Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

Posted by jeffdrayer on 9/8/2010 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

Well, do we want Coach K and the new coach of the Rochester Institute of Technology "on a more even footing"?  Or should the new guy have to learn a little bit as he gains experience, first?  Nah, I dunno -- maybe we should just let him be the coach of UCLA, and solve this on the court...

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):
i don't think the real life argument has any merit here. HD recruiting is nothing like real life.

to me, the "great RL debate" should be broken cleanly. the core sim engine, that takes players and comes up with an outcome, should follow real life as closely as possible. that is really what makes it a basketball sim.  but the rest of the game - how you get those 12 players on a team, through recruiting and practice planning, that should be done to make the game as enjoyable as possible. frankly, the closest we could get to real life in those areas is not close at all. so, why not do what makes the game more enjoyable?

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

i think that is a pretty reasonable viewpoint. i guess i would be fine with it either way - but recruiting would have to be redesigned to match the philosophy that recruiting should be transparent, for a level footing between vets and new players. you would have to disclose or remove things like, how do you know if a guy is going pro, booster gifts, how to figure out when guys will drop down, how to figure out how much it will cost to pull a player down, how sims recruit, and so on. quite an overhaul, it seems to me, which is probably why i favor not changing it - i think the current system is pretty good.

pull downs are a tactic - folks have had various tactics - you try some, they fail, you try others, they work

I like recruiting in certain sequences - others think other approaches are best - the documentation does not and should not describe all possible tactics -

now, in fact lots of tactics are discussed in the forums

 

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):
i don't think the real life argument has any merit here. HD recruiting is nothing like real life.

to me, the "great RL debate" should be broken cleanly. the core sim engine, that takes players and comes up with an outcome, should follow real life as closely as possible. that is really what makes it a basketball sim.  but the rest of the game - how you get those 12 players on a team, through recruiting and practice planning, that should be done to make the game as enjoyable as possible. frankly, the closest we could get to real life in those areas is not close at all. so, why not do what makes the game more enjoyable?

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):
i don't think the real life argument has any merit here. HD recruiting is nothing like real life.

to me, the "great RL debate" should be broken cleanly. the core sim engine, that takes players and comes up with an outcome, should follow real life as closely as possible. that is really what makes it a basketball sim.  but the rest of the game - how you get those 12 players on a team, through recruiting and practice planning, that should be done to make the game as enjoyable as possible. frankly, the closest we could get to real life in those areas is not close at all. so, why not do what makes the game more enjoyable?

I agree billy.  To me it is not enjoyable to imagine that part of the reason I may have lost or won a recruit is because my opponent or I were not using the most effective tool at our disposal.  Apparently you and everybody else on the thread feels otherwise.  Knowing that the best use of your last $2400 is three CVs or eight HVs is not going to eliminate the strategic part of recruiting.

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

i think that is a pretty reasonable viewpoint. i guess i would be fine with it either way - but recruiting would have to be redesigned to match the philosophy that recruiting should be transparent, for a level footing between vets and new players. you would have to disclose or remove things like, how do you know if a guy is going pro, booster gifts, how to figure out when guys will drop down, how to figure out how much it will cost to pull a player down, how sims recruit, and so on. quite an overhaul, it seems to me, which is probably why i favor not changing it - i think the current system is pretty good.

Now you have hit some interesting points here.  For example, CS has given us a pretty good idea of how SIMs recruit.  Why has that information been shared but not the CV:HV ratio?  Pull downs are another thing -- I was playing for quite some time, read the forums regularly and never even heard of pull downs until about 30 seasons into the game (I have one other alias).  If that is a legitimate part of the game, why isn't it in the documentation?  I'm not really into the "secret alchemists club" a lot of players seem to want; I think it detracts from the overall health of the game.

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):
i don't think the real life argument has any merit here. HD recruiting is nothing like real life.

to me, the "great RL debate" should be broken cleanly. the core sim engine, that takes players and comes up with an outcome, should follow real life as closely as possible. that is really what makes it a basketball sim.  but the rest of the game - how you get those 12 players on a team, through recruiting and practice planning, that should be done to make the game as enjoyable as possible. frankly, the closest we could get to real life in those areas is not close at all. so, why not do what makes the game more enjoyable?