, you're not suggesting long-term HD coaches be exterminated, right?
That is a rather specious argument. This game started out as a sophisticated college basketball simulation. The original design did its best to control for variables in such a way as to mimic (within the possible realm of what can be mimicked in a game) certain aspects of the coaching experience; working your way up from a nobody DIII school into your dream job at a Big 6, hopefully learning to win, dominating your competition, and establishing a dynasty (hence the name, Hoops Dynasty). Baseline prestige was meant to reflect the real life dominance of certain programs, and to allow for a higher tier of schools, just like in the real world. It was never supposed to be a level playing field. UNH is not supposed to be competing for national championships, it is supposed to be a stepping stone. Jackson State is not supposed to be competing for 5 star recruits. Nobody should be able to build a dynasty at Army, or Hofstra, or Boston University. It goes against the intent and design of a basketball simulation. The competition is supposed to be for the top spots at the top schools, just like in the real world. Kentucky and Duke and UConn should have a marked advantage in recruiting, so much so that they can basically cherry pick the recruits they want and get them unless there is a spectacular recruiting effort from a St. Johns, or Wake Forest, or similar almost elite program. They should never have to compete against Jackson State or UNH because those battles would never, EVER, happen in the real world. Encouraging them to happen here is a distinct step away from any semblance of a simulation and large jump towards a pay to play system that makes sure everybody can get a nice 5-star recruit. You pay your subscription fee, you get to bring 5 stars to BU. This level playing field marks the destruction of real competition in HD. There is nothing to aspire too, nothing that rewards skill, just go "All-in" on a recruit and hope your name get picked out of the hat. HD 3.0 is the absence of competition, it is a lottery. In competition there are distinct advantages and disadvantages among the participants--it is not a level playing field. In HD 3.0, everybody can throw their ticket in the hat and everyone gets a chance.

And shoe, I am not exit trolling, I am trying to express my distaste in a public forum in the hopes that there are other long time coaches who agree with me and that the devs will take notice. I am not even exiting, I have too many free seasons left from winning so god damned much.
I don't particularly care what word you use to describe the argument.

WifS is running a business. Businesses require customers. The race to Duke, Kentucky and UConn was completed 10+ years ago. So, if you're selling your business do you lead with "Join. You can get Army or Hofstra or Boston University but all the good jobs were taken in 2005. Sorry that you were only 7 then and had never heard of HD but, if you join now, you can always be a 2nd class citizen. Good luck!!!"?

There is no skill in having a built-in advantage, acquired years ago, to all the best players. It's plain-*** ludicrous to imply there is.

I especially like your last line. Why would the devs listen to someone who hasn't paid a dime to the site in who knows how long? Again, it's called a "business" not "snafu's playground".
Spoken like someone who has never earned they way up the ladder of anything. When finally got my break at a Big 6 School (Nova) I took it over after a few years of Sim control and at a c+ prestige. In my conference division were 3 of the winningest coaches in HD history. They had a ridiculous advantage in recruiting, and that is where the competition came from, that is where I found the motivation to become better. I didn't sign up for this game to be handed victories and recruits, I signed up for the competition. As such, I learned how to recruit against the big boys, I put in the effort and time, and I built Nova up into a yearly contender, a program that didn't have much competition for recruits because I earned that position in the harshest of climates against the hardest of competition. Now my competition came from the other elite schools. I had learned how to succeed and was rewarded with competing at a new, higher level against the finest coaches in the game. That is where the fun was in this sim, you could progress. Now that everyone gets to play for the 5-stars, the fun is gone. There is no progression because recruiting an elite team means getting penalized and dropped down to give the other people a chance. It is no longer possible to build a dynasty in "Hoops Dynasty", now you can merely hope to be slightly above average. But hey, good ol Jackson State gets a 5 star recruit every now and then so they are happy. Now it is precisely the "everybody gets a trophy" scenario. That worthless, coddled millennial mentality has all but ruined the game that I loved. Go play with your soccer trophies.

Laughable. Congrats on your hard work in HD. I'm sure your mother is proud.
12/1/2016 3:53 PM
Again, I would like any of you ardent HD 3.0 defenders to address what I have said regarding the level playing field:

"This is a simulation game. It should not be a level playing field. Some teams should have a distinct advantage based off of success (NOT a 1% better chance at winning the lottery, but rather a virtually unopposed position in recruiting unless another A++ team decides to compete). BU, Hoftstra, and UNH SHOULD NOT be landing 5 star recruits, just like real life. You SHOULD NOT be able to build a dynasty at Jackson State, just like in real life."

" This game started out as a sophisticated college basketball simulation. The original design did its best to control for variables in such a way as to mimic (within the possible realm of what can be mimicked in a game) certain aspects of the coaching experience; working your way up from a nobody DIII school into your dream job at a Big 6, hopefully learning to win, dominating your competition, and establishing a dynasty (hence the name, Hoops Dynasty). Baseline prestige was meant to reflect the real life dominance of certain programs, and to allow for a higher tier of schools, just like in the real world. It was never supposed to be a level playing field. UNH is not supposed to be competing for national championships, it is supposed to be a stepping stone. Jackson State is not supposed to be competing for 5 star recruits. Nobody should be able to build a dynasty at Army, or Hofstra, or Boston University. It goes against the intent and design of a basketball simulation. The competition is supposed to be for the top spots at the top schools, just like in the real world. Kentucky and Duke and UConn should have a marked advantage in recruiting, so much so that they can basically cherry pick the recruits they want and get them unless there is a spectacular recruiting effort from a St. Johns, or Wake Forest, or similar almost elite program. They should never have to compete against Jackson State or UNH because those battles would never, EVER, happen in the real world. Encouraging them to happen here is a distinct step away from any semblance of a simulation"
12/1/2016 4:00 PM
They've been addressed literally dozens of times over the last 8 months. Your specific rant is not worthy of it's own special consideration. This is the game that exists. There are good ways to play that game. Playing the game that used to exist, or that you wish existed, and then complaining that it doesn't work is not a good way to play the game that exists.
12/1/2016 4:05 PM
I'll address it. A level playing field encourages participation.

Inviting someone to play a game of hoops with you but telling them they cannot wear shoes or use their right hand does not encourage participation. That's what HD 2.0 did.
12/1/2016 4:09 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2016 4:09:00 PM (view original):
I'll address it. A level playing field encourages participation.

Inviting someone to play a game of hoops with you but telling them they cannot wear shoes or use their right hand does not encourage participation. That's what HD 2.0 did.
Spoken like someone who couldn't figure it out. MOST people liked HD 2.0. They wanted more subscribers, so they made sure the less players successful could make gains without the learning curve. Have another participation trophy, princess.

Your example with shoes and hands is ridiculous. Everyone had access to the same resources and had to learn how to use them. A more appropriate analogy would be: Come play hoops with Lebron James, he is not going to take it easy on you. It is going to take a lot of hard work and dedication to get to the level he is at, but if you work hard at it and learn you can get there too.

Now, in 3.0 it is more like: Come play hoops with Lebron James. We have tied one hand behind his back, broken his kneecaps, and drugged him so you can improve your chances of making shots. It's all for the best, he had a talent advantage that needed to be negated if we wanted people like you to keep playing hoops.
12/1/2016 4:16 PM
Uh, no. It was a race to the top. I was involved. The better owners beat me to Duke, Kentucky, etc. And, when I arrived, beat the **** out of my VaTech team. And got all the best recruits to ensure they beat the **** out of me next season. I played 4 seasons of that, made marginal improvement and decided to play HBD because you really did have the same resources when the season started.

FWIW, this is a sim game. You should probably calm down just a tad. It's not worth having a stroke over. Seriously.
12/1/2016 4:20 PM
And, just for the record, I'm not a millennial. Soccer wasn't even a sport in America until I was 16-17. So, if you're gonna rant, don't read my user profile as ammo. I'm not Cuban either.
12/1/2016 4:23 PM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9|10...15 Next ▸
Early Entries/Attention Points Needs a Hotfix 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.