Not going to respond to all of it but just for the OFF/DEF IQ thing it has been stated that all rating scales are based on skills as a college basketball player not an average person. Therefore an F rating wouldn't mean they have no concept at all of the set but that compared to other college players they don't know it. Same for other ratings. A 1 in ball handling, for example, doesn't mean that a player would throw it out of bounds instead of dribbling but that they are bad at ball handling compared to an average college player.

Good to know... I still think the IQ's jump from freshmen to senior should be small

Posted by halfakracka on 12/20/2013 12:33:00 AM (view original):

Whatis Wrongat Whatif…….

I have been in the army for 7 years. I have learned in my time there that surveys get you very little information, because they do not ask the right questions. That is why I am posting this. I want players to be able to discuss what could make this game better and hopefully some decent soul that works for Whatif down in Cinci can put down is bowl of Skyline Chile and help us out. I realize some of you are much more experienced and knowledgeable about how this game works. I apologize if this stuff is talked about in another thread, but hey if we want these changes whats the hurt. I have only been playing this game since summer of 2012. Right from the start I was incredibly happy with Hoops Dynasty, and quickly bought more seasons and added a couple more teams. Over my 13 seasons I have been wanting to post my thoughts about improving the game in certain areas. Some of them are extremely simple additions and some are hard to get into. I posted this because I was grabbing a big juicy thickburger from Hardees with branchel and I thought to myself.... if I don't post it nothing will ever be fixed. If I do post it, maybe there is a 1% chance some administers read this thread and start turning Hoops Dynasty into the un-paralled leader in online simulated gaming.

 

Recruiting…..
 

Watchlist: You should have more options when prioritizing your recruits… maybe add a number system or an arrow option to put your prospects in order. The color code is good, but not great, it could be so much better.

 

Incentives: I threw around the idea of offering a guaranteed conference title, guaranteed NT appearance, guaranteed Final 4, guarantee top 25….. Stuff like that. Another note does offering a starting spot on an A prestige team carry more weight than a starting spot on a C- team? It without a doubt should. I thought it was a unique feature that the NCAA Football franchise offered. If the offers fail it can hurt your reputation, and the player can transfer. If the offer fails, but was close maybe the guy sends you a message as a warning, like they do with guys not getting the minutes you promised. Your reputation can take a minor hit if any. Which in turn implies that reputation would be really important offering these incentives.

 

Prestige/Pulldowns: If keeping some of the unknowns unknown is something that is good for the game then so be it. One of my thoughts was to put all programs throughout the three divisions on the same prestige spectrum. For instance a C+ D3 school is the same as a C+ D2 School (Great D3 would be same as terrible D2). D3 schools would top out at C+…. D2 schools can top out at B+…. D1 schools can top out at A+. The whole spectrum would be from F,D-,D,D+,C-,C,C+,B-,B,B+,A-,A,A+…You could change where the divisions best would top out, just a thought. If you didn’t like that idea maybe at least give us a scale telling us what prestige is equal to what prestige in the other divisions, or like I said keep it as an unknown. My biggest issue is I just spent 45 scouting trips on a guy and 24 hours later after signing I popped on his list, without spending an additional dime on him. The trouble ticket I submitted basically gave no explanation. Come on Admin, give us something, we pay to play this game. Do you guys have meetings that are gauged to make this game better? If you do, please make it so you meet once a month instead of once a year.

 

 

Player Ratings…..

 

OFF/DEF IQ: In real life, most incoming scholarship basketball players, probably at some point in their life, experience man to man, zone, and fcp. Let’s make this game more realistic and have freshmen actually matter. I am not saying making them have A IQs, but even out the scale. I mean what is a player, with an F IQ, in man to man, doing when he enters the game? Is he even aware his team has the ball? I understand a SR is going to have more experience and composure, but in real life, freshmen are not necessarily idiots. There should not be a big jump from C- to B-, and B- to A-. etc… Wanted to throw this out there… Who would win if you have a full team of average seniors (42/42/42)(ATH/SPD/DEF) with A+ IQs versus a team filled with great freshmen (50/50/50)(ATH/SPD/DEF) and C- IQs. I hope most of you know what I am getting at here. The freshmen should win this game by 30.

 

Durability/FT Shooting: Durability - Either get rid of it or make it relevant. Enough said? LOL seriously it is a useless stat. If you are going to make it matter, have it correlate with game minutes and injuries. I think this already happens, but admin doesn’t make it very accurate. Correct me if I am wrong. On the same note it shouldn’t count as overall rating and should be a letter grade system like FT shooting. Having said that FT shooting deserves to be more of a number system like PER. Like I said these are my ideas to improve this game, if the coaches don’t want it that is ok, I am just trying to give you my thoughts.

 

 

Coaching…..

 

Player Game Plan: The only thing I really wanted to say about Player Game Plan is that you should be able to pick who guards who. Teams may switch their lineup around for certain games and I don’t want my four necessarily guarding his 4. I may want my best defender guarding his best offensive player. I think there is a better way we can plan out how to plan Defense.

 

Scheduling/RPI: I don’t think I am outnumbered here, but there is a big difference between team A going 10-0 all away games against 100 RPI teams…. And team B going 10-0(5home,5away) against 10 teams ranging from 1-300 RPI. I should be more specific, but I think most of you get my point. Team A probably will have a top 20 RPI and 20 SOS. Team B will have 40 RPI and 40 SOS. Should away games really be weighted in SOS and RPI, I think so, but as of now I feel it is overrated. A team that plays a couple 300 RPI teams should get more respect if they also beat two ranked teams. Maybe beating ranked teams should hold more weight. The only thing I can confidently say about a team that goes 10-0 against 10 teams with 90-100 RPI is that they are better than 90 RPI. Top 50? Definitely not top 10 RPI and SOS.

 

Alternate Lineups: Make it so if you have other lineups that you have saved. You can use these lineups maybe during FCP teams or bad teams if you start certain players you otherwise wouldn’t. Obviously this isn’t a huge change to the game, just something that could be a nice addition in time.

 

Smart Coaching: This would be a simple addition in which you would put in your starters at the end of the game, if you started some bench players and you do not want to lose the game. It can be a simple option to select on the Team Game Plan page. For example….. If I am favored by +30 and I have players that need playing time, I will start them and get them as much time as possible. There would simply be an option that with 5 minutes to go, if the game was close, the original starters you want would take over as the new depth chart. I realize there are the two options about the game being out of reach at the bottom of the screen, this takes it to another level. I feel like it is a pretty simple concept.

 

Upsets: In real life, when there is an upset in any sport, it is not uncommon to hear something like this: “On paper, they were overmatched. They were weaker in all areas. But that’s why they play the game folks! Tonight they overcame the obstacles and won!” It’s an obvious expression, but it is not at all the same in Hoops Dynasty terms. There is one major difference between the simulated games we play and the games played in real life: OUR GAMES ARE DONE ON PAPER. It is a game of numbers. I know that is obvious, but it’s overlooked. Let’s say a senior center with incredible big man attributes and perfect IQ scores is matched up against an unathletic freshman who has some decent attributes but a C- in offense and defense. There are obviously tons of factors that go into the game as well at the matchup. But if that senior fouls out, is held to 4 rebounds, and shoots 3-11, I’m going to go searching for a fantastic explanation. When something like this happens, I never find one. It shouldn’t be a guarantee that the senior destroys the freshman in all statistics, but it certainly is likely. And since we cannot gameplan specifics that alter a player’s approach in the middle of a game, the outlook of this matchup is out of our (the coach’s) hands. All we are capable of controlling is how often that senior shoots, how many minutes you would like to see him in, and who he is matched up against. There is really nothing the other coach can do to promise shutting down that senior big guy. But somehow it happens, and I don’t see any explanation as to how it can.

 

This matchup is a smaller scale version of the point I’m trying to make. If your team is older, has better IQ’s, is stronger in most all attributes in every matchup, has a deeper bench, etc., then coaching decisions in the gameplan are all that can possibly hand the weaker coach a chance of victory.

 

A game has several factors involved in it. 100’s of variables maybe 1000’s. It is not like the die is rolled one time and the winner is decided upon the outcome of that one die roll. The die should be rolled multiple times (100’s) to see who wins. Every dribble, pass, shot, rebound, block, steal, and second off the clock should have a die roll. An upset could happen sure, but this is a game of numbers (Math and Stats) gentlemen. Obviously there are other factors in this example such as matchups, but bear with me….Example is team A is a RPI 45. Team B is a RPI 240. Whatif I feel like uses an 8 sided die and team A has spots 2-8, team B has only spot 1. Whatif rolls this die one time to get their outcome. I am saying this die should be rolled roughly 500 times. Jsajsa can back me up here (how many times have you been upset in Smith World NT)

 

I could go on and on, but what it comes down to is this: the margin for error is either too big or the amount of coaching decisions we have is too limited.

 

 

Great Additions….

 

Conference Championship: My only gripe here is make a simple change, and change it to division champ. Should take the admin that work there like 5 minutes.

 

All-Conference Team: This is a video game so let’s have some fun with this. How cool would it be if the All-Conference team was coached by the CCOY for one game at the end of the year against the Conference next to them on the Conference RPI list. For instance (#1 vs #2)…(#3 vs #4). Wouldn’t count toward stats, just a nice fun addition to the game since there is a 5 day wait period while everyone sits around anyways.

All-Time Team.....Give us the ability to save players and keep them in a profile and it can be a collection of our best or favorite players(with ratings) that we have ever recruited. Sort of like a trophy room. It could have all our titles, accomplishments, and players(with ratings) we chose to be on our all-time team.


Changing Coaching Name.....Allow us to change coaching names.... I feel like a great number of players thought their username was just a username. If I knew it was my coach's name I would have picked something more BA.
 

Incentives- I like the guarantees of final four, etc. Starts from A prestige teams do mean more.

Prestige-Not a fan of this idea, prestige has just the right amount of mystery for me.

Durability/FT shooting-Dur is pretty useless, but it's not really a hindrance for the game.

Scheduling/RPI- we use the real RPI formula, which seems like the right thing to do. RPI is not a deciding factor, as what you're proposing is already covered in the projection report.

Alternate lineups/smart coaching- love it.

Upsets- You say the die should be rolled 500 times instead of once. Let me hit you with this one: there will be no difference in outcomes. 1/8 of a chance is still 1/8. Upsets BARELY happen, most NT brackets are complete chalk. This game is about math and stats, and as you know there are no guarantees in stats.

I think I understand what halfakracka is saying with the dice rolling.

Once every single attribute from every player (IQ, defense, speed, tempo, player distro, etc) is factored into the outcome of the game, a dice is being rolled for every single action taking place throughout the entire game.

Now if that dice is rolled exactly 1 time per action, it leaves open a decent possibility that the unlikely outcome will occur.

But if the exact same process were to take place, but every single action occurred based off a majority of say 11 dice rolls, then you would have an outcome that would speak to the numbers and not to chance.

Example of how all the sides on the dice are developed:

I have a PF with 93 rebounding (ATH, IQ, etc. included as well). Another coach has a PF with 62 rebounding. When the "dice" for a specific rebound is rolled, I will have 4 spaces count for me, and the other coach's PF will have 2 spaces. (That's a rough estimate). If it is rolled 1 time exactly, he has a 33% chance of "winning" that specific comparison. But if the same 4 vs 2 dice is rolled 11 times and we count head-to-head outcomes (majority), then I will have a more likely chance of winning.

Team A gets numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the dice. Team B gets numbers 5 and 6. This action is a rebound up for grabs between opposing PF's. The dice is distributed this way because Team A's PF has attributes stronger in regards to rebounding in this particular moment.

Roll #1 --> 5
Roll #2 --> 3
Roll #3 --> 6
Roll #4 --> 1
Roll #5 --> 3
Roll #6 --> 3
Roll #7 --> 4
Roll #8 --> 6
Roll #9 --> 1
Roll #10 -> 4
Roll #11 -> 2

Team A won the dice roll 8 to 3. In order to win Team B would have had to win a majority of the rolls just like Team A needed the majority. The advantage for Team A obviously is that they have more spaces on the dice to help them win each roll.

These rolls above say that when the game simulates, the rebound of this shot challenged by 1 PF from each team will result in a rebound for Team A.

Now obviously we don't want the better of every single comparison always winning. That would take out all of the fun. But, increasing the dice rolls slightly would hopefully reduce the amount of upsets in games.

I don't want this to take away from the rest of the thread... but I will comment on it...

Watchlist: Im not asking for a whole lot of changes... just let me move them up and down.... I currently use the paper pencil method

They better not get rid of the conference tournaments.

Some good points. I have emailed admin several times about the defensive matchup. That would be huge. Too many times I would like my 3 to gaurd the opposite 2 but do not want him to play 2 on offense. I am not a huge fan of garanteed top 25 thing. I think Something like a 3pt team or fAst break team or free throw team would be helpful. By this I mean it is late in game and you know you will get failed. You will be able to set 5 players you want in late in game. Or you are behind and need to shoot 3s. So u cAn set which players u want in. Etc

Get fouled*

I'll read more later when I have more time, but I do like the # of upsets. Doesn't seem like too many, and doesn't seem like not enough. Once in a great while, my team will either benefit or be hurt by a completely irrational upset, but it's pretty rare - and it happens in real life, albeit rarely. 

I also think that allowing coaches to assign jersey numbers to players is a completely arbitrary idea that could be pretty fun. 

the dice is rolled like 500 times, not 1, im not sure what makes you think its rolled 1. i dont mean 500 times per 1 action, if i am misreading what you are saying sorry, but it sounds like you are saying THE WHOLE GAME is 1 dice roll, which is absolutely false.

Posted by branchel on 12/20/2013 2:07:00 AM (view original):
I think I understand what halfakracka is saying with the dice rolling.

Once every single attribute from every player (IQ, defense, speed, tempo, player distro, etc) is factored into the outcome of the game, a dice is being rolled for every single action taking place throughout the entire game.

Now if that dice is rolled exactly 1 time per action, it leaves open a decent possibility that the unlikely outcome will occur.

But if the exact same process were to take place, but every single action occurred based off a majority of say 11 dice rolls, then you would have an outcome that would speak to the numbers and not to chance.

Example of how all the sides on the dice are developed:

I have a PF with 93 rebounding (ATH, IQ, etc. included as well). Another coach has a PF with 62 rebounding. When the "dice" for a specific rebound is rolled, I will have 4 spaces count for me, and the other coach's PF will have 2 spaces. (That's a rough estimate). If it is rolled 1 time exactly, he has a 33% chance of "winning" that specific comparison. But if the same 4 vs 2 dice is rolled 11 times and we count head-to-head outcomes (majority), then I will have a more likely chance of winning.

Team A gets numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the dice. Team B gets numbers 5 and 6. This action is a rebound up for grabs between opposing PF's. The dice is distributed this way because Team A's PF has attributes stronger in regards to rebounding in this particular moment.

Roll #1 --> 5
Roll #2 --> 3
Roll #3 --> 6
Roll #4 --> 1
Roll #5 --> 3
Roll #6 --> 3
Roll #7 --> 4
Roll #8 --> 6
Roll #9 --> 1
Roll #10 -> 4
Roll #11 -> 2

Team A won the dice roll 8 to 3. In order to win Team B would have had to win a majority of the rolls just like Team A needed the majority. The advantage for Team A obviously is that they have more spaces on the dice to help them win each roll.

These rolls above say that when the game simulates, the rebound of this shot challenged by 1 PF from each team will result in a rebound for Team A.

Now obviously we don't want the better of every single comparison always winning. That would take out all of the fun. But, increasing the dice rolls slightly would hopefully reduce the amount of upsets in games.

im going to paraphrase what you are saying into a slightly different albeit similar context. it has been proposed that HD should run each game say 5 times and take the median outcome, to reduce upsets. this is similar to what you are suggesting, just on actions instead of the whole game.

i pretty strongly disagree with the approach, and heres why. say you are a 50% chance to win a game. running 5 times or 5 million times, its not going to change the % - its still 50%. now, an 80% advantage team goes to roughly 93%, and a 90% to win team goes to 99%. as you go up the talent differential, *slight* differences in talent all the sudden start resulting in gigantic reductions in the chance of an upset.

the problem here is, when you look at the % chance of winning over quality of team differential (define quality of team as the combination of talent and coaching), its relatively linear for "normal" differences in quality of team. you have the same quality team, its 50/50, and as you get slightly better, your team gets slightly more likely to win. there aren't just gigantic leaps where when you look at a pair of teams, and make one slightly better, now the % chance of winning varies wildly. with 5 game simulations (or 11 action simulations), that would not be the case. you'd have a team a little bit better win a pretty darn high % of games for the slight difference in talent, which would **** people off, and when you go from like pretty much better (say 80% to win in the current environment), to just a little bit better at 90%, if you ran 5 games, your chance of getting upset would drop SEVEN fold. that is just too stark of a change for not enough talent difference.

this is not the way basketball works in real life - as your team gets better its a smooth, steady reduction in the chance to get upset. if you do what you are suggesting, it almost takes away the point of even playing the games. this is already enough of a "big math problem", i really don't think it is good for the overall "mass-market" appeal of this game to make it more so (even though this game doesn't really appeal to the mass market, its still more than the engineering/math/science crowd, which is very important)

I like bbunch's idea about the allowing coaches to assign jersey numbers to players. It is completely arbitrary, but it could be fun as well.
I really like halfakracka's idea about all-conference teams playing each other, that would be a really awesome aspect to add. If you couldn't get the coach to do it, have the sim set the team up. It can be like when the Indiana All-Stars and Kentucky All-Stars play, they have two games of the states best players and they play in each state. Do something similar but with the different conferences during the dead period. It gives you something to watch during the dead period and would be a nice touch.