Posted by fd343ny on 8/31/2012 3:21:00 PM (view original):
a separate question is whether you should be able to tell in advance who will have what reactions - I think it would be fine to have some, vague and incoherent clues - which may allow you to guess who will be "prima donnas" - But for me a part of the texture should be that it is not fully knowable

bis - you seem to want the ability to select only guys who wont care - which seems DEEPLY unrealistic - since one cannot tell for sure how people will react....and it would - for me - make the rather ridiculous and boring

This.

There aren't many 17- or 18-year-old kids who can tell you with accuracy how they will react to authority over the next four years.  Even if they are certain they know, they might turn out to be wrong.  Guaranteeing how a computer-generated facsimile of a teenager will change (or not) as he becomes a man would be removing whatever element of humanity has been successfully simulated here.

""That may be true, but it ignores two things:

1. You may inherit a team which wasn't "correctly" recruited (as is the case here with my team).

2. Recruiting doesn't always go perfectly, and you may not end up with a perfectly "correct" team.

Either way, you shouldn't have to adjust how you coach because of a prima donna player making demands.""

You don't have to adjust anything, that's what people are telling you and you aren't grasping.  You inherit a bad player, you don't play him and he complains.  Guess what, his ******** doesn't actually hurt team morale, cause it's not a real team.  At the end of the year he transfers and you get an open scholarship to work with.  As I said before, there is NO SCENARIO where this feature would come into play.    In actuality, it would be a negative feature if Seble did code it in.   Lots of us end up with bad players for whatever reason.  We bench them to get them to transfer.  Now we end up with RUDY who's just happy to be there and sticks around for 4 years screwing up our team. 

Yes, in real life it would be nice to have some kids be team first all the time, but for the purposes of this game, it would never be a factor.  NEVER.  If there is even a chance, no matter how small, that a player I recruit can't get 10 MPG as a junior, I DONT SIGN HIM.  And I guess every coach here agrees but you.

Either way, you shouldn't have to adjust how you coach because of a prima donna player making demands.

You do not have to adjust how you coach because of etc.  You don't.  You just don't. Please stop claiming that you do.

Posted by llamanunts on 8/31/2012 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Either way, you shouldn't have to adjust how you coach because of a prima donna player making demands.

You do not have to adjust how you coach because of etc.  You don't.  You just don't. Please stop claiming that you do.

He just can't seem to grasp that concept.

Posted by milkamania on 8/31/2012 3:49:00 PM (view original):
""That may be true, but it ignores two things:

1. You may inherit a team which wasn't "correctly" recruited (as is the case here with my team).

2. Recruiting doesn't always go perfectly, and you may not end up with a perfectly "correct" team.

Either way, you shouldn't have to adjust how you coach because of a prima donna player making demands.""

You don't have to adjust anything, that's what people are telling you and you aren't grasping.  You inherit a bad player, you don't play him and he complains.  Guess what, his ******** doesn't actually hurt team morale, cause it's not a real team.  At the end of the year he transfers and you get an open scholarship to work with.  As I said before, there is NO SCENARIO where this feature would come into play.    In actuality, it would be a negative feature if Seble did code it in.   Lots of us end up with bad players for whatever reason.  We bench them to get them to transfer.  Now we end up with RUDY who's just happy to be there and sticks around for 4 years screwing up our team. 

Yes, in real life it would be nice to have some kids be team first all the time, but for the purposes of this game, it would never be a factor.  NEVER.  If there is even a chance, no matter how small, that a player I recruit can't get 10 MPG as a junior, I DONT SIGN HIM.  And I guess every coach here agrees but you.

Speaking of RUDY, yep for the longest time he was the ULTIMATE team player, just the kind of player Bistiza would love to recruit.  But remember what happened in the movie?  Once he found out he wasn't going to get to dress out, he got ****** and was ready to quit.  Yep, RUDY'S Work Ethic dropped!  The ultimate team player and yet even HE had a work ethic drop because he wasn't going to play.  Damn, if that doesn't sum it up I don't know what else could.

Posted by emy1013 on 8/31/2012 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 8/31/2012 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Either way, you shouldn't have to adjust how you coach because of a prima donna player making demands.

You do not have to adjust how you coach because of etc.  You don't.  You just don't. Please stop claiming that you do.

He just can't seem to grasp that concept.

Hence the bold and the repetition... though repetition sure has been tried.

do we need to bring sample size into this argument next? I've given an example that shows there is a difference in how players will react to being benched. don't you think it is possible that there are players out there that will have 0 WE. the problem is there are so few juniors that don't get enough time to test the theory.

hell, I just promised a freshman 10 minutes because I had very little money left. but I figured its only ten minutes, fourth string in a couple positions and maybe some extra time against bad teams and I'll have no problem getting him the time. I like that player management is part of the game.

I actually believe the real world is a simulation, so you're not far off.

Posted by coach_billyg on 8/31/2012 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 8/31/2012 4:13:00 PM (view original):
I actually believe the real world is a simulation, so you're not far off.

im not convinced we live in a simulation world, but i am convinced people will in a few hundred years... once you realize the technology has already been proven, that you can take a persons brain & spinal column, strip it out, and interface straight into the nerves, simulating reality as well as... well, reality... its seems the logical conclusion. what else do you do with people when natural life expectancy soars to a thousand years, or more (which isn't that far off, either)? what else do you do when we have sufficient technology that robots create all the resources man needs to survive, with no effort from 99% of humans, and men have pure free time that they need to fill?

its either deal with a giant mass of undying people who have nothing that needs doing... and trying to support them with the earth's finite resources... or stick them in a simulated world where they need the absolute minimum in physical space and nutrition. or wipe 99% of the people off the face of the earth... and im just hoping the powers that be go for the simulated world, instead.

So "The Matrix" is actually foreshadowing the future?

I was referring to this: Are You Living in a Simulation?

Posted by bistiza on 8/31/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):

?The way this game is set up, right or wrong, is that if you recruit correctly, your freshmen should very, VERY rarely be better than your upperclassmen anyway.

That may be true, but it ignores two things:

1. You may inherit a team which wasn't "correctly" recruited (as is the case here with my team).

2. Recruiting doesn't always go perfectly, and you may not end up with a perfectly "correct" team.

Either way, you shouldn't have to adjust how you coach because of a prima donna player making demands.

The game favors juniors and seniors, so if you're playing freshmen at the expense of your upperclassmen, you've either recruited badly or you're punting the season to give your younger players extended minutes. 

As I said, there are at least two exceptions to what you're saying, which I gave above. My team is a case in this point: I neither recruited badly nor am I "punting the season".

?But that's just not how the game works and I would sincerely hope that if Seble were to make more changes to the game that the work ethic issue wouldn't be very high up on his list of things to fix.

It's been the most annoying feature I've encountered so far this year (and I didn't play for a few years, but this feature was not always present, or if it was, I never knew about it). That being the case, it's the one I'd MOST like to see changed. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

But he wants to have no consequences whatsoever for his choices, see.
This pretty well sums it up.

If my game plan doesn't work out, I can deal with that. But as far as consequences from players making demands - you're d*** right I don't want any consequences from those crybabies.

?But you shouldn't expect zero reaction / change in work ethic
 

There are plenty of people like that in real life. They might not be happy about a situation, but they work through it and don't whine or cry and give up or make demands and ultimatums. None of them are robots.

Why is it too much to ask for it in a simulated game which is (again, however loosely) based upon real life college basketball?

I think it's fair to expect a RANGE of reactions, including some players who would not react by losing a single point of WE.

I was actually hoping that you'd bring up the inherited team idea.  If you inherit a team with players like that, who are that bad, why in the world would you care even the slightest bit if they complain?  If they're THAT bad, let 'em complain and then transfer, at least that way you get the extra scholarship money.

As someone said, team/roster management is also part of the game.  You seem to be wanting to eradicate that part of the game.  Make your decisions and deal with the consequences.  If your SIMULATED players don't like those decisions, it's really no need to take it personally and get upset about it.  In case you've forgotten, these aren't real players and they don't have real feelings.  If you want to make sure that no one has hurt feelings, then only recruit ten players and take two walk-ons.  You said earlier that you only run a ten deep lineup anyway, so to ensure that the last two players don't have their "simulated" feelings get hurt, just take walk-ons.  They never whine or complain.

Damn Gill, that is DEEP!

I give Jack Handy there 2 mechanical thumbs up for that post... unlike most of the rest of this thread, that's pretty good stuff

Damn, a Jack Handy reference.  That guy used to be the best!

I've been simulating interest in this thread from the beginning.