All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > international frustration
9/5/2013 11:43 AM
Posted by bistiza on 9/5/2013 11:23:00 AM (view original):
I think if you got a full report then you'd only need one scouting trip for each kid, so the cost would have to be enormous or it wouldn't affect the game the same way it does now.
I think there should be two different scouting trips. The general crappy one we get now, which is best use to pull down recruits, and then a full detailed version which would be used when considering if it is worth the effort to go after and/or battle for a recruit. I would say a fair cost for the latter would be 5-7 times the cost we pay now for trips. 
9/5/2013 12:13 PM
I'd vote for scouting reports that cover all the ratings, but which include inaccuracies of varying degrees. That would introduce a bit more uncertainty into the recruitment process, which I think we benefit the game.
9/5/2013 1:07 PM
Posted by stevejones16 on 9/5/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):
I'd vote for scouting reports that cover all the ratings, but which include inaccuracies of varying degrees. That would introduce a bit more uncertainty into the recruitment process, which I think we benefit the game.
And that's where it gets tricky.

Get more or more specific information, but have the possibility of it not being entirely correct (more realistic).

Or get less information but have it (perhaps unrealistically) being always spot-on.

I think I prefer the latter.
9/5/2013 1:36 PM
Posted by phalla on 9/5/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stevejones16 on 9/5/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):
I'd vote for scouting reports that cover all the ratings, but which include inaccuracies of varying degrees. That would introduce a bit more uncertainty into the recruitment process, which I think we benefit the game.
And that's where it gets tricky.

Get more or more specific information, but have the possibility of it not being entirely correct (more realistic).

Or get less information but have it (perhaps unrealistically) being always spot-on.

I think I prefer the latter.
And I prefer the former, because it's far more realistic. And with that type of report, you would HAVE to send your scout out more than once, because the more you sent him out, the more accurate his info becomes, just like in real life. For instance, when I was coaching HS basketball, we sent one of our Jr High coaches out as an advance scout on a team we were set to play in the second round of the playoffs. His first report was fairly detailed, but as he went to their next two games, he was able to fill in some areas that hadn't been apparent in the first game. After his third report on that team, we had them down cold. We destroyed that school, and made a run all the way to the finals that season. I think recruiting scout trips should be similar. The first report should cover all the bases, with some areas where the scout indicates he's not as certain about. As you send out a second, third, and even fourth scout trip, those "foggy" areas should become clear, eventually giving the same clarity of detail that the current scout trips give, but over all of the categories.
9/5/2013 11:15 PM
While a scouting report may not be as accurate after seeing a player only once it would still cover all areas.  If they want to make it progressively more accurate with each ST I'll buy that but unless the guy gets hurt during the game or only plays a couple of minutes because it's a blow out, no assistant in their right mind is going to leave out any of the attributes they know the coach wants to hear about in his report.  Unless of course he has a job lined up with the crosstown rivals after the season.
9/6/2013 11:00 PM
then again, a little common sense would be a welcome change...as in, when scouting guards, look for guard-like qualities (spd/ath/bh/p/def) and when scouting post players, look at ath/reb/def/shot blocking.

or just open up fss to int'l players, too...and maybe even transfers.
9/6/2013 11:24 PM
They really should because at this point there aren't many players that don't make it on someones radar.  Scouting and college athletics are too big a business at this point.
9/6/2013 11:57 PM
I've never understood why FSS doesn't extend to Internationals and transfers. If the even wanted to call it something different, and make it cost more to do overseas FSS, I'd support that. It's just silly that we have to depend on these crapshoot "scout" trips to figure out an Int'l player's potentials.
9/7/2013 12:00 AM
Posted by wildcat98 on 9/6/2013 11:57:00 PM (view original):
I've never understood why FSS doesn't extend to Internationals and transfers. If the even wanted to call it something different, and make it cost more to do overseas FSS, I'd support that. It's just silly that we have to depend on these crapshoot "scout" trips to figure out an Int'l player's potentials.
It'd have to be written in Portugese, German, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Lithuanian and French to cover all the bases.

The universities' language departments would make a killing.



9/8/2013 11:36 PM
Posted by wildcat98 on 9/6/2013 11:57:00 PM (view original):
I've never understood why FSS doesn't extend to Internationals and transfers. If the even wanted to call it something different, and make it cost more to do overseas FSS, I'd support that. It's just silly that we have to depend on these crapshoot "scout" trips to figure out an Int'l player's potentials.
I've read about any number of real, live D1 coaches going to Europe to watch a player, or sending an assistant.

Anyone who has seen the notes and reports kept by D1 scouts knows that they try to write down their judgment on almost everything a kid does.  Even the way he comports himself and his relationship with his coach.

When you pay an assistant's way to fly to Europe, he'd better come back with a lot of information to make it worthwhile.



9/9/2013 10:40 AM
In the choice of "realism" versus accuracy on scouting trips, I don't care in the least if it's "realistic" - I want accuracy all the way. I don't want to waste my recruiting budget to get information that might be wrong, and I do not care if that makes it "unrealistic". Fine then let it be "unrealistic" and let's just enjoy it for being the game it is. It's not like it's realistic in every other way.
9/10/2013 2:31 AM
You can do both. And we wouldn't be talking "inaccuracies" in a MAJOR way. For example, if the guy was an athletic big man, with tremendous rebounding skills, but not much upside in his low-post game, that would come through. The inaccuracies in scouting reports would come in the smaller things. Maybe he's a poor FT shooter, that happened to hit well from the line in a particular game. Or maybe he tossed in a couple of threes, which your scout might note, while also mentioning that his form looks quite poor on his long-range jump shots. To me, dissecting that type of scouting report would be FAR more interesting and useful than the by-the-numbers, 4 category, quite unrealistic "scouting reports" we get now. It would also be a LOT harder to code for, though, which is ultimately why your argument will likely win the day.
9/10/2013 8:49 AM
That, wildcat, is precisely why I argue that the idea that I've put forward is the best one.  Unlike a lot of other changes that are suggested, it would use functions that already exist within the game.  Player roles settings exist, the drop-down menu from Booster gifts existed, the scouting trip already must randomize to choose 4 out of 12 categories on which to report potential.  I assume, without knowing, that a programmer could create the function to use whatever settings currently exist in player roles to create the percentages (which we would never see).  The only choices are the cost as XX% above a regular scouting trip (so the distance increase is still in effect) and the floor percentage likelihood for each category (just choose between 0-8.3333% and test it until the results look right).  If you can just choose 4 responses or get all 12, then that needs to be a very expensive scouting trip.   However, if you can just get your finger on the scales by telling your asst. coach that you are looking for a SG, then you can get much better results without making the trip prohibitively expensive.

If Fox actually allotted time for WIS programmers to pay attention to HD (I assume that it will someday), then it might be best to put some fuzziness into the FSS.  I think that the game would be improved by having different scouting service magazines to buy.  The cheapest would give really fuzzy responses in every category up to the most expense that would give the results that we currently enjoy.  They could also be regional, rather than covering the entire country.   The regions could either be fixed or based on mileage around the school (probably better for the structure of this game).
9/10/2013 10:07 PM
As good as some of these ideas are, let me just propose the least effort solution for WIS, knowing full well that they will never put in anything more than the least effort.  The least effort solution is for them to log the attributes reported in each trip (4 per report), and then weight the choice of attributes in the next scouting trip according to the frequency with which that attribute has been reported in previous scouting trips.  A really hard weight would ensure that an attribute was never scouted twice.  A weaker weight would make it still pretty likely that you get duplicate information, but it wouldn't be as bad as the current situation, which is equivalent to zero weight.  

This would take about 4 lines of code, and less than 5 minutes to implement.  
of 2
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > international frustration

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.