Posted by Trentonjoe on 6/29/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Without some level of ambiguity the game becomes a math problem. Which, I think, they are trying to get away from because while it may appeal to the current successful owners, it does not appeal to the masses. My guess, and this is a guess, is that the player retention rate for HD is pretty low and they are trying to appeal to, what they think, the majority of potential customers want, and not what the currently successful coaches want.

I mean, I am sure they are trying to retain us but I think they are trying to make the game more attractive to people who don't want to run spreadsheets for recruiting.

I think that's it in a nutshell. They're never going to be able to please everyone, and they should stop trying. The thing that annoys me most about the game presently is the thing that most of the beta-negative coaches want to hold on to. The math formula set up rewards card-counting (to use the poker analogy) and discourages risk-taking. It's true this is a game - but it's a game that is a simulation of coaching a college basketball program. It's not a poker game. So prior to the announcement of the beta, I had been dropping teams, and getting ready to drop more. After reading about what was planned, I've picked up one, and may pick up more. This is much closer to the college basketball simulation I want to play. I don't want to play a commodities game, or a math formula game.

I'm not worried about "bad beats". I won a guy I shouldn't have won last season, lost a guy I shouldn't have lost this season (to the same team). That's how it should be. I want a game that rewards (and "punishes") calculated risks in ways that make sense for a college basketball simulation. The key determinant to whether or not I get a top flight guy should be how well my team matches his preferences, how much playing time (not frequent flyer miles!) I'm willing to invest, and how well I've invested my scouting resources in players at the right level.

Regarding the original topic, IMO the only real problems are things that just involve tweaking to get the ratios and numbers right - like having more top-100 players wanting to sign late for early entry filling teams, more low-level D1 guys who would rather go juco than sign with a D3 team, that sort of thing. Sniping isn't as much a problem as I thought it might be, but I'd still prefer the preference to be "early" instead of "as soon as possible". In this set-up, I don't think there's any reason to have guys signing with a team first cycle, unless there is only one team on him. Most top-100 players, for sure, should be waiting longer to sign.

Not playing in the beta, so this isn't a comment on it directly.

It seems clear to me that any simulation game needs to be a balance of randomness and skill. I always liked HD because recruiting was skill-based with a bit of randomness (the strategies involved in how you spend your money vs. the randomness of recruit generation) and game play was the opposite (at the mercy of the RNG but you could use game planning to offset it to some degree.).

If this change is really about shifting the balance toward randomness (rather than making the obvious fixes for fairness that the game needs), then its a huge mistake. The people who want to be able to win quickly will do just that and then get bored and move onto the next bright shiny object online. Meanwhile, the people who enjoy the concept of a dynasty game will go elsewhere (such as, if WIS is lucky, HBD).

I remain hopeful that Seble and the coaches who really care about beta will iron things out and come up with a decent product. But it seems like some people just don't get the big picture.

Posted by ojinga on 6/29/2016 8:01:00 PM (view original):
Not playing in the beta, so this isn't a comment on it directly.

It seems clear to me that any simulation game needs to be a balance of randomness and skill. I always liked HD because recruiting was skill-based with a bit of randomness (the strategies involved in how you spend your money vs. the randomness of recruit generation) and game play was the opposite (at the mercy of the RNG but you could use game planning to offset it to some degree.).

If this change is really about shifting the balance toward randomness (rather than making the obvious fixes for fairness that the game needs), then its a huge mistake. The people who want to be able to win quickly will do just that and then get bored and move onto the next bright shiny object online. Meanwhile, the people who enjoy the concept of a dynasty game will go elsewhere (such as, if WIS is lucky, HBD).

I remain hopeful that Seble and the coaches who really care about beta will iron things out and come up with a decent product. But it seems like some people just don't get the big picture.

This is pretty damn close to spot on. I'm not in the beta but one of the ideas that I've heard floating around is that player preferences will play a larger factor in recruiting. The ONLY way to make this "fair" is to make sure that every season the exact same number of recruits preferences are generated for each of the four offenses and each of the three defenses. That there are an equal number of stay at home, go away preferences.

Will every kid even have a preference? And on a serious note, just how important are the preferences? I ask because let's imagine there is a recruit whose preference is to play a zone. That's all he's ever played and that's all he wants to play. And M2M running Duke decides to offer Mr. Zone kid a scholarship. Guess where that kid is going to school next season? Yep, at the M2M school.

One other pet peeve I've had since potential was introduced is why players can hit a cap on their "physical" attributes but their "mental" attributes (IQ for those falling behind, Ward) progress at a linear rate until they leave the school. Pump enough minutes into the team's O and D and you've got a roster full of A+ IQ seniors every year. Why? I know, I know but here comes the realism argument. Does anyone here honestly believe that EVERY KID that plays college basketball could end up with an A+ IQ? We've all seen those players that are dumber than a bucket of hair, why do they still make it all the way to the top? Short version to all that is that IQ should operate on potential just like everything else.

Coaches seem to want all these preferences now, so what do you do coach, recruit a bunch of Ivy League bookworms and kill the other team with efficiency or do you recruit a bunch of less intelligent but perhaps far more physically skilled players and hope that they don't get exposed too badly while they're trying lobs every other possession? When it comes to game play, IQ is one of THE most important variables in the mix, yet there is absolutely nothing stopping every single player from maxing out on that. You want more variety? Well there it is, pretty simple.

Regarding preferences, I don't know exactly what the weights are, but I've been operating under the assumption that they're not all weighted the same way. Sets and style would intuitively be pretty minor, and operating as tie-breakers. Playing time and conference prestige, on the other hand, should be pretty major.

As coach who has no desire to go beyond DIII it really doesn't appeal to me. I do not like the new recruiting at all. The camps only send players who I cant recruit. It has bored me so much that I forgot I was even doing the beta test. Guess I will be gone when it rolls out.

Posted by indyrider123 on 6/29/2016 9:24:00 PM (view original):
As coach who has no desire to go beyond DIII it really doesn't appeal to me. I do not like the new recruiting at all. The camps only send players who I cant recruit. It has bored me so much that I forgot I was even doing the beta test. Guess I will be gone when it rolls out.

The beta is Spudball. All players are fair game and there is absolutely no downside to this whatsoever.

oh emy I guess seble forgot about the suggestions the forum had about making IQ non linear and a numerical grade that was treated similar to current numerical ratings.

But I guess that was too much,,,

To sum up:


1. It takes to long to scout.
2. It's to different and not what "the people" wanted.
3. People with EE don't have good enough guys to recruit in round 2.
4. D3 teams are landing very good players.

D-3 recruiting is also more about luck than skill.

Posted by viva_il_re on 6/29/2016 5:52:00 PM (view original):
wait you mean a game is just a bunch of math formula's!? jesus christ what the hell did you expect? its a game not real life.

I'd rather have a bunch of numbers that make sense that just throwing everything in the air and making it a bunch of random guesses!!!


oh and great ******* response "I don't agree with you" good job you really convinced me

obviously, and i mean really, this is incredibly obvious - he wasn't trying to convince you. he's just registering his dissent. nothing wrong with that.

TJ is a good guy, who has been helpful on these boards for years. you, on the other hand, have digressed back to your terrible twos, and have added absolutely no value throughout this process. at one point, you were a sort-of-useful presence here, but that is not at all the case anymore. just because he disagrees with you, doesn't make TJ an *******. however, how you respond to him for that disagreement, that does make you an *******.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/30/2016 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by viva_il_re on 6/29/2016 5:52:00 PM (view original):
wait you mean a game is just a bunch of math formula's!? jesus christ what the hell did you expect? its a game not real life.

I'd rather have a bunch of numbers that make sense that just throwing everything in the air and making it a bunch of random guesses!!!


oh and great ******* response "I don't agree with you" good job you really convinced me

obviously, and i mean really, this is incredibly obvious - he wasn't trying to convince you. he's just registering his dissent. nothing wrong with that.

TJ is a good guy, who has been helpful on these boards for years. you, on the other hand, have digressed back to your terrible twos, and have added absolutely no value throughout this process. at one point, you were a sort-of-useful presence here, but that is not at all the case anymore. just because he disagrees with you, doesn't make TJ an *******. however, how you respond to him for that disagreement, that does make you an *******.

good post +1

who the hell is viva? does he have another ID

viva is 0nly

made clear when you look at my profile I explicitly state the fact to let everyone know

viva is 0nly

made clear when you look at my profile I explicitly state the fact to let everyone know

there was a time when 10 teams wasn't enough so I doubled on the 2x and then ended up grabbing PBAU/Colorado in the 1x and was running 15 teams.

just had my first EE experience in the beta. A guy who was likely staying left. I put all my AP on a kid who was rather weak, but could be useful. At the end of that cycle, he signed DII. Syracuse - a bad Cuse - could not get a guy to even consider us over DII - to replace a guy who went early to the NBA. I have looked some more and really dont see any players who are worth signing and who dont have some team with a clear lead - which the AP system precludes me from eroding. There is NO answer I can see. Hopeless situations tend to make for boring game play