7/29/2013 2:23 PM
That's another reason to like 2.0.  You can play a balanced defense.  It is a step backwards to force coaches to guess and be wrong 50% of the time.  (Against balanced offenses.)
7/29/2013 3:16 PM
I've won 4 NC in 5 seasons in Carpenter, and one additonal NC in Bava.  I'm not a techno-geek or a programmer and I don't pretend to understand the game in its entirety.  That said, I do think I have some grasp of 3.0.  I also think:

1. You don't have to run a counter-intuitive game plan to beat SIMs.  I don't pass out of the bone or run out of the gun.  And I'm a perfect 12-0 against SIMs between my two teams this season and I understand why.
2. Talent does matter.  Not as much as it should, but it does. If I run the same gameplan against BCS, midmajor, and D1AA, D2, and D3 competition, the score in my favor widens at each level.   
3. Trying to fix the beta by manipulating final results creates new problems. The first two seasons of the beta, running was king. That was overcorrected, and passing 100 times became the vogue.  That was addressed by manipulating QB fatigue, which resulted in another overcorrection. 
4. The debate about whether an 80/80/80 player should always be successful against a 79/79/79 player is a red herring. The talent differential there is minimal. the more salient question is by how much should an 80/80/80 player outperform a 75/75/75 player?  Or a 70/70/70 player.  Permutations and results should be based (I think) on scales of talent disparity - how different is 3 points in cores?  How about 5?  Or 10?  Meaningful differences should define the game and results.
5. Just like 1.0. there are some holes to be exploited in 3.0, opportunities to create a winning strategy that stands up game after game after game. Winning in 3.0 isn't really a coin flip. But 3.0 doesn't give coaches the same ability to choose a winning style that 1.0 did.  Good coaches in 1.0 could (and did) build teams that could win running or passing. I don't think that's true in 3.0 yet.

I know there's lots of unhappiness and 3.0 isn't meeting the expectations of many of the beta testers. Setting starters is a pain is the butt.  It's hard to understand why in reviewing the debuged PBP some advantages are strong and others nonexistent when the attributes don't match up to those "buckets".  3.0 isn't close to being a finished product, but there are some building blocks here that could bring back much of what I liked about 1.0.  The truth is, no game can have 100 developers.  Some of the testers - like me - want 1.0 back or something like it.  Others want a game more like 2.0.  No one game can be both, so some block of coaches is bound to be disappointed. 

From a strictly commercial standpoint, it seems 2.0 sucks.  Worlds are empty.  Yes, reward points tanked but the coaches didn't leave because of that - they started playing without the points and would have continued, I think. The game that built GD and led to full worlds and expansion was 1.0. In my opinion, the more 3.0 miirrors the 1.0 experience, the better the chance for success and to fill the worlds again.
7/29/2013 3:57 PM
bjaygee, your post is, without a doubt, the most intelligent and on target I've seen yet. I've ask the question "If it's a roll of the dice why are certain coaches so successful season after season" about 2.0 1,000 times and it fits 3.0 as well.
7/29/2013 5:03 PM (edited)
Posted by coach_deen on 7/29/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
bjaygee, your post is, without a doubt, the most intelligent and on target I've seen yet. I've ask the question "If it's a roll of the dice why are certain coaches so successful season after season" about 2.0 1,000 times and it fits 3.0 as well.
I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope.
7/29/2013 8:20 PM
I agree v 2 has some random outcomes but not as much as everyone makes them out to be, the results speak for themselves,I liked 1 too but the big reason why coaches won so many championship and were so successful,was they were great coaches to begin with at great schools with massive carryovers of money and once you won a few championship it was hard if not impossible to recruit against them no matter the recruiting distance and so those coaches got the best players all the time,knew the ins and outs of game,and it was over,NO COACH SHOULD BE WINNING 6 7 8 CHAMPIONCHIPS IN A ROW THATS NOT REALISTIC IS IT,while I do think v1 had its advantages over 2 in some ways as far as talent mattered more and you had more control over their roster,I think some coaches success not ALL were do to the things ive mentioned and when v2 came it was an excuse why they were not has successful.while I would like to see a mix of v1 and v2  and I hope 3 provides that,I get sick of all the coaches that act like v1 was so great and v2 is just a bunch of random coaches winning who do not deserve it because that's just not true,and to say you cant expain why things happen in 2 at all is a ridiculous and stupid statement.
7/29/2013 8:24 PM
Posted by bjaygee on 7/29/2013 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by coach_deen on 7/29/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
bjaygee, your post is, without a doubt, the most intelligent and on target I've seen yet. I've ask the question "If it's a roll of the dice why are certain coaches so successful season after season" about 2.0 1,000 times and it fits 3.0 as well.
I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope.
In what world did a Sim beat a human for the NC?
7/29/2013 8:43 PM
Posted by starfinder77 on 7/29/2013 8:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bjaygee on 7/29/2013 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by coach_deen on 7/29/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
bjaygee, your post is, without a doubt, the most intelligent and on target I've seen yet. I've ask the question "If it's a roll of the dice why are certain coaches so successful season after season" about 2.0 1,000 times and it fits 3.0 as well.
I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope.
In what world did a Sim beat a human for the NC?
Can't remember which world but the team was UConn and I believe it happened around December 2011.  If you're still coaching in one of the non-beta worlds, I'm sure you can find it.
7/29/2013 9:01 PM
Posted by jaxbaker on 7/29/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
I agree v 2 has some random outcomes but not as much as everyone makes them out to be, the results speak for themselves,I liked 1 too but the big reason why coaches won so many championship and were so successful,was they were great coaches to begin with at great schools with massive carryovers of money and once you won a few championship it was hard if not impossible to recruit against them no matter the recruiting distance and so those coaches got the best players all the time,knew the ins and outs of game,and it was over,NO COACH SHOULD BE WINNING 6 7 8 CHAMPIONCHIPS IN A ROW THATS NOT REALISTIC IS IT,while I do think v1 had its advantages over 2 in some ways as far as talent mattered more and you had more control over their roster,I think some coaches success not ALL were do to the things ive mentioned and when v2 came it was an excuse why they were not has successful.while I would like to see a mix of v1 and v2  and I hope 3 provides that,I get sick of all the coaches that act like v1 was so great and v2 is just a bunch of random coaches winning who do not deserve it because that's just not true,and to say you cant expain why things happen in 2 at all is a ridiculous and stupid statement.
This is nonsense.  

Those who were good enough to compete - even against established coaches - did. nelsonba would be an excellent example. Those who weren't willing to really learn the game whined and pouted and shrieked about how unfair it was that better coaches outrecruited them and won NCs.  And the WIS gods heard them and thought to themselves - gee, if we dumb this down and water down talent and gameplanning advantages, we'll get eleventy billion mediocre coaches signed up and life will be great.

Why should coaches who understand the 'ins and outs' of the game be rewarded for their time and hard work?  Screw 'em. Let's make it so that any jughead willing to pay for a team has a chance at winning.  And so 2.0 was born.

Then everyone lived happily ever after, except they didn't.  The best and most committed coaches left, unwilling to play a game in which talent advantages, knowledge and gameplanning were devalued.  And after the initial rush, even the jugheads left.  The worlds slowly (or not so slowly) depopulated.  And finally the WIS gods said, "Oh hell.  We really sh*t the bed, didn't we?".  Which leads us to where we are today.

I don't have any trouble saying that 1.0 was a vastly superior game, and the numbers back me up.  More players, fuller worlds.  And if you can 'expain' why a good coach who is paying to play should be externally prevented from winning as many championships as he can, I'd be most appreciative.
7/29/2013 9:25 PM
Posted by bjaygee on 7/29/2013 9:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jaxbaker on 7/29/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
I agree v 2 has some random outcomes but not as much as everyone makes them out to be, the results speak for themselves,I liked 1 too but the big reason why coaches won so many championship and were so successful,was they were great coaches to begin with at great schools with massive carryovers of money and once you won a few championship it was hard if not impossible to recruit against them no matter the recruiting distance and so those coaches got the best players all the time,knew the ins and outs of game,and it was over,NO COACH SHOULD BE WINNING 6 7 8 CHAMPIONCHIPS IN A ROW THATS NOT REALISTIC IS IT,while I do think v1 had its advantages over 2 in some ways as far as talent mattered more and you had more control over their roster,I think some coaches success not ALL were do to the things ive mentioned and when v2 came it was an excuse why they were not has successful.while I would like to see a mix of v1 and v2  and I hope 3 provides that,I get sick of all the coaches that act like v1 was so great and v2 is just a bunch of random coaches winning who do not deserve it because that's just not true,and to say you cant expain why things happen in 2 at all is a ridiculous and stupid statement.
This is nonsense.  

Those who were good enough to compete - even against established coaches - did. nelsonba would be an excellent example. Those who weren't willing to really learn the game whined and pouted and shrieked about how unfair it was that better coaches outrecruited them and won NCs.  And the WIS gods heard them and thought to themselves - gee, if we dumb this down and water down talent and gameplanning advantages, we'll get eleventy billion mediocre coaches signed up and life will be great.

Why should coaches who understand the 'ins and outs' of the game be rewarded for their time and hard work?  Screw 'em. Let's make it so that any jughead willing to pay for a team has a chance at winning.  And so 2.0 was born.

Then everyone lived happily ever after, except they didn't.  The best and most committed coaches left, unwilling to play a game in which talent advantages, knowledge and gameplanning were devalued.  And after the initial rush, even the jugheads left.  The worlds slowly (or not so slowly) depopulated.  And finally the WIS gods said, "Oh hell.  We really sh*t the bed, didn't we?".  Which leads us to where we are today.

I don't have any trouble saying that 1.0 was a vastly superior game, and the numbers back me up.  More players, fuller worlds.  And if you can 'expain' why a good coach who is paying to play should be externally prevented from winning as many championships as he can, I'd be most appreciative.
Leahy has a whopping 229 as the fullest world. Hayes has an amazing 146 coaches in it.

4 years ago you were hard pressed to find a world with less than 300 coaches. A world like Rockne was 3/4 full. Rockne in 1A typically had only 25-30 vacancies at 1A.

I agree with you that the demand for the game speaks for itself as far as the quality goes.

7/29/2013 10:06 PM
bjaygee I never said v1 wasn't a good game ,and there was a bunch of good coaches but  too say all the great coaches left and rest of of us here are playing a game which is totally random and only the flip of a coin decides who wins a championship is insulting,and totally untrue,and you sound like one of the coaches who would say wow my team is superior I gameplanned perfect what I lost how,do you see any team run off 6 7 championship in football no,because it dosent happen in real life and it doesn't happen here because of recruiting rollback,upsets happen,it would be nice to know why, I understand you with that point,but teams lose to lesser teams sure there should not be predetermined factors to make a team lose,sure a team could win 7 championships in a row but at d1 theres too many good coaches and too many good teams for that 2 happen,so bring back v1 with rollback and show me a coach that can win 7 plus championships in a row at d1,the only way is they have figured out something the rest of us haven't,and then that doesn't take a great coach to win does it.V1 was a good game im not disputing that but it did have flaws and even the best coaches would admit it,just like the people who like v2 would admit it has flaws,sure it may be more random but the people who like it are not a bunch of idiots and crybabies who asked for a game were we get thrown a bone and win a championship by luck,thats what you are implying isn't it,and to the point of getting a bunch of evenly matched coaches that's untrue because lots of coaches have one multiple championship and some have won none so that point is untrue to.
7/29/2013 10:15 PM
Posted by jibe on 7/29/2013 9:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bjaygee on 7/29/2013 9:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jaxbaker on 7/29/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
I agree v 2 has some random outcomes but not as much as everyone makes them out to be, the results speak for themselves,I liked 1 too but the big reason why coaches won so many championship and were so successful,was they were great coaches to begin with at great schools with massive carryovers of money and once you won a few championship it was hard if not impossible to recruit against them no matter the recruiting distance and so those coaches got the best players all the time,knew the ins and outs of game,and it was over,NO COACH SHOULD BE WINNING 6 7 8 CHAMPIONCHIPS IN A ROW THATS NOT REALISTIC IS IT,while I do think v1 had its advantages over 2 in some ways as far as talent mattered more and you had more control over their roster,I think some coaches success not ALL were do to the things ive mentioned and when v2 came it was an excuse why they were not has successful.while I would like to see a mix of v1 and v2  and I hope 3 provides that,I get sick of all the coaches that act like v1 was so great and v2 is just a bunch of random coaches winning who do not deserve it because that's just not true,and to say you cant expain why things happen in 2 at all is a ridiculous and stupid statement.
This is nonsense.  

Those who were good enough to compete - even against established coaches - did. nelsonba would be an excellent example. Those who weren't willing to really learn the game whined and pouted and shrieked about how unfair it was that better coaches outrecruited them and won NCs.  And the WIS gods heard them and thought to themselves - gee, if we dumb this down and water down talent and gameplanning advantages, we'll get eleventy billion mediocre coaches signed up and life will be great.

Why should coaches who understand the 'ins and outs' of the game be rewarded for their time and hard work?  Screw 'em. Let's make it so that any jughead willing to pay for a team has a chance at winning.  And so 2.0 was born.

Then everyone lived happily ever after, except they didn't.  The best and most committed coaches left, unwilling to play a game in which talent advantages, knowledge and gameplanning were devalued.  And after the initial rush, even the jugheads left.  The worlds slowly (or not so slowly) depopulated.  And finally the WIS gods said, "Oh hell.  We really sh*t the bed, didn't we?".  Which leads us to where we are today.

I don't have any trouble saying that 1.0 was a vastly superior game, and the numbers back me up.  More players, fuller worlds.  And if you can 'expain' why a good coach who is paying to play should be externally prevented from winning as many championships as he can, I'd be most appreciative.
Leahy has a whopping 229 as the fullest world. Hayes has an amazing 146 coaches in it.

4 years ago you were hard pressed to find a world with less than 300 coaches. A world like Rockne was 3/4 full. Rockne in 1A typically had only 25-30 vacancies at 1A.

I agree with you that the demand for the game speaks for itself as far as the quality goes.

You may have some points, but the way this POC is going, its not going to put GD back to the days of 1.0.  I still dont get why they couldnt make the changes to 2.0 that were needed.  God forbid oriole or any of the other ham & eggers at WIS listen to any of us.
  Hell Im still waiting for the TE to be included on the field.  I wont sit here and tell you that 2.0 is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I like it so much more than this thing now.  Just my opinion
7/29/2013 10:54 PM
"I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope."

One more time, if 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless, then WHY DO CERTAIN COACHES WIN NUMEROUS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AND WIN A HUGE % OF THEIR GAMES????????????????????????????????????????????????
7/29/2013 11:20 PM
Posted by coach_billyb on 7/29/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope."

One more time, if 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless, then WHY DO CERTAIN COACHES WIN NUMEROUS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AND WIN A HUGE % OF THEIR GAMES????????????????????????????????????????????????
Why couldn't my D3 team win 3 NCs in a row?  My starters were more than 5 points per attribute better than my closest opponent every season.
7/30/2013 12:56 AM
Posted by slid64er on 7/29/2013 11:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by coach_billyb on 7/29/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope."

One more time, if 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless, then WHY DO CERTAIN COACHES WIN NUMEROUS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AND WIN A HUGE % OF THEIR GAMES????????????????????????????????????????????????
Why couldn't my D3 team win 3 NCs in a row?  My starters were more than 5 points per attribute better than my closest opponent every season.
What I'm saying slid64er is that both talent and game planning mean something in 2.0. If this wasn't true then certain coaches would not be winning numerous titles and a huge % of their games. If your team didn't, that probably means that one or the other was lacking. I never see the best coaches complaining that neither talent or game planning mean anything...
7/30/2013 1:03 AM
Posted by coach_billyb on 7/29/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree with your assessment of 2.0. I could not explain why things happened, and heard developers fall back on nonsense suggesting teams "played over their head".  Randomly generating upsets "because they happen in real life" adds nothing to gameplay. In my opinion, that ruins the experience. It suggests that my recruiting and gameplanning are meaningless.  A SIM could never have won an NC against human competition in 1.0, especially in D1A. The fact that it happened in 2.0 against solid, successful coaches confirmed my assessment that 2.0 sucks.  I only came back to see if WIS might have learned its lesson - that dumbing down the game and adding random upsets didn't attract new users and alienated the core GD community.  My answer, so far, is that there's a glimmer of hope."

One more time, if 2.0 made recruiting and game planning meaningless, then WHY DO CERTAIN COACHES WIN NUMEROUS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS AND WIN A HUGE % OF THEIR GAMES????????????????????????????????????????????????
Do me a favor, billster.  Next time, use more caps and question marks.  Everyone knows that the most thoughtful and compelling arguments are made in caps and end with a hailstorm of punctuation.

I believe that in 2.0 the better team may win, especially against SIMs in an essentially empty world.  Plus the level of competition is much, much lower than it was 4 years ago. And that better team that often wins will lose for no discernible reason.  Not because of a talent disadvantage, not because of an inferior game plan, not due to any error on the part of the coach. Just because.

If you want to pay to play a game in which you'll never know when the invisible upset dice will roll a seven and your superior team will lose to an inferior opponent running a default gameplan just 'because", have at it.  

But as we're asking questions, let me ask you a couple.  GD is becoming - has become - a wasteland.  The old coaches, the heart of GD, left and weren't replaced by new blood.  The GD community has voted with its exodus.  Isn't it obvious that the game is strangling to death on 2.0? How empty do the worlds have to become before the light bulb goes off and you understand that 2.0 is simply a terrible mistake and needs replaced?
of 3

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.