Posted by girt25 on 11/29/2011 10:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by salag on 11/29/2011 9:58:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see changes to FSS in the future, but thats for future discussions, the changes being made now are good, and necessary. The bigger stuff will take much more time, I would presume.

I think FSS should be, as mentioned above, available to everyone, and the decision should be who should i recruit rather than, should I scout New York or PA?

salag, I actually disagree with this. I see your point. But in DI, I think having open FSS would allow better teams to spot non-local "diamonds in the rough" and steal them away from lesser local teams, and I think that's a bad thing that outweighs any positives. (And I do like the decision making of deciding who much you want to spend on FSS, too.)

Agree - when we tested the new engine we all had unlimited access to FSS.  The top prestige teams could basically just look through the recuits and pick out the best ones to recruit.  It made it EVEN EASIER for them to dominate.

I also cannot understand people's current "diamond in the rough comments".  The current system is designed to have JUST THAT.   There are crappy basleine players out there with high/high potential in several categories.   Unless you spend FSS money and most likely scouting trips, you would not otherwise pick these players up.

What  I meant by taking away RPI is your comments about disliking/wanting to remove the home/away weights in the RPI formula.  Those are there in real life.

 

(Ever thought of lowering the road win multiplier in DIII since HCA isn't as much as a big deal as it would be to win at Duke? (Rails - Hall of Famer - 3:02 PM) I'm not a big fan of the home/road multipliers, but I'm going to leave them for now. The new tournament seeding logic should make it harder to game the system by scheduling a bunch of winnable road games.)

Also,

 Can you expand on the changes on complaining about playing time? Personally I don't see an issue as the teams it effects are those that are stacked from top to bottom. I don't see why a former 4 star or 5 star shouldn't leave after riding the pine for two seasons. (stinenavy - Hall of Famer - 2:32 PM) I've made a small reduction in the expected minutes for players, so there should be fewer guys complaining. At some point I'd like to go even further to make the logic smarter, to look at the makeup of the roster and some other things


I agree with stine's point - that if BC or UNC or whatever has a player getting 2 MPG that could start anywhere else, he's probably going to complain and then transfer.  At least, often, this'll happen - I'm not talking the 10-to-15 MPG role players on contenders, I'm talking the 750s and 800s that the superteams at the top are forced to bury on their depth charts.

Seble seems to make the exact OPPOSITE point here - You think players should be transferring?  Well, I've made some changes so they'll be less likely to even complain.

Posted by seble on 11/30/2011 8:43:00 AM (view original):
To clarify the RPI comments, there is no change to the RPI formula itself.  That will continue to mirror real life.  The change is to the logic that picks and seeds teams for postseason play.  That will no longer directly use RPI.  RPI is ok as a simple high-level measure of a team, but it is limited.  The new logic will score each game based on win/loss, margin, opponent RPI, opponent rank, and location.  There's also consideration given for last 10 games as well as conference tournament performance.  I forgot to mention those components in the chat.

seble, last 10 games is a silly and ineffective measure to use in HD.

In real life, it can be (though certainly isn't always) indicative of how a team is trending.

In HD, it's mostly a function of how strong a conference you play in, if there are a lot of sims, etc.

Posted by mullycj on 11/30/2011 9:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 11/29/2011 10:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by salag on 11/29/2011 9:58:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see changes to FSS in the future, but thats for future discussions, the changes being made now are good, and necessary. The bigger stuff will take much more time, I would presume.

I think FSS should be, as mentioned above, available to everyone, and the decision should be who should i recruit rather than, should I scout New York or PA?

salag, I actually disagree with this. I see your point. But in DI, I think having open FSS would allow better teams to spot non-local "diamonds in the rough" and steal them away from lesser local teams, and I think that's a bad thing that outweighs any positives. (And I do like the decision making of deciding who much you want to spend on FSS, too.)

Agree - when we tested the new engine we all had unlimited access to FSS.  The top prestige teams could basically just look through the recuits and pick out the best ones to recruit.  It made it EVEN EASIER for them to dominate.

I also cannot understand people's current "diamond in the rough comments".  The current system is designed to have JUST THAT.   There are crappy basleine players out there with high/high potential in several categories.   Unless you spend FSS money and most likely scouting trips, you would not otherwise pick these players up.

I strongly agree with girt and mullycj.  Having FSS free (in its current form) would ruin this game for me and, I expect, most everyone else.  The joy of this game is that it is a wonderful resource allocation and partial information game.  If FSS is free, then the teams with the bigger budgets will always find and have the funds remaining to sign the highest potential recruits.  

Perhaps an alternative way to address issues with the FSS cost structure would be to increase the volume discounts from 10-15-20% to say 10-20-35-50%.  Also, there should be an FSS available for internationals; maybe 6 separate regions available (e.g. Canada, Puerto Rico & Carribean, Central & South America, Europe (incl. Russia), Africa, and Asia).   It makes as much sense that FSS is not available internationally as that all Korean players are generated with Chinese names!

Seble, with this last ten games thing can we at least get variability in conference schedules year to year? My SEC team faces the toughest teams in the conference all mostly at the end of conference play. We typically win 3/4 or more of the first batch and like 1/5 of the second. Since the same teams are good all the time and it is really hard to become an A+ starting in the middle of a BCS, now with this last 10 thing I might be stuck in the PIT forever...

Posted by cornfused on 11/30/2011 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Also,

 Can you expand on the changes on complaining about playing time? Personally I don't see an issue as the teams it effects are those that are stacked from top to bottom. I don't see why a former 4 star or 5 star shouldn't leave after riding the pine for two seasons. (stinenavy - Hall of Famer - 2:32 PM) I've made a small reduction in the expected minutes for players, so there should be fewer guys complaining. At some point I'd like to go even further to make the logic smarter, to look at the makeup of the roster and some other things


I agree with stine's point - that if BC or UNC or whatever has a player getting 2 MPG that could start anywhere else, he's probably going to complain and then transfer.  At least, often, this'll happen - I'm not talking the 10-to-15 MPG role players on contenders, I'm talking the 750s and 800s that the superteams at the top are forced to bury on their depth charts.

Seble seems to make the exact OPPOSITE point here - You think players should be transferring?  Well, I've made some changes so they'll be less likely to even complain.

I am with Cornfused on this.  The risk that a player will transfer needs to be increased for lack of playing time.  In real life, recently a number of UNC players have transferred (mostly to UCLA)!  I don't really care if the WE hit is lessened, but I really think that this is a move in the wrong direction.

Posted by seble on 11/30/2011 8:43:00 AM (view original):
To clarify the RPI comments, there is no change to the RPI formula itself.  That will continue to mirror real life.  The change is to the logic that picks and seeds teams for postseason play.  That will no longer directly use RPI.  RPI is ok as a simple high-level measure of a team, but it is limited.  The new logic will score each game based on win/loss, margin, opponent RPI, opponent rank, and location.  There's also consideration given for last 10 games as well as conference tournament performance.  I forgot to mention those components in the chat.

If an opponents RPI and rank are going to be used to score each game, hopefully it is the teams FINAL season-ending rank and RPI that are used in the scoring for all games, as opposed to the rank/RPI at the time you played them. Otherwise it's a meaningless measure, since teams will move up or down considerably over the course of the season, and the season-ending numbers will more accurately assess the quality of the competition.  

Posted by rogelio on 11/30/2011 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cornfused on 11/30/2011 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Also,

 Can you expand on the changes on complaining about playing time? Personally I don't see an issue as the teams it effects are those that are stacked from top to bottom. I don't see why a former 4 star or 5 star shouldn't leave after riding the pine for two seasons. (stinenavy - Hall of Famer - 2:32 PM) I've made a small reduction in the expected minutes for players, so there should be fewer guys complaining. At some point I'd like to go even further to make the logic smarter, to look at the makeup of the roster and some other things


I agree with stine's point - that if BC or UNC or whatever has a player getting 2 MPG that could start anywhere else, he's probably going to complain and then transfer.  At least, often, this'll happen - I'm not talking the 10-to-15 MPG role players on contenders, I'm talking the 750s and 800s that the superteams at the top are forced to bury on their depth charts.

Seble seems to make the exact OPPOSITE point here - You think players should be transferring?  Well, I've made some changes so they'll be less likely to even complain.

I am with Cornfused on this.  The risk that a player will transfer needs to be increased for lack of playing time.  In real life, recently a number of UNC players have transferred (mostly to UCLA)!  I don't really care if the WE hit is lessened, but I really think that this is a move in the wrong direction.

Just an addition here, I'm a big advocate of more player movement via transfers. If a player isn't receiving 8 minutes or whatever arbitrary number as a SO or JR he should leave the team. Period. Whether he be a former top flight recruit at Duke, or a scrub at a D- school.

Posted by dacj501 on 11/30/2011 10:45:00 AM (view original):
Seble, with this last ten games thing can we at least get variability in conference schedules year to year? My SEC team faces the toughest teams in the conference all mostly at the end of conference play. We typically win 3/4 or more of the first batch and like 1/5 of the second. Since the same teams are good all the time and it is really hard to become an A+ starting in the middle of a BCS, now with this last 10 thing I might be stuck in the PIT forever...

Agreed on both points.

IRL there's much more variables on how your team will play from to end. (Injuries, chemistry, etc.) The last 10 games doesn't signify the same as in this sim.

More randomization of the schedules would be a small improvement of the game.

Posted by girt25 on 11/30/2011 10:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 11/30/2011 8:43:00 AM (view original):
To clarify the RPI comments, there is no change to the RPI formula itself.  That will continue to mirror real life.  The change is to the logic that picks and seeds teams for postseason play.  That will no longer directly use RPI.  RPI is ok as a simple high-level measure of a team, but it is limited.  The new logic will score each game based on win/loss, margin, opponent RPI, opponent rank, and location.  There's also consideration given for last 10 games as well as conference tournament performance.  I forgot to mention those components in the chat.

seble, last 10 games is a silly and ineffective measure to use in HD.

In real life, it can be (though certainly isn't always) indicative of how a team is trending.

In HD, it's mostly a function of how strong a conference you play in, if there are a lot of sims, etc.

100% agree with girt here.

Posted by acn24 on 11/30/2011 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 11/30/2011 10:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 11/30/2011 8:43:00 AM (view original):
To clarify the RPI comments, there is no change to the RPI formula itself.  That will continue to mirror real life.  The change is to the logic that picks and seeds teams for postseason play.  That will no longer directly use RPI.  RPI is ok as a simple high-level measure of a team, but it is limited.  The new logic will score each game based on win/loss, margin, opponent RPI, opponent rank, and location.  There's also consideration given for last 10 games as well as conference tournament performance.  I forgot to mention those components in the chat.

seble, last 10 games is a silly and ineffective measure to use in HD.

In real life, it can be (though certainly isn't always) indicative of how a team is trending.

In HD, it's mostly a function of how strong a conference you play in, if there are a lot of sims, etc.

100% agree with girt here.

Same here - can't see any reason that "last 10" would be a useful addition to HD tournament picks/seeding decisions.

Posted by rogelio on 11/30/2011 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 11/30/2011 9:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 11/29/2011 10:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by salag on 11/29/2011 9:58:00 PM (view original):
I would like to see changes to FSS in the future, but thats for future discussions, the changes being made now are good, and necessary. The bigger stuff will take much more time, I would presume.

I think FSS should be, as mentioned above, available to everyone, and the decision should be who should i recruit rather than, should I scout New York or PA?

salag, I actually disagree with this. I see your point. But in DI, I think having open FSS would allow better teams to spot non-local "diamonds in the rough" and steal them away from lesser local teams, and I think that's a bad thing that outweighs any positives. (And I do like the decision making of deciding who much you want to spend on FSS, too.)

Agree - when we tested the new engine we all had unlimited access to FSS.  The top prestige teams could basically just look through the recuits and pick out the best ones to recruit.  It made it EVEN EASIER for them to dominate.

I also cannot understand people's current "diamond in the rough comments".  The current system is designed to have JUST THAT.   There are crappy basleine players out there with high/high potential in several categories.   Unless you spend FSS money and most likely scouting trips, you would not otherwise pick these players up.

I strongly agree with girt and mullycj.  Having FSS free (in its current form) would ruin this game for me and, I expect, most everyone else.  The joy of this game is that it is a wonderful resource allocation and partial information game.  If FSS is free, then the teams with the bigger budgets will always find and have the funds remaining to sign the highest potential recruits.  

Perhaps an alternative way to address issues with the FSS cost structure would be to increase the volume discounts from 10-15-20% to say 10-20-35-50%.  Also, there should be an FSS available for internationals; maybe 6 separate regions available (e.g. Canada, Puerto Rico & Carribean, Central & South America, Europe (incl. Russia), Africa, and Asia).   It makes as much sense that FSS is not available internationally as that all Korean players are generated with Chinese names!

Interesting ideas on FSS.

1. Agree - free FSS would be awful!  awful awful.

2. very well said - resource allocation and partial info game - those are foundations of the game

3.  I wonder whether there is a way we could get "foggy" imprecise info about potentials - which would permit there to be surprising diamonds in the rough now and then.  Meaning now and then kids who are a good bit better - or worse - than their potentials....the kid who comes out of nowehere.....

4.  another recruiting idea - wouldnt it be great to look at the recruits who are a year away.....no FSS on them.....maybe round all their numbers to nearest 5......for some fogginess......

The "updates" on EE's and playing time/transfers are very disconcerting. 

Posted by dacj501 on 11/30/2011 10:45:00 AM (view original):
Seble, with this last ten games thing can we at least get variability in conference schedules year to year? My SEC team faces the toughest teams in the conference all mostly at the end of conference play. We typically win 3/4 or more of the first batch and like 1/5 of the second. Since the same teams are good all the time and it is really hard to become an A+ starting in the middle of a BCS, now with this last 10 thing I might be stuck in the PIT forever...

Don't get too caught up in the last 10 thing.  It's not a big factor, just a little boost for teams that finish strong.