All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > 1000 mile rule now driving distance?
7/30/2013 1:42 PM (edited)
i agree, colonels is arguing a different point (and i dont think TJ is being unreasonable at all - its fine to disagree in a civil manner, colonels, you are really doing your opinion an injustice by expressing it the way you do).

TJ, thats a reasonable point you make, i just dont think thats an issue, personally. i do agree its easier to coach 2 teams in 1 world than 2 teams in 2 worlds, for some people (myself included). but, i think the comparison should be your 1 team vs a coach with 1 team, IMO, for each team. if you get an advantage over coaches with 1 team, thats a problem. now, if you are able to handle more teams because you combine worlds, you might have 4 teams instead of 2. so to say, well, are those 4 teams easier than another guy with 4 teams in different worlds? thats apples to oranges. really if the coach with 4 would only have 2 in 2 different worlds - are those 4 teams now easier than another guy with 2 teams in different worlds? thats more reasonable, IMO, but i still prefer to team-by-team compare the situation to a coach with 1 team in that world. its no easier for me to coach one of my teams in tark than it is for you to coach your single tark team. its just not twice as hard for me to coach 2. but i have no advantage on the team to team comparison - and that is really what matters, isnt it? or is it necessary for coaches to suffer if they want multiple teams? that seems like an unreasonable standard, to me. further, if having multiple teams allows coaches to pick up more teams, that seems pretty valuable for a game needing users, to me!
7/30/2013 1:52 PM
Posted by mullycj on 7/30/2013 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 7/30/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Trentonjoe thinks that guys have 2 teams in the same world so they'll have to "recruit less"...ha!...there's nothing more to say here...he doesn't know what he's talking about.
You arent understanding his point.     Recruiting is one of the few times during the season when you need to make sure you have available computer access.   If I have 4 teams accross 4 worlds then I basically need to be online constantly the whole month.  If I have 4 teams in one workd then I only have to be online heavy for those 4-5 days a season.

1000 clicks in 4-5 days still takes the same amount of time as 1000 clicks in 30 days but its easier to plan your live around those 4-5 days.
Not for people who work. I'd actually argue it was more annoying when I had two teams in the same world. I don't have a lot of time during the day as it is. But any additional time beyond what I usually spend cuts into when I'm going home that night. I have 20-30 minutes to screw around each day regardless whether I'm recruiting. I don't have 45 minutes to an hour.
7/30/2013 2:04 PM
Then you're way too ethical. 
7/30/2013 2:14 PM
Posted by mullycj on 7/30/2013 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 7/30/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Trentonjoe thinks that guys have 2 teams in the same world so they'll have to "recruit less"...ha!...there's nothing more to say here...he doesn't know what he's talking about.
You arent understanding his point.     Recruiting is one of the few times during the season when you need to make sure you have available computer access.   If I have 4 teams accross 4 worlds then I basically need to be online constantly the whole month.  If I have 4 teams in one workd then I only have to be online heavy for those 4-5 days a season.

1000 clicks in 4-5 days still takes the same amount of time as 1000 clicks in 30 days but its easier to plan your live around those 4-5 days.
I do, I just never heard anyone say "I have 2 teams in the same world because I want to spend less time recruiting"...never, and that's why I think he's way off base.  Don't underestimate the annoyance of logging in and out of accounts multiple times in a 5 day period...
7/30/2013 2:45 PM (edited)
you havent colonels? i have said that a hundred times, kind of surprised. i had multiple teams in tark initially because i wanted to keep old teams, and because i enjoyed 2/day tark more than 1/day rupp. but ultimately i sought out additional IDs in tark purely to combine recruiting efforts. and its really not about the time spent - its about the time spent on a specific schedule. i cant just be free 6-8 on a given day every week. once a month, i can manage. the *ONLY* reason i had more than 1 d1 tark team is to combine recruiting sessions. i had dropped to 2 teams in tark and wanted more teams, and instead of picking them up elsewhere, i decided it *had* to be tark, because i couldnt stand the schedule hit - the reality is if i was allowed 1 team per world, i would never have had more than 2, while i got up to 4 in tark and generally had 3.

i later found its nearly impossible to recruit effectively for 3-4 teams in that initial 2 hour cycle, but you know, it is what it is. i think the #1 thing hurting my success the last 3-4 years is by far lack of interest - but after that, its no question, its having 3 teams in tark at a time. so TJ i would sort of argue multiple teams in a world makes it harder, you neglect them more. even with 2 big classes just with 2 teams in a world, i always had to prioritize - who is top dog, who takes the hit if i run out of time? with 3 teams id often find myself missing the first couple cycles on my d2 team, which more or less was a crushing blow, as i love that program intensely. i just didnt really like d2 recruiting anymore like i did d1 so my d2 team suffered mightily because of my d1 teams. under no circumstance can i see me having 2-4 teams in tark ever helping me. it just made me split my time up so i neglected all or all but one of my tark teams. with how close we got in the year of renewed interest before my retirement, having multiple teams in tark, as opposed to split getting appropriate time, probably cost me multiple titles across those teams. so i really cant see multiple teams as a benefit, unless you intentionally cheat, and still, who has time for that ****? its really a huge pain in the *** in my experience, using a recruiting tool and having to find those players within HD. im sure 2 teams is just as bad or even worse, because they are both in the browser. 

the sad thing is this game is about fun, not all of us can shuffle our lives around with HD as the top priority. i had more fun with multiple teams in tark than i ever could have restricted to 1 team/world. i think my cynical attitude of late may hide the fact, or make it easy to forget, that in many respects, i am one of HD's biggest all time fans. i spent more time per team on this game for a couple years than anyone ive heard of, and then i spent more time on the forums for the following couple years than anyone ive seen. just because in the end seble ground me down, doesnt mean i didnt love this game as much as anyone else has, and most likely, more than 95% of users ever did. who else game planned a half hour a game, and loved every minute of it? i mean, im sure there are others, but i really did love this game to an incredible extent. i was a student of the game for so long, its sad things have gotten where they are now. its retarded the kind of enjoyment i had in this game is stifled to prevent the perception that maybe some idiots are sharing FSS data. its really a sad thing, for that to happen. thats the tragedy here, not that a few idiots share FSS data to save a little money and gain a little advantage. i just feel like people have lost sight of what really matters, that this is supposed to be a low-stress high-enjoyment proposition.
7/31/2013 8:32 AM
Posted by colonels19 on 7/30/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 7/30/2013 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 7/30/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Trentonjoe thinks that guys have 2 teams in the same world so they'll have to "recruit less"...ha!...there's nothing more to say here...he doesn't know what he's talking about.
You arent understanding his point.     Recruiting is one of the few times during the season when you need to make sure you have available computer access.   If I have 4 teams accross 4 worlds then I basically need to be online constantly the whole month.  If I have 4 teams in one workd then I only have to be online heavy for those 4-5 days a season.

1000 clicks in 4-5 days still takes the same amount of time as 1000 clicks in 30 days but its easier to plan your live around those 4-5 days.
I do, I just never heard anyone say "I have 2 teams in the same world because I want to spend less time recruiting"...never, and that's why I think he's way off base.  Don't underestimate the annoyance of logging in and out of accounts multiple times in a 5 day period...
Just have 1 browser dedicated to 1 team and another browser for the other.
7/31/2013 8:47 AM
Come on man, don't take away the straws he grasping at.....


7/31/2013 10:41 AM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/31/2013 8:47:00 AM (view original):
Come on man, don't take away the straws he grasping at.....


You still haven't addressed why, if it such a huge advantage and affects the fairness of the game, it is expressly allowed by the fair play guidelines (provided your teams are >1000 miles apart)?
7/31/2013 11:05 AM
Your putting words in my mouth.   I think it is a significant advantage and I think it is one that people ignore.

What it boils down to me is why do you need/want two teams in the same world as opposed to two different worlds.  The only answers I can think of are:

1. It's easier to commit time to recruiting
2. You want to cheat
3. You have teams in every world and want more teams
4. You have always done it that way and want to continue that

There just aren't many #3, I would like to think there aren't many #2s so that leaves #4's and #1.  Which then leads to "why did the #4's pick up a 2nd team"?  I guess I understand  the "I love my team and don't want to lose it but also want to move up" argument.   I just think that is kinda silly but I think I am in the minority on that one.

I don't think I answered your question but it wasn't really a fair assessment of my point  so that's the best I can do. 
7/31/2013 11:57 AM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/31/2013 11:05:00 AM (view original):
Your putting words in my mouth.   I think it is a significant advantage and I think it is one that people ignore.

What it boils down to me is why do you need/want two teams in the same world as opposed to two different worlds.  The only answers I can think of are:

1. It's easier to commit time to recruiting
2. You want to cheat
3. You have teams in every world and want more teams
4. You have always done it that way and want to continue that

There just aren't many #3, I would like to think there aren't many #2s so that leaves #4's and #1.  Which then leads to "why did the #4's pick up a 2nd team"?  I guess I understand  the "I love my team and don't want to lose it but also want to move up" argument.   I just think that is kinda silly but I think I am in the minority on that one.

I don't think I answered your question but it wasn't really a fair assessment of my point  so that's the best I can do. 
Fair enough, and we can definitely agree that we're on different sides of this. My contention is that (assuming no shenanigans) there is no advantage gained my my DI team vs. your DI team because I'd also be recruiting for a DII team, or that my DII team gains an advantage vs. another DII team because I'm also recruiting for a DI team. You still have to scout all potential recruits for both teams, you still have to scout other teams and try to anticipate their actions, you have to follow along to developments as recruiting progresses and assess opportunities and threats, etc. The time spent on recruiting stays the same, it is all spent during the same 5 day period, and not multiple ones.

So I'd say that while yes, it provides one coach added convenience, it does not provide teams any advantages.
7/31/2013 12:12 PM
I have (what I think) is an interesting suggestion, and could help alleviate concerns over the 2 teams/1 world debate.  With FSS, what if you could scout states by division?  Say for Florida, you have options as to what divisions you want FSS for. You could pick D3, D2, D1, or any combination. However, I think this would eliminate the perceived benefit of FSS now, that is if you scout states with a D1 school, you get all info for all divisions, which would benefit your D2/D3 school without having to spend said D2/D3 school's cash. You could also track by user, who scouted which levels. If a D1 coach (with a D2/D3 team) is scouting D3 recruits, chances are he is using his D1 team to cheat the system. I think it could also impact the cost of FSS, by varying the $ cost per recruit, depending on the level. D1 recruits cost say $150 each (or some other amount), D2 cost 2/3rd that, and D3 cost 1/3rd.

Any thoughts?
7/31/2013 12:28 PM
Posted by jkumpulanian on 7/31/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
I have (what I think) is an interesting suggestion, and could help alleviate concerns over the 2 teams/1 world debate.  With FSS, what if you could scout states by division?  Say for Florida, you have options as to what divisions you want FSS for. You could pick D3, D2, D1, or any combination. However, I think this would eliminate the perceived benefit of FSS now, that is if you scout states with a D1 school, you get all info for all divisions, which would benefit your D2/D3 school without having to spend said D2/D3 school's cash. You could also track by user, who scouted which levels. If a D1 coach (with a D2/D3 team) is scouting D3 recruits, chances are he is using his D1 team to cheat the system. I think it could also impact the cost of FSS, by varying the $ cost per recruit, depending on the level. D1 recruits cost say $150 each (or some other amount), D2 cost 2/3rd that, and D3 cost 1/3rd.

Any thoughts?
Biggest problem there is that the division break downs are different for different teams. An A+ DIII team sees more DIII recruits than a B team, which sees more than a C team. Also, breaking things down by division makes FSS more expensive for the lower divisions, who are generally looking at both their level recruits and the division above them.
7/31/2013 12:39 PM
Posted by acn24 on 7/31/2013 12:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jkumpulanian on 7/31/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
I have (what I think) is an interesting suggestion, and could help alleviate concerns over the 2 teams/1 world debate.  With FSS, what if you could scout states by division?  Say for Florida, you have options as to what divisions you want FSS for. You could pick D3, D2, D1, or any combination. However, I think this would eliminate the perceived benefit of FSS now, that is if you scout states with a D1 school, you get all info for all divisions, which would benefit your D2/D3 school without having to spend said D2/D3 school's cash. You could also track by user, who scouted which levels. If a D1 coach (with a D2/D3 team) is scouting D3 recruits, chances are he is using his D1 team to cheat the system. I think it could also impact the cost of FSS, by varying the $ cost per recruit, depending on the level. D1 recruits cost say $150 each (or some other amount), D2 cost 2/3rd that, and D3 cost 1/3rd.

Any thoughts?
Biggest problem there is that the division break downs are different for different teams. An A+ DIII team sees more DIII recruits than a B team, which sees more than a C team. Also, breaking things down by division makes FSS more expensive for the lower divisions, who are generally looking at both their level recruits and the division above them.
This is true, I guess I would have to see how many more D3 recruits an A+ team sees over a C-.  If it's say 25-30 more across the entire country, that's probably not prohibitive. Also, any recruits that drop from D2 to D3 would show up. So if you bought D3 Florida, any D2 Florida recruit that drops would show up when they drop to D3.

As far as the more expensive angle goes, it would be less expensive than now for a D3 team to scout, because now you get D1 recruits included but you wouldn't purchase those, so theoretically it should be cheaper since youd be looking at fewer recruits.

Hypothetical Example:

Current Florida recruits - 200 recruits total (60 D1, 70 D2, 70 D3) - $2,000 to scout, average of $10/recruit
New Florida recruits - 200 recruits total (60 D1 @ $24/recruit for $1,440, 70 D2 @ $16/recruit for $1,120, 70 D3 @ $8/recruit for $560) - $3,120 to scout all 3 levels

Just D1 - $1,440 vs. $2,000 = $560 savings using new plan
Just D2 - $1,120 vs. $2,000 = $880 savings using new plan
Just D3 - $560 vs. $2,000 = $1,440 savings using new plan


D1 & D2 - $2,560 vs. $2,000 = $560 increase using new plan
D2 & D3 - $1,680 vs. $2,000 = $320 savings using new plan
7/31/2013 2:32 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/31/2013 11:05:00 AM (view original):
Your putting words in my mouth.   I think it is a significant advantage and I think it is one that people ignore.

What it boils down to me is why do you need/want two teams in the same world as opposed to two different worlds.  The only answers I can think of are:

1. It's easier to commit time to recruiting
2. You want to cheat
3. You have teams in every world and want more teams
4. You have always done it that way and want to continue that

There just aren't many #3, I would like to think there aren't many #2s so that leaves #4's and #1.  Which then leads to "why did the #4's pick up a 2nd team"?  I guess I understand  the "I love my team and don't want to lose it but also want to move up" argument.   I just think that is kinda silly but I think I am in the minority on that one.

I don't think I answered your question but it wasn't really a fair assessment of my point  so that's the best I can do. 
Only took you about 5 tries to cleary get your point across in this matter...

To add on to #3, which I and others have stated in the past, I will only play 2-a-day worlds, 1-a-days are way too slow, so for us 2-a-dayers, we can only have 3 teams at once, thus someone would be looking to pick up a 4th team and not an 11th.

Again, just to reiterate, I haven't had 2 teams in the same world since mid to late 2010, so it doesn't really concern me, but I don't have a problem with those that have multiple teams in any world, whatever the reason.

7/31/2013 7:21 PM
Posted by acn24 on 7/31/2013 11:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/31/2013 11:05:00 AM (view original):
Your putting words in my mouth.   I think it is a significant advantage and I think it is one that people ignore.

What it boils down to me is why do you need/want two teams in the same world as opposed to two different worlds.  The only answers I can think of are:

1. It's easier to commit time to recruiting
2. You want to cheat
3. You have teams in every world and want more teams
4. You have always done it that way and want to continue that

There just aren't many #3, I would like to think there aren't many #2s so that leaves #4's and #1.  Which then leads to "why did the #4's pick up a 2nd team"?  I guess I understand  the "I love my team and don't want to lose it but also want to move up" argument.   I just think that is kinda silly but I think I am in the minority on that one.

I don't think I answered your question but it wasn't really a fair assessment of my point  so that's the best I can do. 
Fair enough, and we can definitely agree that we're on different sides of this. My contention is that (assuming no shenanigans) there is no advantage gained my my DI team vs. your DI team because I'd also be recruiting for a DII team, or that my DII team gains an advantage vs. another DII team because I'm also recruiting for a DI team. You still have to scout all potential recruits for both teams, you still have to scout other teams and try to anticipate their actions, you have to follow along to developments as recruiting progresses and assess opportunities and threats, etc. The time spent on recruiting stays the same, it is all spent during the same 5 day period, and not multiple ones.

So I'd say that while yes, it provides one coach added convenience, it does not provide teams any advantages.
1. Many guys have teams in the same division .. for example, 2 division 1 teams. How does that impact your analysis of advantages for a coach with 2 teams.

If you had Div-2 team in Colorado and a Div-1 team in North Carolina ... you scouted Virginia and West Virginia with the Div-I team and you are running out of money on your Div-2 team. You know that Player A in West Virginia (which you scouted from your Div-1 NC team) would be a good drop down for you on your Div-2 as you see his FSS from your Division-1 team. Do you then decide to buy FSS from WV from your Div-2 Colorado team? Did you gain an advantage on Player A in that case? I say that you did gain an advantage if you chose to scout WV based on knowing that Player A was good based on the Div-1 FSS info.

How do you make sure not to get an advantage like that ... maybe by never scouting the same states with both teams in FSS.

Maybe by never recruiting from the same state with both teams?
of 13
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > 1000 mile rule now driving distance?

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.