Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/3/2016 8:06:00 PM (view original):
Here's the short list that I would like to see:

#1 Firing/Hiring/Prestige at DI - I've never even played DI because I knew this jacked up from the very beginning.

#2 Whether you sign anybody or not, only 25% of a programs recruiting budget rolls over after signings end.

#3 Minor tweaks to the engine, like choosing match-ups in man-to-man, better end of game control, etc. etc.

...and hell, by #3 I don't even really mean tweaks to the engine, just more control for coaches over gameplanning.

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/3/2016 8:43:00 PM (view original):
I agree, I would like to be able to increase the amount of game planning I could do. I have hoped many times I could have my best defender guard the other teams best player but I couldn't because it would mess up my offense. I would also like to be able to set who plays late in the game, who plays in certain situations, who takes the last shot, etc. what would be really great but I dont know if it is possible is to be able to choose what plays you use or maybe creat plays.

More options sounds great, but with WIS games it can be a pandora's box that ends up ruining the game. There has to be a line between keep it simple keep it stupid and unlimited options. You tilt too much in one direction and the game is no longer fun. GD was once fun because I could spend minimal time and still be competitive, but then it got to the point where the game became time consuming just to be competitive. I don't want to play a game where available time is the major factor in winning or losing.

Posted by plague on 3/4/2016 1:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/3/2016 8:43:00 PM (view original):
I agree, I would like to be able to increase the amount of game planning I could do. I have hoped many times I could have my best defender guard the other teams best player but I couldn't because it would mess up my offense. I would also like to be able to set who plays late in the game, who plays in certain situations, who takes the last shot, etc. what would be really great but I dont know if it is possible is to be able to choose what plays you use or maybe creat plays.

More options sounds great, but with WIS games it can be a pandora's box that ends up ruining the game. There has to be a line between keep it simple keep it stupid and unlimited options. You tilt too much in one direction and the game is no longer fun. GD was once fun because I could spend minimal time and still be competitive, but then it got to the point where the game became time consuming just to be competitive. I don't want to play a game where available time is the major factor in winning or losing.

This +1

Every major update has proven to be at the expense of more coaches. With zero marketing budget this could be a mistake that really hurts HD as a whole.

Posted by plague on 3/4/2016 1:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/3/2016 8:43:00 PM (view original):
I agree, I would like to be able to increase the amount of game planning I could do. I have hoped many times I could have my best defender guard the other teams best player but I couldn't because it would mess up my offense. I would also like to be able to set who plays late in the game, who plays in certain situations, who takes the last shot, etc. what would be really great but I dont know if it is possible is to be able to choose what plays you use or maybe creat plays.

More options sounds great, but with WIS games it can be a pandora's box that ends up ruining the game. There has to be a line between keep it simple keep it stupid and unlimited options. You tilt too much in one direction and the game is no longer fun. GD was once fun because I could spend minimal time and still be competitive, but then it got to the point where the game became time consuming just to be competitive. I don't want to play a game where available time is the major factor in winning or losing.

I initially read this reply and felt the poster had completely misunderstood the original post (because after a couple beers you tend to stop reading objectively), but upon second thought I get the subtle and fair point they are trying to make. And I think there is a pretty simple solution to this problem, and its a feature that has been discussed for a while now...which is to have "default" settings for the majority of contingencies.

Just like there are default settings for offensive distributions against each defense, there should be the exact same things for stuff like depth charts against specific defenses, tempos against those defenses, etc. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this doesn't actually need changing the math of the engine just the numbers it uses.

Now to truly get at plague's real point (which I'll finally disagree with), I'd claim that most peoples' opinion here is that the individuals who spend the most time practicing this craft should also be the most successful at it, no??? And here is why this solution works for both parties, because you get the default settings you want for the games you feel are unimportant (which there absolutely are and/or truly don't have the time to devote towards) while still retaining advanced control over those that you can. Therefore, it would serve the day-in-and-day-out players just as well as it would serve the players that need to sometimes set-it-and-forget-it.

Posted by therewas47 on 3/3/2016 6:23:00 PM (view original):
All recruiting actions should be multiplied by a 'how cool is the coach' or 'coolerator' scale to determine the value of each action. I took my own test and received a 98(got a 100 on the would get school on probation section). That equates to a 0.98 multiplier; whereas, most coaches here are closer to like a 42 score or 0.42 multiplier. Recruiting won't be fair till this change is made.

Best idea yet. There should also be "Don Nelson Fish Necktie" factor. Part of your recruiting budget can be spent on fish neckties. It can be part of the coolness factor and you can wear them on home visits. Also, you can choose to wear them for specific games to get an overall performance boost.

back in the day I spent some time working for Mark Abramoff at Ralph Marlin which made the fish ties. The fish ties were about attitude. Wearing a rainbow trout tie would send your team a different message than say wearing a muskie or barracuda tie does.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/3/2016 11:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/3/2016 8:06:00 PM (view original):
Here's the short list that I would like to see:

#1 Firing/Hiring/Prestige at DI - I've never even played DI because I knew this jacked up from the very beginning.

#2 Whether you sign anybody or not, only 25% of a programs recruiting budget rolls over after signings end.

#3 Minor tweaks to the engine, like choosing match-ups in man-to-man, better end of game control, etc. etc.

...and hell, by #3 I don't even really mean tweaks to the engine, just more control for coaches over gameplanning.

My concern with #3 is that it gives too much power to the defense. Again, it is more realistic, but the offense doesn't have the opportunity to react, unless there would also be the opportunity to have multiple distribution plans (I want Smith at 22 and Jones at 14, unless Martin is guarding Smith, in which case I want Jones at 26 and Smith at 10). With the current set up a coach has to weigh which is more important in this particular game, having an optimal offensive lineup or optimal defensive lineup?

Posted by acn24 on 3/4/2016 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/3/2016 11:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/3/2016 8:06:00 PM (view original):
Here's the short list that I would like to see:

#1 Firing/Hiring/Prestige at DI - I've never even played DI because I knew this jacked up from the very beginning.

#2 Whether you sign anybody or not, only 25% of a programs recruiting budget rolls over after signings end.

#3 Minor tweaks to the engine, like choosing match-ups in man-to-man, better end of game control, etc. etc.

...and hell, by #3 I don't even really mean tweaks to the engine, just more control for coaches over gameplanning.

My concern with #3 is that it gives too much power to the defense. Again, it is more realistic, but the offense doesn't have the opportunity to react, unless there would also be the opportunity to have multiple distribution plans (I want Smith at 22 and Jones at 14, unless Martin is guarding Smith, in which case I want Jones at 26 and Smith at 10). With the current set up a coach has to weigh which is more important in this particular game, having an optimal offensive lineup or optimal defensive lineup?

I'm not to trying to dodge you're concern, but there's never been any real ability for coaches to react to unexpected things that other coaches have done. So why would that have to be a part of the new system? Coaches have to weigh all the information available to them before a game and set his game plan accordingly...then the chips fall were they may. You would just have to scout your opponents defensive match-up habits, then make a choice about what you think is best.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/4/2016 3:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 3/4/2016 1:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/3/2016 8:43:00 PM (view original):
I agree, I would like to be able to increase the amount of game planning I could do. I have hoped many times I could have my best defender guard the other teams best player but I couldn't because it would mess up my offense. I would also like to be able to set who plays late in the game, who plays in certain situations, who takes the last shot, etc. what would be really great but I dont know if it is possible is to be able to choose what plays you use or maybe creat plays.

More options sounds great, but with WIS games it can be a pandora's box that ends up ruining the game. There has to be a line between keep it simple keep it stupid and unlimited options. You tilt too much in one direction and the game is no longer fun. GD was once fun because I could spend minimal time and still be competitive, but then it got to the point where the game became time consuming just to be competitive. I don't want to play a game where available time is the major factor in winning or losing.

I initially read this reply and felt the poster had completely misunderstood the original post (because after a couple beers you tend to stop reading objectively), but upon second thought I get the subtle and fair point they are trying to make. And I think there is a pretty simple solution to this problem, and its a feature that has been discussed for a while now...which is to have "default" settings for the majority of contingencies.

Just like there are default settings for offensive distributions against each defense, there should be the exact same things for stuff like depth charts against specific defenses, tempos against those defenses, etc. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this doesn't actually need changing the math of the engine just the numbers it uses.

Now to truly get at plague's real point (which I'll finally disagree with), I'd claim that most peoples' opinion here is that the individuals who spend the most time practicing this craft should also be the most successful at it, no??? And here is why this solution works for both parties, because you get the default settings you want for the games you feel are unimportant (which there absolutely are and/or truly don't have the time to devote towards) while still retaining advanced control over those that you can. Therefore, it would serve the day-in-and-day-out players just as well as it would serve the players that need to sometimes set-it-and-forget-it.

1 of 2 things will happen with defaults.

1-if you use defaults you will lose.

2-if you use defaults and win people will say "Why do I bother spending the time to set up my depth chart, game plan, etc if I can just use defaults and win."

"I'd claim that most peoples' opinion here is that the individuals who spend the most time practicing this craft should also be the most successful at it, no???"

To get to this point. This is not a job this is a game. Not everyone has unlimited free time.I am paying to play and if the game becomes too time consuming I will stop paying. Do you really want a game where he who spends the most time wins? There has to be more to a game than time spent to win. There has to be a balance that works for enough people to keep the world filled.

Here is what is going to happen if HD gets too time consuming. Owner A has 4 teams in 4 different worlds. He tells himself I don't have the time for 4 teams anymore because the game is too time consuming. He starts dropping teams and sim teams start popping up where human owners once played. You make this too time consuming. New owners who have never played the game will feel overwhelmed and quit after 1 season, some owners will stay, but the percentage of owners who will stay will drop due to the time constraints and the complexity of the game. You will lessen the amount of new owners to the game. The domino effect will be the owners who do stay will become unhappy because their opponents are primarily SIM AI.

Posted by plague on 3/5/2016 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/4/2016 3:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 3/4/2016 1:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/3/2016 8:43:00 PM (view original):
I agree, I would like to be able to increase the amount of game planning I could do. I have hoped many times I could have my best defender guard the other teams best player but I couldn't because it would mess up my offense. I would also like to be able to set who plays late in the game, who plays in certain situations, who takes the last shot, etc. what would be really great but I dont know if it is possible is to be able to choose what plays you use or maybe creat plays.

More options sounds great, but with WIS games it can be a pandora's box that ends up ruining the game. There has to be a line between keep it simple keep it stupid and unlimited options. You tilt too much in one direction and the game is no longer fun. GD was once fun because I could spend minimal time and still be competitive, but then it got to the point where the game became time consuming just to be competitive. I don't want to play a game where available time is the major factor in winning or losing.

I initially read this reply and felt the poster had completely misunderstood the original post (because after a couple beers you tend to stop reading objectively), but upon second thought I get the subtle and fair point they are trying to make. And I think there is a pretty simple solution to this problem, and its a feature that has been discussed for a while now...which is to have "default" settings for the majority of contingencies.

Just like there are default settings for offensive distributions against each defense, there should be the exact same things for stuff like depth charts against specific defenses, tempos against those defenses, etc. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this doesn't actually need changing the math of the engine just the numbers it uses.

Now to truly get at plague's real point (which I'll finally disagree with), I'd claim that most peoples' opinion here is that the individuals who spend the most time practicing this craft should also be the most successful at it, no??? And here is why this solution works for both parties, because you get the default settings you want for the games you feel are unimportant (which there absolutely are and/or truly don't have the time to devote towards) while still retaining advanced control over those that you can. Therefore, it would serve the day-in-and-day-out players just as well as it would serve the players that need to sometimes set-it-and-forget-it.

1 of 2 things will happen with defaults.

1-if you use defaults you will lose.

2-if you use defaults and win people will say "Why do I bother spending the time to set up my depth chart, game plan, etc if I can just use defaults and win."

"I'd claim that most peoples' opinion here is that the individuals who spend the most time practicing this craft should also be the most successful at it, no???"

To get to this point. This is not a job this is a game. Not everyone has unlimited free time.I am paying to play and if the game becomes too time consuming I will stop paying. Do you really want a game where he who spends the most time wins? There has to be more to a game than time spent to win. There has to be a balance that works for enough people to keep the world filled.

Here is what is going to happen if HD gets too time consuming. Owner A has 4 teams in 4 different worlds. He tells himself I don't have the time for 4 teams anymore because the game is too time consuming. He starts dropping teams and sim teams start popping up where human owners once played. You make this too time consuming. New owners who have never played the game will feel overwhelmed and quit after 1 season, some owners will stay, but the percentage of owners who will stay will drop due to the time constraints and the complexity of the game. You will lessen the amount of new owners to the game. The domino effect will be the owners who do stay will become unhappy because their opponents are primarily SIM AI.

I wasn't trying to be rude with my initial post and I'm not trying to be so now, but I would have to disagree with the majority of your response. I think its quite presumptuous to say that there are only two outcomes that could happen by offering coaches more options. I don't really understand what you mean by #1...why would they cause you to lose more often???

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing when referencing "defaults", I'm talking about specific settings put in place by each coach, not just some standard blanket settings. Such as, if your team wasn't very deep and had mediocre BH and PS then you could set them to always run a slowdown tempo against the press but regular tempo against man and zone, or set a different depth chart to use against press teams which better utilizes your BH and PS ratings, etc. etc.

To me, at least, this seems like a feature that could make the game a whole lot less time consuming. So, if you have 4 teams, you wouldn't have to spend x minutes of time every single day to gameplan or the somewhat tedious work of just plugging in your settings for all those teams. This would actually give the user much more flexibility, while simultaneously offering more control over your team, and help coaches that don't have as much time on a daily basis to position their team for success against the most obvious probable contingencies.

As for your last point, people here have wildly different lifestyles and ways of consuming this game. And if a coach could consistently just set these defaults on day one then walk away and still have real success, then they would be much more lucky than good. Which is (another but by no means the only) reason why there should also be more straightforward controls over specific game functions like choosing man-to-man defensive match-ups and whatever. Coaches who take time to actually set customized gameplans on a day to day basis are already probably gonna be much better coaches anyways, but given the way the game currently exists it is much more likely in my opinion that a coach actually can do the absolute minimum and still have moderate success. Adding nuance to the game would actually make the game more interesting, instead of people showing up and saying to themselves "I can't even chose who my guys guard?" then checking out after one season.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/5/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 3/5/2016 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/4/2016 3:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 3/4/2016 1:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/3/2016 8:43:00 PM (view original):
I agree, I would like to be able to increase the amount of game planning I could do. I have hoped many times I could have my best defender guard the other teams best player but I couldn't because it would mess up my offense. I would also like to be able to set who plays late in the game, who plays in certain situations, who takes the last shot, etc. what would be really great but I dont know if it is possible is to be able to choose what plays you use or maybe creat plays.

More options sounds great, but with WIS games it can be a pandora's box that ends up ruining the game. There has to be a line between keep it simple keep it stupid and unlimited options. You tilt too much in one direction and the game is no longer fun. GD was once fun because I could spend minimal time and still be competitive, but then it got to the point where the game became time consuming just to be competitive. I don't want to play a game where available time is the major factor in winning or losing.

I initially read this reply and felt the poster had completely misunderstood the original post (because after a couple beers you tend to stop reading objectively), but upon second thought I get the subtle and fair point they are trying to make. And I think there is a pretty simple solution to this problem, and its a feature that has been discussed for a while now...which is to have "default" settings for the majority of contingencies.

Just like there are default settings for offensive distributions against each defense, there should be the exact same things for stuff like depth charts against specific defenses, tempos against those defenses, etc. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this doesn't actually need changing the math of the engine just the numbers it uses.

Now to truly get at plague's real point (which I'll finally disagree with), I'd claim that most peoples' opinion here is that the individuals who spend the most time practicing this craft should also be the most successful at it, no??? And here is why this solution works for both parties, because you get the default settings you want for the games you feel are unimportant (which there absolutely are and/or truly don't have the time to devote towards) while still retaining advanced control over those that you can. Therefore, it would serve the day-in-and-day-out players just as well as it would serve the players that need to sometimes set-it-and-forget-it.

1 of 2 things will happen with defaults.

1-if you use defaults you will lose.

2-if you use defaults and win people will say "Why do I bother spending the time to set up my depth chart, game plan, etc if I can just use defaults and win."

"I'd claim that most peoples' opinion here is that the individuals who spend the most time practicing this craft should also be the most successful at it, no???"

To get to this point. This is not a job this is a game. Not everyone has unlimited free time.I am paying to play and if the game becomes too time consuming I will stop paying. Do you really want a game where he who spends the most time wins? There has to be more to a game than time spent to win. There has to be a balance that works for enough people to keep the world filled.

Here is what is going to happen if HD gets too time consuming. Owner A has 4 teams in 4 different worlds. He tells himself I don't have the time for 4 teams anymore because the game is too time consuming. He starts dropping teams and sim teams start popping up where human owners once played. You make this too time consuming. New owners who have never played the game will feel overwhelmed and quit after 1 season, some owners will stay, but the percentage of owners who will stay will drop due to the time constraints and the complexity of the game. You will lessen the amount of new owners to the game. The domino effect will be the owners who do stay will become unhappy because their opponents are primarily SIM AI.

I wasn't trying to be rude with my initial post and I'm not trying to be so now, but I would have to disagree with the majority of your response. I think its quite presumptuous to say that there are only two outcomes that could happen by offering coaches more options. I don't really understand what you mean by #1...why would they cause you to lose more often???

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing when referencing "defaults", I'm talking about specific settings put in place by each coach, not just some standard blanket settings. Such as, if your team wasn't very deep and had mediocre BH and PS then you could set them to always run a slowdown tempo against the press but regular tempo against man and zone, or set a different depth chart to use against press teams which better utilizes your BH and PS ratings, etc. etc.

To me, at least, this seems like a feature that could make the game a whole lot less time consuming. So, if you have 4 teams, you wouldn't have to spend x minutes of time every single day to gameplan or the somewhat tedious work of just plugging in your settings for all those teams. This would actually give the user much more flexibility, while simultaneously offering more control over your team, and help coaches that don't have as much time on a daily basis to position their team for success against the most obvious probable contingencies.

As for your last point, people here have wildly different lifestyles and ways of consuming this game. And if a coach could consistently just set these defaults on day one then walk away and still have real success, then they would be much more lucky than good. Which is (another but by no means the only) reason why there should also be more straightforward controls over specific game functions like choosing man-to-man defensive match-ups and whatever. Coaches who take time to actually set customized gameplans on a day to day basis are already probably gonna be much better coaches anyways, but given the way the game currently exists it is much more likely in my opinion that a coach actually can do the absolute minimum and still have moderate success. Adding nuance to the game would actually make the game more interesting, instead of people showing up and saying to themselves "I can't even chose who my guys guard?" then checking out after one season.

I did not take you as rude.

When I hear defaults its hitting a button and the computer/sim auto fills in your depth chart, game plan, etc. Defaults is not a recipe to win. In my opinion what you described is not defaults as the coach is still making his own charts.

"As for your last point, people here have wildly different lifestyles and ways of consuming this game. And if a coach could consistently just set these defaults on day one then walk away and still have real success, then they would be much more lucky than good"

Defaults is not a viable strategy. I simplified it with my win/lose scenario but when it comes down to it thats what it is. If you win using defaults people will say why bother setting up a strategy when I can just hit default and win. There is a reason why WIS dumbs down SIM AI teams. I remember when SIM AI teams were competitive and the player base was not happy. The complaints came down to why am I spending all this time to lose to a SIM AI team.

my take on potential is that it had some very good improvements to the game. however, the ability to mold your players being lost was a great loss for the game. overall, i'd take that set of changes, largely because i felt pre-potential d2/d3 recruiting was such a grind, you had to review every player in the entire country.

anyway, i think WIS really screwed up by not correcting the issue with practice planning. granted - seble did come in and restore order to the game, by slowing the rate of improvement on players, before that, freshman were maxing out and it was madness. some aspects of potential were great, but the hard caps were not. at least, universal hard caps were not. they should have lowered potential (max rating) for everybody across the board, by a decent amount, and then made the rate of improvement at those soft caps, something on the order of 2-3 points a season. that would allow us to have the variance in player types that people enjoy, to keep the scouting vs battling tradeoff in recruiting which was IMO the biggest strategic choice given to us in recruiting in my entire time here, but to still have some impact on what our graduating seniors looked like.

it could be more involved, with some players having hard caps, some having soft, but it might get too complicated too quickly. im not saying my suggestion is the best answer, but i think something along those lines, something utilizing soft caps, would mostly give us the best of both worlds. of course, a hundred people were saying the same thing back when potential came out, but it fell on deaf ears (well, no ears really, we sort of had no admin for a while there between tarek and seble)

Gil : I think the potential, the way it is now, is almost perfect. You could get some more infos onto what your player will look like with ST, or the stats you'd like to know about, but why change something that works?

Posted by plague on 3/5/2016 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/5/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 3/5/2016 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/4/2016 3:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by plague on 3/4/2016 1:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/3/2016 8:43:00 PM (view original):
I agree, I would like to be able to increase the amount of game planning I could do. I have hoped many times I could have my best defender guard the other teams best player but I couldn't because it would mess up my offense. I would also like to be able to set who plays late in the game, who plays in certain situations, who takes the last shot, etc. what would be really great but I dont know if it is possible is to be able to choose what plays you use or maybe creat plays.

More options sounds great, but with WIS games it can be a pandora's box that ends up ruining the game. There has to be a line between keep it simple keep it stupid and unlimited options. You tilt too much in one direction and the game is no longer fun. GD was once fun because I could spend minimal time and still be competitive, but then it got to the point where the game became time consuming just to be competitive. I don't want to play a game where available time is the major factor in winning or losing.

I initially read this reply and felt the poster had completely misunderstood the original post (because after a couple beers you tend to stop reading objectively), but upon second thought I get the subtle and fair point they are trying to make. And I think there is a pretty simple solution to this problem, and its a feature that has been discussed for a while now...which is to have "default" settings for the majority of contingencies.

Just like there are default settings for offensive distributions against each defense, there should be the exact same things for stuff like depth charts against specific defenses, tempos against those defenses, etc. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this doesn't actually need changing the math of the engine just the numbers it uses.

Now to truly get at plague's real point (which I'll finally disagree with), I'd claim that most peoples' opinion here is that the individuals who spend the most time practicing this craft should also be the most successful at it, no??? And here is why this solution works for both parties, because you get the default settings you want for the games you feel are unimportant (which there absolutely are and/or truly don't have the time to devote towards) while still retaining advanced control over those that you can. Therefore, it would serve the day-in-and-day-out players just as well as it would serve the players that need to sometimes set-it-and-forget-it.

1 of 2 things will happen with defaults.

1-if you use defaults you will lose.

2-if you use defaults and win people will say "Why do I bother spending the time to set up my depth chart, game plan, etc if I can just use defaults and win."

"I'd claim that most peoples' opinion here is that the individuals who spend the most time practicing this craft should also be the most successful at it, no???"

To get to this point. This is not a job this is a game. Not everyone has unlimited free time.I am paying to play and if the game becomes too time consuming I will stop paying. Do you really want a game where he who spends the most time wins? There has to be more to a game than time spent to win. There has to be a balance that works for enough people to keep the world filled.

Here is what is going to happen if HD gets too time consuming. Owner A has 4 teams in 4 different worlds. He tells himself I don't have the time for 4 teams anymore because the game is too time consuming. He starts dropping teams and sim teams start popping up where human owners once played. You make this too time consuming. New owners who have never played the game will feel overwhelmed and quit after 1 season, some owners will stay, but the percentage of owners who will stay will drop due to the time constraints and the complexity of the game. You will lessen the amount of new owners to the game. The domino effect will be the owners who do stay will become unhappy because their opponents are primarily SIM AI.

I wasn't trying to be rude with my initial post and I'm not trying to be so now, but I would have to disagree with the majority of your response. I think its quite presumptuous to say that there are only two outcomes that could happen by offering coaches more options. I don't really understand what you mean by #1...why would they cause you to lose more often???

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing when referencing "defaults", I'm talking about specific settings put in place by each coach, not just some standard blanket settings. Such as, if your team wasn't very deep and had mediocre BH and PS then you could set them to always run a slowdown tempo against the press but regular tempo against man and zone, or set a different depth chart to use against press teams which better utilizes your BH and PS ratings, etc. etc.

To me, at least, this seems like a feature that could make the game a whole lot less time consuming. So, if you have 4 teams, you wouldn't have to spend x minutes of time every single day to gameplan or the somewhat tedious work of just plugging in your settings for all those teams. This would actually give the user much more flexibility, while simultaneously offering more control over your team, and help coaches that don't have as much time on a daily basis to position their team for success against the most obvious probable contingencies.

As for your last point, people here have wildly different lifestyles and ways of consuming this game. And if a coach could consistently just set these defaults on day one then walk away and still have real success, then they would be much more lucky than good. Which is (another but by no means the only) reason why there should also be more straightforward controls over specific game functions like choosing man-to-man defensive match-ups and whatever. Coaches who take time to actually set customized gameplans on a day to day basis are already probably gonna be much better coaches anyways, but given the way the game currently exists it is much more likely in my opinion that a coach actually can do the absolute minimum and still have moderate success. Adding nuance to the game would actually make the game more interesting, instead of people showing up and saying to themselves "I can't even chose who my guys guard?" then checking out after one season.

I did not take you as rude.

When I hear defaults its hitting a button and the computer/sim auto fills in your depth chart, game plan, etc. Defaults is not a recipe to win. In my opinion what you described is not defaults as the coach is still making his own charts.

"As for your last point, people here have wildly different lifestyles and ways of consuming this game. And if a coach could consistently just set these defaults on day one then walk away and still have real success, then they would be much more lucky than good"

Defaults is not a viable strategy. I simplified it with my win/lose scenario but when it comes down to it thats what it is. If you win using defaults people will say why bother setting up a strategy when I can just hit default and win. There is a reason why WIS dumbs down SIM AI teams. I remember when SIM AI teams were competitive and the player base was not happy. The complaints came down to why am I spending all this time to lose to a SIM AI team.

I totally agree that "defaults" at least in the sense that I have been using the term, sorry for any confusion, would not be a viable strategy for real success in HD. They just provide a coach the option of utilizing their own predetermined templates if needed (and wouldn't exist if they aren't created by a coach) as well as reducing the time and possibility or error involved in structurally rearranging your team on a daily basis because of a contingency that you already have a gameplan for.

However, (and the point that I was probably trying to make initially, haha) changes of this nature as compared to ones that would give more detailed control to coaches over specific game functions, like defensive match-ups and such, are much less important to the game overall than ones that make the game more nuanced...even if they give the game a higher learning curve in the process.