There probably needs to be more traffic in the suggestions part of the HD forum for them to take notice of what we want.  They claim to be monitoring that forum for quality suggestions.  Perhaps if more users put in pages of responses, it will spur some change.

i'd like to see height matter some what. i had a friend who played center at a low level d1 school, on most nights  he looked awful, but when his 6-10 frame went up against centers who could hardly touch 6-5 his game became ewing-esque.

1) too much of recruiting regional...no reason for this to be the case in HD
2) nature of recruit generation and dwindling numbers of quality kids recently as discussed ad nauseum (plus noticeable decrease in starting stamina of kids, many are under 50, seems pretty absurd)
3) first recruiting cycle issues
3) too high FG%/3FG%
4) job promotion logic


I like what others have said, including uglyskunk's comment about height mattering...currently it doesn't seem like height is properly accounted for in the ATH/SP ratings.   Just my $0.02 on that topic since it's not one that's too frequently discussed.

Yeah, I've never understood why a 6'1" 95 ath/95 spd/100def should be able to defend a 7'0" post. 

The comeback is always, "well, you wouldn't put that guy there because his reb/sb wouldn't be good enough," but that's not the point.  Even with a moderate SB, the guy would be able to defend him significantly better than he should be able to.  And it's not about rebounding, it's about totally unrealizstic defensive outcomes.

Anyway, it's not that high on my list (well below rebounding and distro issues I've been seing lately), but it's something I've never understood since the position penalty was eliminated.

either recruit generation or rebounding need some work  - either one would be fine with me

Posted by uconnut on 1/29/2011 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 1/29/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 8:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mduncanhogs on 1/29/2011 8:48:00 AM (view original):
For me it is how the engine handles defense.  There isn't nearly enough functionality in the engine to allow coaches to control their defense.  For example, in a M2M you should be able to chose which of your players guards which of your opponents (PG can guard SG, etc.).  Also, you should have more control over your defensive pressure.  We should be able to run a high pressure defense to try to offset someone we KNOW will run slowdown.  I just don't feel like I have much control over my defense at all.

So, would you have the PG guard the opponents SG ... or would you have Smith (your PG)  guard Jones (his SG).  What would you like to happen if your #2 PG comes in, should he also guard Jones?  What happens if Smith (your #1 PG) is in and his #2 SG comes in, would you then like Jones to shift back to his #1 PG, etc.

As you can see, this opens up a huge can of worms and it is not as simple as have PG guard SG.

so on the player game plan add a drop down by each opponent's name next to the doubleteam options that has each of your players in it (like depth chart does) and you can toggle a particular player of yours to guard a particular player of his. I'm not a programmer, so i don't know how hard it is to implement, but I don't see a huge can of worms.

Who does Jones guard if Smith is not in the game?

couldn't it just go back to the normal logic then and have him guard his position?

yes.

Posted by dacj501 on 1/29/2011 5:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by uconnut on 1/29/2011 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 1/29/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 8:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mduncanhogs on 1/29/2011 8:48:00 AM (view original):
For me it is how the engine handles defense.  There isn't nearly enough functionality in the engine to allow coaches to control their defense.  For example, in a M2M you should be able to chose which of your players guards which of your opponents (PG can guard SG, etc.).  Also, you should have more control over your defensive pressure.  We should be able to run a high pressure defense to try to offset someone we KNOW will run slowdown.  I just don't feel like I have much control over my defense at all.

So, would you have the PG guard the opponents SG ... or would you have Smith (your PG)  guard Jones (his SG).  What would you like to happen if your #2 PG comes in, should he also guard Jones?  What happens if Smith (your #1 PG) is in and his #2 SG comes in, would you then like Jones to shift back to his #1 PG, etc.

As you can see, this opens up a huge can of worms and it is not as simple as have PG guard SG.

so on the player game plan add a drop down by each opponent's name next to the doubleteam options that has each of your players in it (like depth chart does) and you can toggle a particular player of yours to guard a particular player of his. I'm not a programmer, so i don't know how hard it is to implement, but I don't see a huge can of worms.

Who does Jones guard if Smith is not in the game?

couldn't it just go back to the normal logic then and have him guard his position?

yes.

Not really ... what happens if Smith comes in at SF (he is listed there too)  ... does Jones (your PG) guard him there?  If so, who guards his PG then, your SF?  Or would you have your SG move to PG and the SF guard his SG?

I would love to see more "in game" gameplanning options. The ability to handle different game situations ON BOTH ends of the floor would bring a more realistic aspect to HD. With so many teams at the elite level getting the better recruits esp. at the  DIII level, more in game options would level the playing field. if a coach is just a so/so bench coach with more talent is matched up with a better game coach with less talent than who ever makes the better desions has a better chance to win, instead of just the team with more talent always winning.

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 6:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 1/29/2011 5:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by uconnut on 1/29/2011 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 1/29/2011 10:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 1/29/2011 8:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mduncanhogs on 1/29/2011 8:48:00 AM (view original):
For me it is how the engine handles defense.  There isn't nearly enough functionality in the engine to allow coaches to control their defense.  For example, in a M2M you should be able to chose which of your players guards which of your opponents (PG can guard SG, etc.).  Also, you should have more control over your defensive pressure.  We should be able to run a high pressure defense to try to offset someone we KNOW will run slowdown.  I just don't feel like I have much control over my defense at all.

So, would you have the PG guard the opponents SG ... or would you have Smith (your PG)  guard Jones (his SG).  What would you like to happen if your #2 PG comes in, should he also guard Jones?  What happens if Smith (your #1 PG) is in and his #2 SG comes in, would you then like Jones to shift back to his #1 PG, etc.

As you can see, this opens up a huge can of worms and it is not as simple as have PG guard SG.

so on the player game plan add a drop down by each opponent's name next to the doubleteam options that has each of your players in it (like depth chart does) and you can toggle a particular player of yours to guard a particular player of his. I'm not a programmer, so i don't know how hard it is to implement, but I don't see a huge can of worms.

Who does Jones guard if Smith is not in the game?

couldn't it just go back to the normal logic then and have him guard his position?

yes.

Not really ... what happens if Smith comes in at SF (he is listed there too)  ... does Jones (your PG) guard him there?  If so, who guards his PG then, your SF?  Or would you have your SG move to PG and the SF guard his SG?

You can't be serious. A thread dedicated to changes people want, and you've got multiple posts just arguing against them. You have to be on the payroll. You just have to.

Matchups are possible. They have them in the NBA sim. I've already been told they are doable. Stop it already.

Where did I say not to do the matchups?

I am not arguing against anything ... I did not say not to do matchups.  I am discussing why it is complicated and to get some ideas on how it would be implemented.  Do we want the guy to follow the person he is guarding if he moves to SF.  If so, that could create a huge mismatch with your SF (if he was more of a PF type) on the other guy's point guard.  I was looking for a discussion, i forgot, girt25, that you are the king of forums and also the master game programmer and have already decided that this needs no discussion and is ready to implement.

You are reading into what I wrote to see what you want, because it fits your agenda to attack me.

Re-read my posts on matchups and see if I did not just ask what people would want to do in certain situations.

And as to you, girt25, telling me to "stop it" ... as soon as you are either my wife, my mother, or the king of the world then I might consider your opinion.  Until then, ummm no.

Hughes, do you feel that you're a bigger apologist for HD or GD and why?

Posted by hitman1979 on 1/30/2011 9:51:00 AM (view original):
Hughes, do you feel that you're a bigger apologist for HD or GD and why?

I am paying to play both games and enjoy them both ... you are spending money on something you hate.

What does that make you?

I stopped spending money on GD, because it sucks.

I don't think you'll find too much from me that suggests that I hate HD.

Now answer the question.