Interesting. Major recruiting update kind of scares me, to be honest.

I have heard similar things mostly the interface updates. And the recruiting thing scares me also. I'm just now figuring out recruiting now we gonna change it. Well hopefully for the better.

Posted by pjbrankin on 8/26/2015 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Interesting. Major recruiting update kind of scares me, to be honest.

Yeah, I think recruiting works pretty well.   
Maybe they will allow minor contact with recruits during the previous season (to see if they can be pulled down, etc)?

I'd like to see a move to re-align conferences somehow to match real life.

i think recruit generation is pretty bad...

I'd like to see a "pep talk" feature, were once or twice a season I could have the option of giving my team a good talking to before the game and they'd perform 10% or so above their baseline for the entire game.

I definitely think recruiting could be better.

I'm sure a lot of other people playing this game have played other sports sims, and I think many of them have recruiting features that could be cool to implement. Basically, I think recruited players should have motivations aside from simply how much money is spent recruiting them. Things like offering the right major, academic rep, offensive and defensive sets used, success of players at their position, etc. Could definitely be used as huge factors in recruiting. Spending money on them should obviously be important, but other factors could be weighed in heavily as well.

I also don't love how FSS works. Bluntly, it's WAY TOO ACCURATE. It would be really cool if you're scouting was more accurate on local players than players across the country. Maybe there could be multiple services rating players, maybe those services could be different than one another, or flat out wrong. I think it would be nice to be able to review game film on a number of players as opposed to just spending higher amounts on scouting trips.

It would also be interesting to see more in-season recruiting implemented.

But, I would personally like to see the game engine tweaked over recruiting tweaks. I think, and I know many agree, that ATH/DEF are just too overpowered. And, as others agree as well, I think ratings overall should be scaled back. A guy having a 100 in anything should be incredibly rare.

Commence discussion of these changes and sarcastically tearing me to shreds for the lack of updates.

i'd like for my scout to name names, rather than just telling me we're not even in the same league as the other team's in attendance during a scouting trip. and it'd be nice if i get the core attributes for my guards (sp/ath/def/bh/passing) and bigs (ath/reb/def/shot blocking) in the first or second scouting trip...instead of telling me about the lack of shot blocking skills on my guards every scouting trip.

I used to play Mogul baseball and instead of number rating for potential they had 1-5 stars, so you could be a 4 star but there are varying levels of 4 star players. I think that would be nice for recruiting so you don't know exactly what the player will be. 

I also think D1 recruiting needs to be overhauled. 

Honestly my bigges thing for recruit generation would be getting rid of the absolutely unrealistic players with 1 speed or 6 athleticism or 7 def.  These guys aren't collegiate athletes, or even real athletes.  The rating system should be clearly defined such us the rating system is rating off collegiate play, so a 98 LP is very rare and elite, but in the nba it would maybe be a 86 or something but for D1 collegiate play its some of the best offense.  LIkewise while their should be bad players there should be very few sub 10 ath/def players I can see the occasional 12 ath 80 speed guys, as I have friends I play basketball with that fit that stereotype, they can sure as hell run striaght line speed, but are otherwise pretty uncordinated.  I'd also like to see ath/def not as correlated, i think it is some of the 2 ratings that do correlate a lot in real life, but I think there should be more exceptions where you can have high ath players without being great defenders, or high def ratings but low on ath.

Going back to recruit generation and under the assumption the in game engine is not changed, I really want the players through D1-3 more "real" the guy who won't hit 30 def or 40 ath should not be going D1 even with 99 per/99 bh/99pas I'd still be lead to believe they will not be able to be successful at high end D1 and should not be ranked as the #76 PG or something like that, I could see unranked and then sign with a high D2 or really bad D1.  Same with the big man of 25 ath 30 def but 99 reb/sb/lp I do not believe under the current game engine that player is really ranked as the #49 C.  Yes rankings should not be 100% accurate, as they are not in real life, but they should be believable.

Some other big things I want to hit on, if a major recruiting change is in store I'd like to bring to the attention that in real life any sane person does not gain 40 ******* athleticism points in 4 years unless they are doing some major doping even then.  Your telling me the majority of collegiate athletes are doping to a level their athleticism is going from 30 to 75.  If a major recruiting change is in place I'd like to see more realistic changes, this would honestly be the biggest change as ath should really never get much better unless we are talking strength.  I could still believe massive defensive increases as that makes sense, as well as speed.  Another big thing is IQ, IQ should be more like how ratings work, the should have a starting letter grade and a potential similar to FT rating is done.  I think their should be a slight correlation to HS GPA as well, but barely noticeable maybe something like 2 players 1 with 3.8 GPA and the other is 2.2 and they both start C- blue IQ then maybe the 3.8 GPA ends with A compared to the 2.2 guy with a B/B+.  As well as I think IQ should be able to be higher for incoming freshmen I think it makes the game value upperclassmen too much which is a reverse trend of where at least upper D1 basketball is going.  I think placing too much value on IQ/upperclassmen makes class structure a big thing when it really isn't, the only time I can think of it being a factor at least in big D1 is when florida had a bunch of seniors 2 seasons ago, but teams don't really go through cycles of elite play and non elite play based off class stucture, yes it does make a factor for a lot of teams, like I know OSU had a down year after their NC run in 07(i believe 08 was NIT) and florida struggled in 13.  But it should not be as rigid as HD where if you have no upper classmen you cannot compete even if your players are going to be very good.  I still think superclasses should be better than a more balanced class, but i dont think the super classes should have a supreme advantage as well as not also totally sucking when they are only underclassmen especially if they are talented.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my question to you is do you think the ratings are linear? I know ratings work in conjunction with other ratings, but I've always kind of believed that ratings are presented more on a percentile scale. So a guy with a perimeter rating of 1 might equate to someone who shoots 30% from the the perimeter against average competition, a 2 maybe shoots 32%, a 50 might shoot 48%,and a guy with a 98 rating maybe shoots 58% but the graduation between intervals of ratings isn't uniform. I guess what I'm saying is I always kind of believed ratings represent the normal distribution of results among players playing college basketball so a1 rating merely represents the lowest value of normal among college players. I could be wrong though.

Posted by possumfiend on 8/26/2015 3:37:00 PM (view original):
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my question to you is do you think the ratings are linear? I know ratings work in conjunction with other ratings, but I've always kind of believed that ratings are presented more on a percentile scale. So a guy with a perimeter rating of 1 might equate to someone who shoots 30% from the the perimeter against average competition, a 2 maybe shoots 32%, a 50 might shoot 48%,and a guy with a 98 rating maybe shoots 58% but the graduation between intervals of ratings isn't uniform. I guess what I'm saying is I always kind of believed ratings represent the normal distribution of results among players playing college basketball so a1 rating merely represents the lowest value of normal among college players. I could be wrong though.

I do believe thats what it is like as you always see those 1 reb/sb/lp guards or the 1 bh/pas/per big men who against non-collegiate athletes are probably not a 1.  But if that is the case then those 25 ath/def guys still shouldn't be going high D1 under the current engine even with 100 per/bh/pas.  Which is another thing if the 1-100 is based on a collegiate athlete scale then we should have "defined" ranges and should see less 90+ guys and more 60-80 imo as well as more 1-25 guys for things like ath/spd and not be total trash as they are now currently D4 players who get dominated by 70 year old men at the YMCA

So I guess there should be like ranges that we should know that are more concrete kind of like are baseline prestige knowledge where we pretty much know how it works, but not 100%.  Like we should know what the "planned/designed" ranges or real life examples so we can get an understanding like what would someone like Doug McDermott have been specifically his ath we know he was an elite scorer, but he was above average athletically for a D1 player where does that translate to in HD?  60 ath is that considered middle ground?  40 ath?  75 ath?

Also another quick thing I want to put in a spurt about is player minutes and rotation.  At least for Man/Zone players should be able to hit 30+ minutes a game easy, and press either needs to be fixed or an even bigger negative stamina impact.

For rotations I think taking walkons should be a normal occurance, unless you say run uptempo/press and need big rotations but slowdown man teams and zone teams should be capable easily of running 8 man rotations with 2-3 walk-ons.  I think the walkon penalty should not be started untill 4 walkons as every high end team has one.  As well as walkons not being total trash like they currently are, sure it would suck if they played but they should be fine to go in for a minute or 2 as a reward if the team is up big which is a normal occurance at least for OSU.  and they don't get anally raped like you would sending them in in HD.  A lot of these walkons irl played high end high school basketball and are good enough to play at a lower division, but want to attend a school for reasons such as academics, location, family or just not wanting to continue to play high level basketball.  I think instead of generating crap walkons maybe increase the recruits generated so that the walkons are recruits just not talented enough to play at the division they do walkon too.  And those that dont walk on can try going juco as well.

This is very minor, but I'd like to have the option to search recruit names. There have been several times i remember a players name (first or last) but cant remember what position or state they are from and it's a pain searching through all recruits.