All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Idea to Consolidate Worlds
4/28/2013 5:44 PM
The thing is, the instant gratification generation still has money that's worth just as much as your money
4/29/2013 12:40 AM
Posted by emy1013 on 4/28/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
I'd love to see the 7 one-a-days contracted to about 4 and the 3 two-a-days consolidated into 1.  When I first started playing HD about 8 years ago, if you wanted a specific D3 team, you had better be waiting up right at 3 a.m. when the world rolled over because if you weren't and you tried to wait until the morning to grab your team, it was looooong gone. 

When Tark opened on the first day at 12 noon, I tried to grab a team at 12:15 p.m. and I was too late.  No teams left.  Every D3 team in that world was gone in less than 15 minutes.  That was the heyday of HD, no doubt.  The worlds were mostly full, very competitive, and extremely fun.  Gotta disagree with you there CBG, full worlds weren't a disaster, by a longshot.

I understand what you're saying about coaches getting frustrated and quitting, but when I started, I took beatings for a few seasons.  Didn't make me want to quit, made me even MORE determined to be successful.  My take is a little different than yours, I guess.  My take is that, yes, people want to be successful and experience success, sure.  But the coaches you're talking about, the ones that quit after an unsuccessful season or two, well we probably didn't need them anyway.  I'd rather have coaches that work to try to improve as opposed to coaches who have that "instant gratification generation" attitude and think that they're entitled to something and want the easy route instead of having to  work to get to that destination............and oh good gracious, I just realized that I sound EXACTLY like Tbird right now, so someone please shoot me (but you get my point, I think).

What I'm saying is, full worlds with competitive, dedicated coaches would be a wonderful thing, not a disaster.  You'd weed out the riffraff eventually by replacing those "entitled" coaches with the "dedicated" coaches over a period of time and then you'd have an extremely fun game to play, not a disaster.  But that's just my opinion.
emy, i think we both know how much i'd enjoy the competition of a full world, ive always hated empty conference and loved the competition of the great ones. a full world might be the only thing that could get me to take this game seriously again. however, i dont think what you or i would enjoy most speaks to what the masses enjoy, and the game has to be profitable. if HD had the population, they could make a "champions world" or put together a world where it only rolls when its full, something like that, and i'm sure we'd both be there.

its not even just about the new coaches, a lot of people might have the fight to work up, and weeding guys out there isnt so bad. but even when you get to d1, i think that would knock plenty of guys out at that level. the reality is coaches who are able to get to a competitive world and out play the guys with major advantages are the exception, not the rule. the majority of d1 coaches had to claw their way into the BCS conferences, and many guys will succeed in one world, struggle in another. if you take the 50 guys like that, and put another 200 in there, most of the coaches who succeed in getting to the big 6 in a year, dont succeed. big 6 jobs would be so coveted, almost nobody would give them up, and if you have a very generous 5 openings a year, being filled by 250 other coaches... thats a mean time of FIFTY seasons to get a BCS job!! do you really think a guy, after clawing through full d3 and d2 worlds, making him a pretty successful coach... that he has the patience to wait 50 seasons, on average, for a BCS job? i just dont see. that is a game built for the elite, and i dont think it can sustain. 

now maybe if you totally reworked d1 in its entirety, something like that could work. really recruit generation at ALL levels would have to be totally redone, the only thing that makes the game viable is that the worlds are so empty, with this recruit generation. so many recruits are pure ****, with their low ratings and crap potential, i mean it would just be a total bloodbath the whole way. i just cant see people by and large being able to stomach that, and being able to enjoy the game when they are playing in d3 with a center who has 45 rebounding, 40 ath, and 50 low post, and that is one of the better players they have...
4/29/2013 12:44 AM
That they do, I'm not debating that at all.  They don't have the patience (hence the "instant") or, in many cases, the stick-to-it-ness to play beyond a couple of losing seasons.  It's an "I want it all and I want it NOW" attitude that's becoming more and more prevalent everywhere.  Once again, I'm starting to sound like Tbird, but look around and you see it all the time.  Things run in cycles, this is just one, and it too shall pass.  No telling what the next cycle will be like, could be better, could be worse, only thing to do is wait and see.  Their money is worth just as much as mine is, yep absolutely, but will they stick around to spend it if they aren't immediately successful at the game.  My guess, for the majority, is no.  Then how much is their money worth?  Nada.
4/29/2013 12:48 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2013 12:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 4/28/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
I'd love to see the 7 one-a-days contracted to about 4 and the 3 two-a-days consolidated into 1.  When I first started playing HD about 8 years ago, if you wanted a specific D3 team, you had better be waiting up right at 3 a.m. when the world rolled over because if you weren't and you tried to wait until the morning to grab your team, it was looooong gone. 

When Tark opened on the first day at 12 noon, I tried to grab a team at 12:15 p.m. and I was too late.  No teams left.  Every D3 team in that world was gone in less than 15 minutes.  That was the heyday of HD, no doubt.  The worlds were mostly full, very competitive, and extremely fun.  Gotta disagree with you there CBG, full worlds weren't a disaster, by a longshot.

I understand what you're saying about coaches getting frustrated and quitting, but when I started, I took beatings for a few seasons.  Didn't make me want to quit, made me even MORE determined to be successful.  My take is a little different than yours, I guess.  My take is that, yes, people want to be successful and experience success, sure.  But the coaches you're talking about, the ones that quit after an unsuccessful season or two, well we probably didn't need them anyway.  I'd rather have coaches that work to try to improve as opposed to coaches who have that "instant gratification generation" attitude and think that they're entitled to something and want the easy route instead of having to  work to get to that destination............and oh good gracious, I just realized that I sound EXACTLY like Tbird right now, so someone please shoot me (but you get my point, I think).

What I'm saying is, full worlds with competitive, dedicated coaches would be a wonderful thing, not a disaster.  You'd weed out the riffraff eventually by replacing those "entitled" coaches with the "dedicated" coaches over a period of time and then you'd have an extremely fun game to play, not a disaster.  But that's just my opinion.
emy, i think we both know how much i'd enjoy the competition of a full world, ive always hated empty conference and loved the competition of the great ones. a full world might be the only thing that could get me to take this game seriously again. however, i dont think what you or i would enjoy most speaks to what the masses enjoy, and the game has to be profitable. if HD had the population, they could make a "champions world" or put together a world where it only rolls when its full, something like that, and i'm sure we'd both be there.

its not even just about the new coaches, a lot of people might have the fight to work up, and weeding guys out there isnt so bad. but even when you get to d1, i think that would knock plenty of guys out at that level. the reality is coaches who are able to get to a competitive world and out play the guys with major advantages are the exception, not the rule. the majority of d1 coaches had to claw their way into the BCS conferences, and many guys will succeed in one world, struggle in another. if you take the 50 guys like that, and put another 200 in there, most of the coaches who succeed in getting to the big 6 in a year, dont succeed. big 6 jobs would be so coveted, almost nobody would give them up, and if you have a very generous 5 openings a year, being filled by 250 other coaches... thats a mean time of FIFTY seasons to get a BCS job!! do you really think a guy, after clawing through full d3 and d2 worlds, making him a pretty successful coach... that he has the patience to wait 50 seasons, on average, for a BCS job? i just dont see. that is a game built for the elite, and i dont think it can sustain. 

now maybe if you totally reworked d1 in its entirety, something like that could work. really recruit generation at ALL levels would have to be totally redone, the only thing that makes the game viable is that the worlds are so empty, with this recruit generation. so many recruits are pure ****, with their low ratings and crap potential, i mean it would just be a total bloodbath the whole way. i just cant see people by and large being able to stomach that, and being able to enjoy the game when they are playing in d3 with a center who has 45 rebounding, 40 ath, and 50 low post, and that is one of the better players they have...
All you have to do to solve that problem is ramp up firings to the level that they SHOULD be.  Were firings being done correctly, there would be plenty of open jobs every season, BCS problem solved.  Let coaches know right from the start what the basic standards needed to keep their jobs were, let them know that if they don't meet those standards they would be **** canned, and start the world.  You know, the whole thing we're having major issues with now----communication problems.  Ramp up firings and the logjam dilemma you just described disappears.  Easy enough.
4/29/2013 12:56 AM
As far as the ratings thing, why shouldn't D3 players have those ratings?  90+ ratings are for the elite players, the D1 players.  If a 50 Reb rating was a badass rating for a D3 player, coaches would adjust.  It's all relative.  As it stands now, in the current game, there are players in D2 and D3 with ratings that are WAY too high for that level, if you're being realistic for what the ratings should REALLY be.  You shouldn't see D2 guys pushing an 800 overall rating, but they show up all the time.  There are D3 players right now who should be on the low end D1 teams, let alone D2 squads.  The ratings are all relative and if 50 became the new 90 for D3 and 70 became the new 90 for D2 (which is honestly about what it should be), coaches WOULD adjust.  Those that didn't would just get left behind.  Yes, it's nice to see your D3 player with two or three categories in the 90's, but is it realistic?  Really?  I mean, really?  If you're REALLY being honest about the game, that guy is a high end D2, low end D1 guy "in real life".  Sure it might not look pretty to have a D3 guy capped out in the high 50's, low 60's for a rating, but that's what most D3 players realistically are, not 90's.
4/29/2013 1:01 AM
As far as your idea of a "Champions World", maybe that would be more in line with what I'm talking about in my two previous posts.  Get the best of the best in there, put some teeth into firings, adjust the ratings to the appropriate levels, and let it rip.  Make it by invitation only (some minimum type standard would have to be set, but that's a debate for another day).  It would be fun to see all the top dogs going at it.  Just don't be mad when I kick your *** on a continuous basis, okay CBG?
4/29/2013 7:04 AM
Posted by emy1013 on 4/28/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
I'd love to see the 7 one-a-days contracted to about 4 and the 3 two-a-days consolidated into 1.  When I first started playing HD about 8 years ago, if you wanted a specific D3 team, you had better be waiting up right at 3 a.m. when the world rolled over because if you weren't and you tried to wait until the morning to grab your team, it was looooong gone. 

When Tark opened on the first day at 12 noon, I tried to grab a team at 12:15 p.m. and I was too late.  No teams left.  Every D3 team in that world was gone in less than 15 minutes.  That was the heyday of HD, no doubt.  The worlds were mostly full, very competitive, and extremely fun.  Gotta disagree with you there CBG, full worlds weren't a disaster, by a longshot.

I understand what you're saying about coaches getting frustrated and quitting, but when I started, I took beatings for a few seasons.  Didn't make me want to quit, made me even MORE determined to be successful.  My take is a little different than yours, I guess.  My take is that, yes, people want to be successful and experience success, sure.  But the coaches you're talking about, the ones that quit after an unsuccessful season or two, well we probably didn't need them anyway.  I'd rather have coaches that work to try to improve as opposed to coaches who have that "instant gratification generation" attitude and think that they're entitled to something and want the easy route instead of having to  work to get to that destination............and oh good gracious, I just realized that I sound EXACTLY like Tbird right now, so someone please shoot me (but you get my point, I think).

What I'm saying is, full worlds with competitive, dedicated coaches would be a wonderful thing, not a disaster.  You'd weed out the riffraff eventually by replacing those "entitled" coaches with the "dedicated" coaches over a period of time and then you'd have an extremely fun game to play, not a disaster.  But that's just my opinion.
But those "instant gratification coaches" help pay the bills and keep the lights on.
4/29/2013 7:06 AM
Posted by emy1013 on 4/29/2013 12:58:00 AM (view original):
As far as the ratings thing, why shouldn't D3 players have those ratings?  90+ ratings are for the elite players, the D1 players.  If a 50 Reb rating was a badass rating for a D3 player, coaches would adjust.  It's all relative.  As it stands now, in the current game, there are players in D2 and D3 with ratings that are WAY too high for that level, if you're being realistic for what the ratings should REALLY be.  You shouldn't see D2 guys pushing an 800 overall rating, but they show up all the time.  There are D3 players right now who should be on the low end D1 teams, let alone D2 squads.  The ratings are all relative and if 50 became the new 90 for D3 and 70 became the new 90 for D2 (which is honestly about what it should be), coaches WOULD adjust.  Those that didn't would just get left behind.  Yes, it's nice to see your D3 player with two or three categories in the 90's, but is it realistic?  Really?  I mean, really?  If you're REALLY being honest about the game, that guy is a high end D2, low end D1 guy "in real life".  Sure it might not look pretty to have a D3 guy capped out in the high 50's, low 60's for a rating, but that's what most D3 players realistically are, not 90's.
Agree here though. If the ratings were changes you would have a few seasons of whining how players "suck now" then there would be adjustment as all of the old super layers filtered out of the system and then with a new normal there would be new "super players" at a different level.
4/29/2013 10:48 AM
Posted by emy1013 on 4/29/2013 1:01:00 AM (view original):
As far as your idea of a "Champions World", maybe that would be more in line with what I'm talking about in my two previous posts.  Get the best of the best in there, put some teeth into firings, adjust the ratings to the appropriate levels, and let it rip.  Make it by invitation only (some minimum type standard would have to be set, but that's a debate for another day).  It would be fun to see all the top dogs going at it.  Just don't be mad when I kick your *** on a continuous basis, okay CBG?
That might be interesting, though I'd be skeptical that you could keep that world filled. Maybe a DI only world... 
4/30/2013 10:01 AM
No, no, no.

I don't really want to play in a full world of humans. I like having some games versus humans and some versus sims.

4/30/2013 11:50 AM
Posted by bistiza on 4/30/2013 10:01:00 AM (view original):
No, no, no.

I don't really want to play in a full world of humans. I like having some games versus humans and some versus sims.

Just wondering why Bistiza?
4/30/2013 1:18 PM
There are some advantages to playing a mix of humans and sims.  The game just wouldn't be as fun for me if it was all humans.

What's the great appeal to having a full world anyway?

4/30/2013 1:23 PM
Some people don't like auto wins.
4/30/2013 1:29 PM
OR has said this forever, and it's been echoed here: A totally full world would not be a good thing. People need to feel like they have a better chance to win. No one wants to be the 3-13 team in their conference. That doesn't mean it's catering to those who need "instant gratification", it's just a basic understanding of how humans interact. Having a certain # of sims in each world serves a valuable purpose.

Fuller worlds would be good. Totally full worlds would not.

(And that of course doesn't address the massive collateral damage caused by trying to eliminate worlds, which is the bigger problem.)
4/30/2013 1:37 PM
You know, it's not particularly hard to create a schedule with few to none sims.
of 3
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Idea to Consolidate Worlds

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.