Posted by zhawks on 8/25/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
The crazy thing is - the BEST time I ever had in HD was when we had created a super conference in the Big Sky in Phelen, it was such a great time. They need to do something about low level schools and have a small percentage of d1 guys have great summers or something like that... 

hmmm see thinking about how good HD could be is always what gets me drawn back in to play again ...

Exactly. There is huge potential in the product, but I suppose they don't feel it's necessary for them to make it better. 

I agree with you on the "great summer" idea. Potential becomes too predictable and I think this factor would be a great way off keeping the game fresh. Or you could give players targeted areas for improvement—for example, you tell your player that you need him to bulk up this summer. So after the offseason, he comes back with lower speed, but higher athleticism and durability. Something like that would also be refreshing. 

Posted by zhawks on 8/25/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
The crazy thing is - the BEST time I ever had in HD was when we had created a super conference in the Big Sky in Phelen, it was such a great time. They need to do something about low level schools and have a small percentage of d1 guys have great summers or something like that... 

hmmm see thinking about how good HD could be is always what gets me drawn back in to play again ...

I absolutely HATE this idea.  Why on earth would you want to make the game more random?  All people did for years until seble put in that logic that tended to cause players to perform closer to their mean - which, incidentally, I was very much opposed to but has actually worked exceptionally well, to the point where I now feel the propensity for upsets in the game is very similar to what I see in real life - was complain that results were too random.  If player skill level now becomes an additional random variable I think more people are going to be upset than happy about it.  By an enormous margin.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/25/2011 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 8/25/2011 1:41:00 PM (view original):
The crazy thing is - the BEST time I ever had in HD was when we had created a super conference in the Big Sky in Phelen, it was such a great time. They need to do something about low level schools and have a small percentage of d1 guys have great summers or something like that... 

hmmm see thinking about how good HD could be is always what gets me drawn back in to play again ...

I absolutely HATE this idea.  Why on earth would you want to make the game more random?  All people did for years until seble put in that logic that tended to cause players to perform closer to their mean - which, incidentally, I was very much opposed to but has actually worked exceptionally well, to the point where I now feel the propensity for upsets in the game is very similar to what I see in real life - was complain that results were too random.  If player skill level now becomes an additional random variable I think more people are going to be upset than happy about it.  By an enormous margin.

When did I say that players should outperform their ratings? You should prolly read what I wrote before blasting it.

When did I say that I interpreted it as players outperforming their ratings?  How about you read what I wrote, hypocrite.  And I quote:

"If player skill level now becomes an additional random variable..."

If you have some small percentage have a "great summer," that's bound to be based to some degree on a random output.  There are way too many guys with similarly high Work Ethic to have it based on that.  I never said a thing about outperforming ratings.  But if the ratings themselves become increasingly unpredictable for future seasons, it's functionally the same.  You could take 2 recruits with similar ratings and potentials and any coach will anticipate them being similar players throughout their careers.  Then one of them has a "great summer" after his freshman year and all of a sudden he's a better sophomore and junior and maybe the other guy catches up by the end of their senior year.  How, in reality, is that any better than the first recruit outperforming his ratings, when it comes to that?  He's certainly outperforming fair expectations at the time of recruiting, which is really where this game is won and lost for the most part.  So even though YOU didn't bother reading what I said, your ridiculous interpretation of it is a lot less far off base than you seem to be thinking.

I still like my idea:

...you could give players targeted areas for improvement—for example, you tell your player that you need him to bulk up this summer. So after the offseason, he comes back with slightly lower speed, but higher athleticism and durability. Something like that would be refreshing. 

What do you guys think about the prospects of this as sort of a compromise. 

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/25/2011 5:01:00 PM (view original):
When did I say that I interpreted it as players outperforming their ratings?  How about you read what I wrote, hypocrite.  And I quote:

"If player skill level now becomes an additional random variable..."

If you have some small percentage have a "great summer," that's bound to be based to some degree on a random output.  There are way too many guys with similarly high Work Ethic to have it based on that.  I never said a thing about outperforming ratings.  But if the ratings themselves become increasingly unpredictable for future seasons, it's functionally the same.  You could take 2 recruits with similar ratings and potentials and any coach will anticipate them being similar players throughout their careers.  Then one of them has a "great summer" after his freshman year and all of a sudden he's a better sophomore and junior and maybe the other guy catches up by the end of their senior year.  How, in reality, is that any better than the first recruit outperforming his ratings, when it comes to that?  He's certainly outperforming fair expectations at the time of recruiting, which is really where this game is won and lost for the most part.  So even though YOU didn't bother reading what I said, your ridiculous interpretation of it is a lot less far off base than you seem to be thinking.

You're right, I'd totally hate to give the little guys any chance at competing. 

I'll go back to my hole.

If you do it by inserting randomness then the reality is that it's just as likely to help Duke as it is to help VCU.

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 8/25/2011 5:22:00 PM (view original):
I still like my idea:

...you could give players targeted areas for improvement—for example, you tell your player that you need him to bulk up this summer. So after the offseason, he comes back with slightly lower speed, but higher athleticism and durability. Something like that would be refreshing. 

What do you guys think about the prospects of this as sort of a compromise. 

A lot of people have championed ideas similar to this off and on...  It seems like a good idea, and certainly closer to reality.

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 8/25/2011 5:22:00 PM (view original):
I still like my idea:

...you could give players targeted areas for improvement—for example, you tell your player that you need him to bulk up this summer. So after the offseason, he comes back with slightly lower speed, but higher athleticism and durability. Something like that would be refreshing. 

What do you guys think about the prospects of this as sort of a compromise. 

What I'd like to see is the "potential" not be 100 percent accurate -- you hear it all the time about players who come in and are thought to have great potential busting out in the real world, or the guy that barely got the last scholarship the school had to offer blossoming into something nobody imagined. 

In WIS though, if a guy has high potential...by the time he graduates, he's gained high potential. A guy with low potential hasn't improved..etc. 

I don't want extreme variation to where FSS is worthless, but I think something less than dead spot-on every single time would help, but in terms of realism and in terms of distributing talent throughout all levels. The top teams still probably target the players that are showing high potential, but now every once in a while they get burned while a smaller/lower prestige team that had to pick through garbage cans gets a surprise. 

I would say that the current potential system is definitely "something less than dead spot-on" ...  It's never wrong, but the numbers are fuzzy.

Well, to be completely honest, the whole idea of FSS is completely unrealistic. We know a players current skill from the get-go and we know pretty much exactly how good he'll be by his senior season. Anything to make it a little more difficult and less accurate would be supported by me. There should be many more diamonds in the rough and major busts. 

Posted by rednu on 8/25/2011 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 8/25/2011 5:22:00 PM (view original):
I still like my idea:

...you could give players targeted areas for improvement—for example, you tell your player that you need him to bulk up this summer. So after the offseason, he comes back with slightly lower speed, but higher athleticism and durability. Something like that would be refreshing. 

What do you guys think about the prospects of this as sort of a compromise. 

What I'd like to see is the "potential" not be 100 percent accurate -- you hear it all the time about players who come in and are thought to have great potential busting out in the real world, or the guy that barely got the last scholarship the school had to offer blossoming into something nobody imagined. 

In WIS though, if a guy has high potential...by the time he graduates, he's gained high potential. A guy with low potential hasn't improved..etc. 

I don't want extreme variation to where FSS is worthless, but I think something less than dead spot-on every single time would help, but in terms of realism and in terms of distributing talent throughout all levels. The top teams still probably target the players that are showing high potential, but now every once in a while they get burned while a smaller/lower prestige team that had to pick through garbage cans gets a surprise. 

WOW ...I had no idea potential was 100% accurate.   You mean you have the ability to recuit a freshman and tell me exactly what all his final ratings will be by the time he graduates?   What have I been missing all these years?!?!?!

Posted by mullycj on 8/26/2011 12:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 8/25/2011 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 8/25/2011 5:22:00 PM (view original):
I still like my idea:

...you could give players targeted areas for improvement—for example, you tell your player that you need him to bulk up this summer. So after the offseason, he comes back with slightly lower speed, but higher athleticism and durability. Something like that would be refreshing. 

What do you guys think about the prospects of this as sort of a compromise. 

What I'd like to see is the "potential" not be 100 percent accurate -- you hear it all the time about players who come in and are thought to have great potential busting out in the real world, or the guy that barely got the last scholarship the school had to offer blossoming into something nobody imagined. 

In WIS though, if a guy has high potential...by the time he graduates, he's gained high potential. A guy with low potential hasn't improved..etc. 

I don't want extreme variation to where FSS is worthless, but I think something less than dead spot-on every single time would help, but in terms of realism and in terms of distributing talent throughout all levels. The top teams still probably target the players that are showing high potential, but now every once in a while they get burned while a smaller/lower prestige team that had to pick through garbage cans gets a surprise. 

WOW ...I had no idea potential was 100% accurate.   You mean you have the ability to recuit a freshman and tell me exactly what all his final ratings will be by the time he graduates?   What have I been missing all these years?!?!?!

Sarcasm isn't necessary, we're all here to improve the game, or at least try to get through to the half-wits who are in control. I think what he meant to say is that it's 100% predictable. You know if a player will be great or suck simply by his potentials. In real life, there's some risk and you have to consider that a player could take different turns in their career at any time. I think adding some difficulty to recruiting while fixing recruit generation at DI will be a big boost towards improving the game and making it possible for good coaches to achieve success at low DI program. This would also weed out the undeserving coaches though. 

the whole potential talk is great, and honestly, it just shows the difference between an online game that uses a simulation engine and real life

obviously you can't know in real life just how good every player is going to be, but if the game didn't have something like potential, it would be random and mainly pointless. it's not like FSS says "he will gain 33 points in his career," but the generalities are known.

you also have to think of the other differences - in D3 on WIS, do you ever see impact freshmen?.... real life, however, of course

take into consideration that this is a GAME after all, not real life. some differences are inherent and must be

Posted by mullycj on 8/26/2011 12:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 8/25/2011 8:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 8/25/2011 5:22:00 PM (view original):
I still like my idea:

...you could give players targeted areas for improvement—for example, you tell your player that you need him to bulk up this summer. So after the offseason, he comes back with slightly lower speed, but higher athleticism and durability. Something like that would be refreshing. 

What do you guys think about the prospects of this as sort of a compromise. 

What I'd like to see is the "potential" not be 100 percent accurate -- you hear it all the time about players who come in and are thought to have great potential busting out in the real world, or the guy that barely got the last scholarship the school had to offer blossoming into something nobody imagined. 

In WIS though, if a guy has high potential...by the time he graduates, he's gained high potential. A guy with low potential hasn't improved..etc. 

I don't want extreme variation to where FSS is worthless, but I think something less than dead spot-on every single time would help, but in terms of realism and in terms of distributing talent throughout all levels. The top teams still probably target the players that are showing high potential, but now every once in a while they get burned while a smaller/lower prestige team that had to pick through garbage cans gets a surprise. 

WOW ...I had no idea potential was 100% accurate.   You mean you have the ability to recuit a freshman and tell me exactly what all his final ratings will be by the time he graduates?   What have I been missing all these years?!?!?!

How many low potential guys have you had gain 15 points in the category, mully? How many high potentials have you sank practice minutes into only to see the attribute not move at all from freshman to senior year? None? That looks like the definition of 100 percent accuracy to me. Every high is, indeed, a high. Every low is, indeed, a low. 

Can I recruit a freshman and tell you what his exact attributes will be at graduation? No, nor was I claiming to be able to, so I'm not sure where the attack of sarcasm comes from.

Can I recruit a freshman and tell you what his baseline minimums will be at graduation barring injury or complete mismanagement of his practice time? You know darn well that I and any other coach with a working knowledge of what low, average, high and high-high potential mean are doing that routinely every recruiting cycle.