as a side daalt - the cosmetic stuff is easier and quicker to implement.  Sometimes these 'little' changes go a long way while we wait for more of the drastic changes to get tested and implemented.  Granted wis doesn't don't beta test - but I'm sure they run their own sims before running live - although not always to the results 'everyone' wants.  Cosmetic changes don't really have the backlash that something like potential normally has. 

Posted by girt25 on 1/29/2011 12:02:00 AM (view original):
I enjoy them plenty. Once I month I pile all the trophies into the tub and just roll around with them. 

But seriously, I get that cosmetic stuff is easier. But there are a bunch of cosmetic things that people have actually been asking for and have been ignored for quite some time. I'm willing to entertain the notion that I may have overreacted initially ... but you can't really try to insist that seble has done a good job of communicating and listening to people's needs and addressing them. Even he's said to me in his weaker moments that part has to be improved.

I agree - in a perfect world communication would be key and they definitely could do better.  I totally agree more communication will enhance the wis experience, even I'd be interested to be kept in the loop. 

better cs will definitely keep more people hooked on the game despite its flaws... no argument here. 

I'm not sure wis (after 6 years on the site) is capable of it.... and on the other hand I don't think they are obligated to reach out us. I have low expectations of cs here so I don't get disappointed.   Its the WIS community that keeps me here, not wis. 

First off, WIS would not tell us who they thing is the best by providing a weighted formula for any positions ... they have said that they would provide only every attribute being equal.  this would be exactly like overall rating is now.

I can not see how this would be a bad thing at all ... but one thing I would like is to have more than one column though.  I would like to see PG be rated as PG, SG, SF ... and SG as PG, SG, SF ... and SF as SG, SF, PF ... and PF as SF, PF, C  and C as SF, PF, C.

But the concept is a very good one ... it allows you to decide how you want to overall rate your players.

As to setting the priorities of the updates, everyone has a different priority of what they think is most important ... and every update is going to be the most important for someone and the least important for someone else.  That is just how it is.

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 9:05:00 AM (view original):
First off, WIS would not tell us who they thing is the best by providing a weighted formula for any positions ... they have said that they would provide only every attribute being equal.  this would be exactly like overall rating is now.

I can not see how this would be a bad thing at all ... but one thing I would like is to have more than one column though.  I would like to see PG be rated as PG, SG, SF ... and SG as PG, SG, SF ... and SF as SG, SF, PF ... and PF as SF, PF, C  and C as SF, PF, C.

But the concept is a very good one ... it allows you to decide how you want to overall rate your players.

As to setting the priorities of the updates, everyone has a different priority of what they think is most important ... and every update is going to be the most important for someone and the least important for someone else.  That is just how it is.

You're on here frequently enough to see what people have been clamoring for and what they haven't, and play enough to know what needs addressing the most. At least be honest w. the discussion and admit that there are plenty of things that people have been asking for, and plenty of consistent gripes, and this wasn't one of them. I suppose that doesn't make this a negative move in and of itself, but let's at least be honest about it.

Posted by oldresorter on 1/28/2011 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Came into this late, I see nothing wrong with the idea to add some tools to calculate recruits, I would used them all the time, I sometimes do something like this, but if I had it as part of the game, I would use it, and enjoy it - I would put this in the category with calculating plus minus on the floor, which I think would even the playing field for all coaches which 'might' hurt me individually (assuming I have a better idea than most on who is plus and who is minus), but would be fun to see and use.

Sorry dan, I don't see the harm, and each and every change is not going to be either yours or my number one priority, I sort of get this one, not saying it would have been my first choice, but there is nothing wrong with it, my advice, go for it seble.

OR, right, I'd forgotten about plus/minus as another cosmetic change that they'd indicated months ago might well be implemented. Disappointed we haven't seen that yet; it's another small thing that would make the game more fun and help to keep it fresh.

Posted by girt25 on 1/29/2011 9:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 9:05:00 AM (view original):
First off, WIS would not tell us who they thing is the best by providing a weighted formula for any positions ... they have said that they would provide only every attribute being equal.  this would be exactly like overall rating is now.

I can not see how this would be a bad thing at all ... but one thing I would like is to have more than one column though.  I would like to see PG be rated as PG, SG, SF ... and SG as PG, SG, SF ... and SF as SG, SF, PF ... and PF as SF, PF, C  and C as SF, PF, C.

But the concept is a very good one ... it allows you to decide how you want to overall rate your players.

As to setting the priorities of the updates, everyone has a different priority of what they think is most important ... and every update is going to be the most important for someone and the least important for someone else.  That is just how it is.

You're on here frequently enough to see what people have been clamoring for and what they haven't, and play enough to know what needs addressing the most. At least be honest w. the discussion and admit that there are plenty of things that people have been asking for, and plenty of consistent gripes, and this wasn't one of them. I suppose that doesn't make this a negative move in and of itself, but let's at least be honest about it.

Sure, if we want to limit his updates to only things that have specifically been asked for then this is not one of them.

He has also been working on Job decisions and shooting percentage and he was going to roll this change in with those others, right?

In fact, since this change is not one he had discussed before, he actually posted a thread about it here .. only to have his head bitten off by the same old crowd.

Hell, I wouldn't post a thing on here if I was him.  He can't win with you guys.

Why not? It would help a lot of new coaches figure out the type of recruits they really want, and if you don't like it, don't use it. 
As has already been posted, there  are more pressing issues, but it shows Seble is concerned about hte game and interested in improving it. Just because some of the more common posters (aka whiners) haven't thought about it or don't care about it, doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

If this change isnt a huge drain on the resources available to improve the game, then its a good thing. If its 200 man hours that could otherwise focus on things that matter more, then its a disappointment - assuming that big amounts of effort should be focused on stuff that is more central either to game play OR user friendliness

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 1/29/2011 9:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 9:05:00 AM (view original):
First off, WIS would not tell us who they thing is the best by providing a weighted formula for any positions ... they have said that they would provide only every attribute being equal.  this would be exactly like overall rating is now.

I can not see how this would be a bad thing at all ... but one thing I would like is to have more than one column though.  I would like to see PG be rated as PG, SG, SF ... and SG as PG, SG, SF ... and SF as SG, SF, PF ... and PF as SF, PF, C  and C as SF, PF, C.

But the concept is a very good one ... it allows you to decide how you want to overall rate your players.

As to setting the priorities of the updates, everyone has a different priority of what they think is most important ... and every update is going to be the most important for someone and the least important for someone else.  That is just how it is.

You're on here frequently enough to see what people have been clamoring for and what they haven't, and play enough to know what needs addressing the most. At least be honest w. the discussion and admit that there are plenty of things that people have been asking for, and plenty of consistent gripes, and this wasn't one of them. I suppose that doesn't make this a negative move in and of itself, but let's at least be honest about it.

Sure, if we want to limit his updates to only things that have specifically been asked for then this is not one of them.

He has also been working on Job decisions and shooting percentage and he was going to roll this change in with those others, right?

In fact, since this change is not one he had discussed before, he actually posted a thread about it here .. only to have his head bitten off by the same old crowd.

Hell, I wouldn't post a thing on here if I was him.  He can't win with you guys.

LOL, right. I've talked w. seble in depth on many occasions. He knows my view on things. And it would be easy to "win" with me with a minimal amount of effort. When he first took over from Admin, I may have been his biggest champion/defender.

What I don't do, unlike you, is blindly defend everything. You're not interested in honest discussion, you're interested in desperately trying to spin everything into something positive, regardless of accuracy or the truth.

Posted by metsmax on 1/29/2011 12:05:00 PM (view original):
If this change isnt a huge drain on the resources available to improve the game, then its a good thing. If its 200 man hours that could otherwise focus on things that matter more, then its a disappointment - assuming that big amounts of effort should be focused on stuff that is more central either to game play OR user friendliness

mets, that's more or less where I'm at now after reconsidering a bit based on some of the other feedback I've read.

It is still frustrating because I could easily name 10 different ideas that have been asked for many time over a long period (I'm talking simple ideas, not ones that would take months to accomplish), and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that he'd randomly come out with this rather than take user input more seriously.

hmmm interesting conversation. seems there are 2 issues, 1 - is it worth the time to make the change, and 2 - is it a good change, if you could get it for free?

i am curious about people who feel the answer is no to the second, that they wouldn't take the change even for free. i heard that maybe this is spoon feeding people too much, but really, if you think about how many people use excel sheets or other software to essentially accomplish the exact same thing, its not a new concept. i don't think anybody has a problem with the excel sheets and stuff - so i guess it seems to me that makes the formulas ok, and a time saver.

there is also the question, will people share their formulas, and is that bad? personally i would not, because if other people adopted my formula, it would just increase competition for my recruits. but with so many coaches, you have to assume somebody might share them anyway. i guess i would argue, if it is really so clear what the "right" formula is, that everybody flocks to use that published formula, then the game just simply is not complex enough.

right now, we could have that same discussion. in fact, we've had those discussions a hundred times on these forums, but about simpler things - like the formula to compute how well a player can rebound. but anyway, if we decided to say try to come up with the ideal formula for a pg, i just can't imagine we would reach consensus. it totally depends what you want that player for, what the ideal formula is. when i used formulas to rank players (i wrote something to import players and sort them how i wanted), i had to have like 20 different ones, for the roles i wanted to fill, and still - i never got the formulas good enough, despite tons of hours into them (because i thought it was fun), that it actually listed guys in the exact right order. the best guy would ususally be in the top 10, probably top 5, and most of the top 10 would actually appear in the top 10, but its not like i ever could get it all the way right.

finally, i think the educational aspect of this cannot be skipped over, and i didn't hear anybody mention it. some coaches will just use a formula that gets a loose sorting and that will be enough. but some will really think about it, and try to optimize. you really have to think about the details of what you want to do, to a pretty great extent, to really nail down a complex formua like this. i think it is a fantastic change, first and foremost, because it will get people to real think, what is the ideal player for me for this position? its a great exercise, and i would think anybody who has put significant time into making formulas for stuff like this would agree.

No work is free even if the resource is already paid for.  Changes require developer time to design and implement and QA time to test.  It's a difficult concept sometimes to get across to the business people that I deal with but eventually, they see that when they ask for stupid, silly change X, they won't get more important to actual business change Y.

So how many people do you really think are part of the HD developement team?  Do you think so many that they can work on extraneous stuff like this just because they have extra capacity?

Posted by girt25 on 1/28/2011 7:30:00 PM (view original):
While it's true that I have my head up my ***, I don't have it SO far up my *** that when enough coaches whose opinions I respect disagree with me, I won't reconsider my position.

And this just might be one of those times.

Let me think about this more. Maybe I overreacted. I still won't say that I like it, but maybe it's not as bad as I thought.

Maybe I ... what's the word the kids are using these days? ... overreacted.

Let me think about it.

Not to pile on, but when GD added a bunch of new search options a bunch of seasons ago, another coach made exactly the same arguments you just did, and in much the same language ("spoon feeding", etc.)

That coach was snake_p.

Just sayin'.