Posted by ettaexpress on 5/4/2014 2:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/3/2014 6:48:00 PM (view original):Well I didn't say there shouldn't be variance, but doesn't mean you should necessarily know it from subscribing to a scouting service.
Posted by ettaexpress on 5/3/2014 6:05:00 PM (view original):thats how it used to work, where there was no potential for each rating. growth ran off practice plans, work ethic, and playing time. this allowed you to basically mold players however you wanted. every 60 per player with decent work ethic could graduate with 90 per. every big man could go up about 30 passing unless he started god awful, every guard could gain 30 lp unless he started god awful (or had bad work ethic).
I actually think FSS (and scouting) gives you too much information, and free information is too plentiful. I got a guy taken from me last cycle that was 20 miles from campus, no one had done anything with him until right before signings, and then USC-Upstate of all places (my team is in michigan) comes in on him.
It's even worse in D3. Most of the time IRL, D3s recruit locally and regionally, or they use a standout academic reputation to attract players. Of course, that's another issue with D3 on this game (that you can offer scholarships, which is not accurate). Most D3s IRL wouldn't have any clue what players were on the other side of the country.
I knew a coach IRL that recruited a lot like nick -- basically he relied on a network of people he trusted to provide contacts, and then did a lot of calling and mailing and tried to get them to visit campus. If he got to that point, he usually got a commitment from the player. It's not as common these days but worked well for that hall of fame coach.
But back to FSS and potential. I think it would be much more effective to have potential be a function of current ability, work ethic, IQ (which needs ot be completely overhauled in its own right), maybe more ratings than that but you get the idea.
in general, we feel its more realistic to have variance in the growth curves of a given player, for different ratings. it was totally unrealistic the way it was before, not every player can go up 10% from the line, not every player can greatly improve their jump shot, not every player can greatly improve their defense, or athleticism, or speed. not to say the current model couldn't be improved upon, but what you suggest has no difference for a given player, on their growth curve, for any rating. to me, that is grossly unrealistic. but really, i don't care all that much about realism, but strategy and enjoyability, and the current method has way more strategy in terms of team planning and all, than the old method or your suggestion. the combination of strategy, enjoyability, and realism, is why we have the method today, instead of the old method, which is much like what you are suggesting.
in this game, d3 is a training ground for d2 and d1, its like a place to practice. its important, for that reason, that d3 has similar mechanics to d2. you could change "offer scholarship" to "offer spot", but that is basically nitpicking semantics, isn't it? we all know you can't give athletic scholarships in real life, but if you did that in HD, it still makes no difference on the levelness of the playing field for d3 schools. i'd have no problem if they just reworded it to "offer spot" but i also couldn't care less if they don't.
But in general it does follow that the players that are good shooters in high school are the ones that are great shooters in college. I disagree that the current way is more strategic. What's strategic about 'recruit the guys with a lot of blue'?
You want the way you understand. For you enjoyability =/ realism because you don't know that much realism. So much that you don't even understand what I was suggesting.
Never mind, have it the same crappy way you have it now. I mean that's why people are beating down the doors to get in and all the spots are full, right? That's why you all are setting up facebook pages to try to drum up interest? Because everything's so great right now?
You have even less understanding of how not having a scholarship to offer affects decision making on D3 schools. I'm not even going to attempt to straighten you out on that because like you said, you don't care about realism anyway. It's pretty surprising though considering you're considered a demigod here and you went to a D-III school IRL, and still you don't seem to get it at all.
oh, i see now wildcat/nacho, i missed this one in which etta reverted to his old condescending bs. i was extremely helpful giving advice about his team in that thread he started, the one about his team being so bad, to try to make things more civil between us - but i guess he just doesn't want it that way.
etta, your basic reading comprehension is remarkably poor for someone pursing an MBA. i said not being able to offer a scholarship, but being able to offer a spot on the team, wouldn't affect the levelness of the playing field for d3. IN HD. it even says "in HD" that in the sentence. come on, you can do better than that - we know you are no savant, but we know you are not mentally retarded, either. presumably, if seble implemented this change, being offered a spot on the team would be worth less effort than offering a scholarship in d2 or d1. seble could also alter the way d3 recruiting works in other ways, such as making players more likely to want to play close to home. i'd be down for suggestions like those, but not the ones you made.
also, you claim that "[i] want the way [i] understand". years ago, in HD, the ability to grow (aka potential) was a function of current ability and work ethic, while growth was a product of the player's potential and his practice and playing time. this is a heck of a lot like what you described ("to have potential be a function of current ability, work ethic, IQ (which needs ot be completely overhauled in its own right), maybe more ratings than that but you get the idea")
, and back then, i had no problem winning championships, either. so its a little stupid to suggest i don't understand how that would work. i understand both ways just fine - while you understand neither. i like the current way because it enhances the strategy. im not even going to attempt to straighten you out on that one, because like you said, you don't seem to care about this game anyway. however, given that you have played 3 seasons, and your biggest claim to fame is managing to win one game, given the enormity of your recruiting blunder - its NOT surprising that you don't seem to get it at all.
5/5/2014 11:41 PM (edited)