HD Losing Interest? - Page 17 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

kudo's to taz and daalter for taking the time to really think about things!

For many of those who leave do, this becomes too time consuming once the initial interest wears off - tends to sort of run its course, lots of the vets from the very beginning that have kept playing keep a pretty low profile, the most active players seem to be those with medium tenure.

I sure don't know if the turnover is an issue, and if it is getting worse, better or about the same.

I am not so sure any changes will rememdy some of those realities, but there still is a logical sequence of steps needed to be taken to try.

8/23/2007 1:09 PM

taz21

Posts: 470 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 93

Prospect

thanks for the feedback Daalter.

Alblack, 1/2 of my teams are in D1, the other 1/2 are in D3. I realize not all those ideas would benefit a D2 or D3 coach, and I'm all ears for ideas to improve that level of the game.

Which brings me to another idea about D2/D3 recruiting. I liked the idea when they modified drop down recruiting, but now I've found that it makes recruiting in D3 way too easy if you have a high level of prestige at your school.

Under the old system, w/ enough prestige I could see a bunch of recruits that would show up under a D3 search. They'd be classified as a D2 recruit so that not all D3 schools could see them, plus you had the fear that a D2 school would turn to one of these kids right before signing to fill a need. You had to enter recruiting cautiously, fending off any other D3 school that would make a move, but also worry about a D2 school ascending late.

Under the new system, you simply wait for the signing process to begin, or maybe target a few local recruits early on. Once the drop downs begin and signings have started, you can throw a couple K at a kid, get him to consider you in 1 cycle, then sign the next. Meanwhile if you've got enough prestige, you'll see him before most other D3 schools, so the competition is for that recruit on a D3 scale is minimal. Furthermore, at the same time, D2 schools are now in the process of looking for D1 drop downs and are not using the D2 drop downs as backup options, which means you have little fear of a D2 school swooping in on the kid.

Maybe I shouldn't complain, afterall its good to be king and having a D3 program in the top 20 of D3 schools in a particular world has some nice benefits to recruiting that allows it to remain a top 20 program. However, for the benefit of the game, I think a middling point b/w the old system and new system would probably benefit all, especially the newbs looking to built up a dynasty in a particular world. If a newb walked into the wrong conference w/ a bunch of high prestige schools, he may have trouble gaining ground in conference play as they can't compete on the same level for recruiting talent. Even if the coaches in that conference are as helpful as can be, if they can't recruit on the same level, they may not be able to garner enough talent to ever be a serious threat to win a divison title.

8/23/2007 1:11 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

taz - I guess part of my indifference about d2/d3 recruiting is it is so darned easy.

Trouble is so many of the most loyal, active HD coaches are the major benefactors of the current system,

SO I hesitate to suggest this, but the game would be well served to have one unchanging d3 board for ALL teams, with a minimal or no prestige factor based on success....this would seem so much fairer to new coaches, who more or less are going to get pasted by the active, veteran, super dynasty d3 coaches anyhow.

8/23/2007 1:17 PM

taz21

Posts: 470 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 93

Prospect

agreed somewhat OR.

Another thought, that I've mentioned before to both the board and to Admin is the addition of published prestige ratings. According to Admin about 3-4 months ago, they were suppose to be out around this time frame.

I wouldn't neccessarily go w/ a 1-300+ list ranking, but rather a list that included:

Top 10 schools,

Then 15 more in the top 25, then the top 50 programs, then the top 100, top 150, top 250, and everyone else.

That could be implemented at every level and would give us one more thing to get excited for w/ the close of every season. Like recruiting, you're AD could even have a buddy on the inside that knows you came in ranked #56, so while you show up in the top 100, you're very close to being a top 50 program.

8/23/2007 1:39 PM

daalter

Posts: 326 (0)

Hall of Famer

40

Prospect

I agree with Taz, finding a happy medium between the old system and new would be best. I'm definitely against the old, static system -- I think the idea of dropdowns is a great and realistic one, but I do agree w. you guys that they took it too far.

Taz, have you thought about how to achieve that happy medium? OR and I have talked about this a bit recently. Maybe keep things similar to the current system, but fewer players actually drop? That way you couldn't just sit around and rely on them, and if you did you'd be taking an actual risk. Or maybe having some of those bottom "DI" guys that no DI school would ever recruit be part of the DII player pool?

8/23/2007 2:02 PM

jason5

Posts: 90 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 54 63

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 8/17/2007
unfortunately for conversations like these, gameplanning might be way overrated.
I wonder if 1000 games were simmed at each of -5 all the way to +5, nothing else changes at all, vs 2 equal teams, just what the variation in wins vs losses might be .... as many of you know, my guess (it is a guess), is not much variation!

I think this is the biggest problem with the game right now. For a while I would change my positioning from -4 to +1 for every game by looking at the other team. In my opinion though I really don't think there is much difference at all between a -4 or +1. I'm sure there is to some extent but I've had way too many games that didn't make sense to think it's that big of a deal.

This was confired for me when I was gone a few weeks this summer. I set my teams to -1 and they did very well. So it's not much of a game when you don't even need to check in for a couple weeks and your team still does great.

I sent in a ticket about it and it seems that they are pretty comitted to making a game that doesn't take much time to play. I think they hope this will attract a lot of customers. It's my feeling though that many will become bored and just leave. I've been thinking about dropping my teams for a while. I don't know that I'll actually be able to do it after spending a few years working up to them (and I've played for free for two years) but it's tempting to just walk away.

8/23/2007 2:23 PM

taz21

Posts: 470 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 93

Prospect

Honestly, no I haven't thought about what a happy medium would be, but I'd me willing to listen and give ideas after thinking about it.

What I know at the moment, was that in the recent Wooden recruiting season, I signed a 440ish PG w/ no promises, one of the higher end speed ratings of D3 signees (64), decent BH & Passing and an A- free throw grade to go w/ his 56 WE. Then I added a 482 rated SF that I informed of a redshirt. 49/53 speed/ath combo w/ a 49 WE and not a single skill under 20. Polished off the class w/ a 472 rated C w/ solid passer/BH ratings, 31/38 speed/ath combo, 50+ rb & LP, and ok defense (27).

The previous season I got the kid that had the highest speed rating amongst kids showing up on a D2 signing search (which means he was assurdly the fastest recruit at a D3 school, and faster than 75% or more D2 recruits), and a C w/ 26/41 speed/Ath combo and a 70+ rebound rating to go w/ his 50+ lp rating.

I was the only school to ever show up on any of these kids list, and really didn't have to work hard to land any of them. All of those kids would have been major dog fights in the old system.

The question is how to change it for the betterment of all. Less drop downs would be a start. I'd say more kids start out being open to D3/D2 schools that are currently classified as a D2/D1 kid w/ the potential to drop down. This would allow newbs taking over crappy programs the ability to at least recruit the intial (lets say 35%) of drop downs on equal grounds as the rest of D3 coaches. They'd see them at the same time as everyone else. Perhaps make the next 15% or so to drop at the same time to all D3 programs, then the last 50% would drop as they currently do to give coaches w/ longer tenure and prestige some of the advantage that they've earned.

8/23/2007 2:28 PM

taz21

Posts: 470 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 93

Prospect

from another thread, but I thought I'd bring the ideas here as well:

OK, good idea or bad idea:

Should schools start looking for coaches based upon different criteria? Currently every school looks for coaches under the same criteria and determins which coach has the best resume based upon a formula that WIS has created.

What if, a school was looking for the "hot coach"? perhaps it doesn't care as much about long term success (though that wouldn't hurt), but is more interested in what you've done the last 2-3 years, and especially the last season.

Other schools would care less about how deep you went in the NT this year, they're more concerned about the 10+ 20 win seasons and consistant success.

Other schools would never hire a coach that has put his school on probation, even if they sanctions have all passed, and the rep is back up to an A+, while other schools wouldn't care if your rep was a C as long as you won games. Some schools would look specifically into how well your players do in the classroom. Got a bunch of academic all american, but a mediocre level of on court success, then sign up for Harvard, they're gonna love ya.

I'd expand the loyalty rating as is, but allow for schools to hire coaches w/ a B loyalty rating or even lower. Some would require an A or A+, others wouldn't care if it was an F as long as you won games (Larry Brown U would love ya). In order to keep an A+ loyalty rating, you're gonna have to stick at your programs 6+ seasons on average. You leave on average every 4 years, then your loyalty would be a B. Move even quicker than that on average, perhaps your loyalty drops to a C or lower. The time spent at any particular school would be factored in so that your 10 years spent at the same D3 school would show that you are indeed loyal after jumping straight to D1 for 2 seasons before moving on to the next job for 4.

8/23/2007 2:43 PM

mullycj

Posts: 2737 (0)

Hall of Famer

214 1

Prospect

Good suggestions .... but honestly I think they need to fix the current bugs before they roll out new features/improvements.

The job hiring process is a perfect example. The criteria has been changing dramatically recently and many coaches have been screwed out of promotions. It's that type of site break down that puts a bad taste in a coaches mouth and makes it easier for them to start dropping teams.

8/23/2007 3:48 PM

mullycj

Posts: 2737 (0)

Hall of Famer

214 1

Prospect

After sh&t like this, count me in as one of those one step closer to the door.... SIM engine rim job at its best.

Pittsburgh 1-1

STARTERS	MIN	FGM-A	FGM3-A	FTM-A	OFF	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
David Davis, c	25	2-10	0-0	4-4	3	8	0	0	1	1	2	8
Jeffrey Lawrence, pf	26	2-6	0-0	4-6	2	9	0	4	2	2	4	8
Reginald Ransdell, sf	26	1-7	0-3	4-6	1	5	0	5	0	0	2	6
Daniel Rice, sg	28	2-6	2-4	1-2	0	0	1	0	0	1	4	7
Stephen Helton, pg	27	2-8	1-3	0-0	1	2	0	9	1	0	3	5
BENCH	MIN	FGM-A	FGM3-A	FTM-A	OFF	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
Walter Sykes, pf	15	1-3	0-0	0-1	2	6	0	0	0	0	0	2
Byron Littlejohn, sg	15	0-1	0-0	0-0	0	0	2	1	0	0	3	0
Roger Rowe, pf	14	3-5	0-0	2-2	3	5	0	0	1	0	1	8
Terry Keenan, pf	14	1-2	0-0	0-0	0	2	1	1	2	0	2	2
John Williams, sg	10	0-0	0-0	1-2	0	0	2	1	0	0	1	1
Totals	200	14-48	3-10	16-23	12	37	6	21	7	4	22	47
Percentages		.292	.300	.696

Wyoming 1-1

STARTERS	MIN	FGM-A	FGM3-A	FTM-A	OFF	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
Christopher Linn, pf	24	2-6	0-0	2-2	1	6	1	1	1	1	3	6
Eugene Regan, pf	23	4-6	0-0	4-10	4	13	1	4	0	2	1	12
Charles White, sf	29	3-12	0-2	0-0	1	4	0	4	2	0	3	6
John Buchanan, sg	31	3-5	3-5	2-4	0	0	4	0	0	0	1	11
Michael Schoenrock, pg	30	3-7	1-4	5-6	0	3	5	3	2	0	2	12
BENCH	MIN	FGM-A	FGM3-A	FTM-A	OFF	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK	PF	PTS
Wayne Peters, pf	20	2-5	0-0	1-2	0	1	0	2	2	1	5	5
Donald Porter, sg	20	3-5	1-1	1-1	1	3	2	0	2	0	3	8
Wesley McCalvin, c	17	1-2	0-0	0-0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	2
Lee Drake, c	4	0-0	0-0	2-2	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	2
Robert Magana, sf	2	0-0	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Totals	200	21-48	5-12	17-27	7	32	13	14	9	4	19	64
Percentages		.438	.417	.630

8/24/2007 11:23 AM

colorblind79

Posts: 670 (0)

Hall of Famer

138

Prospect

wow. That's a lot of off games all at once.

8/24/2007 12:12 PM

mullycj

Posts: 2737 (0)

Hall of Famer

214 1

Prospect

...vs DI 603 TR SIM powerhouse .....

8/24/2007 12:18 PM

daalter

Posts: 326 (0)

Hall of Famer

40

Prospect

Mully, I think there is plenty wrong with the sim, I just don't think that one game can ever be effective evidence of that. Teams have awful games all the time. If it's a trend, that's another story.

8/24/2007 12:19 PM

vandydave

Posts: 2124 (0)

Hall of Famer

28 1 1 843 273

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By daalter on 8/23/2007
Quote: Originally Posted By taz21 on 8/23/2007

Making use of VD's survey, or perhaps on HD creates on their own could help them. They changed Free throw shooting, though many didn't see it as a problem. They've seemingly changed the frequencies of injuries, though I'm sure most coaches want as few as possible, even if it doesn't reflect real life. Find out from us what we want to be "realistic" and what we want to be more "gamish"
Yes. One of the most respected coaches in HD puts together a comprehensive survey comprised of active coaches and (according to what he told me) they basically just shrugged their shoulders. The ft change was just horrendous; injuries are another good example. Talk to people and see what they want. Real life is great, but it's not more important than your customer base.

yeah, i basically was told "nice work, but we already knew most of that as we are in touch with our customers."

if i was running this company i would have wanted to personally call the person who ran this as they got responses from 52 of the HD users who are likely the highest volume HD spenders in all of HD and had some real dialogue with the survey creator about the survey. WIS either felt threatened, got defensive, or just genuinely didnt care.

8/24/2007 12:34 PM

vandydave

Posts: 2124 (0)

Hall of Famer

28 1 1 843 273

Prospect

08/24/2007

Beginning next week, we will be introducing changes to how team prestige is handled. Prestige will be much more fluid based on the recent success of your team as well as the conference as a whole. In addition, prestige will be visible on both your office page as well as every team profile page as a letter grade (A+ through D-).

See, this was something heavily mentioned in the survey, maybe Admin was already working on it, maybe the survey results helped inspire it, but with communication as it exists, who knows?

8/24/2007 12:44 PM

Forums

HD Losing Interest? Topic

08/24/2007

Search Criteria