How to be successfull in the new HD Topic

haasdr
Posts: 99 (0)
Hall of Famer
163 2 41 4
Prospect
one of my biggest beefs of potential was that we could not maximize a team and tailor it to our needs based on practice plan. the "what if" factor was gone because everything was essentially predetermined before recruiting.

although we still are limited based on potential, i'm looking forward seeing this rolled out, assuming it works well. seems like some of the "what if" factor in terms of recruiting a specific type of team is more back in play.
5/3/2010 5:09 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 5/03/2010
Personally, I think the certain positions should have some sort of minimum. If the player is listed as a PG, they should not have a 20 BH with low potential. Guards should have a minimum of X at BH and P, PF and C have X at LP and Reb. Or at least have the chance to get there with potential. Why even have positions listed then? Why not just have a bunch of players and the coach chooses the position they play.

I'm all for having big men with good PER, etc... but there needs to be some definition of position and penalties for playing out of position.



I agree with this mainly because height isn't taken into account. There is no reason why you should be able to let your 6'4 SF who has 83ath/70sp and 99D guard my 6'11 C who has 60ath/55sp and 96LP and have any success. However if there is no position penalty couple with individual matchups meaning this SF should be able to do a great defending a guy who is 7 inches taller.
5/3/2010 6:04 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/3/2010 6:26 PM
tmacfan12
Posts: 336 (0)
Hall of Famer
355 4 2
Prospect
Can someone who has tested the engine please answer a few questions for me.

1: How has your distro changed from the old engine to the new one.

2: How has your positioning changed from the old engine to the new one.

3: How do you set your depth chart to get the most out of your team.

4: How well does exploiting matchups on the other team work.

Thank you.
5/3/2010 7:16 PM
elvis87
Posts: 19 (0)
Pro
16
Prospect
I didnt change a thing.
5/3/2010 7:18 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
I think it's nearly impossible to get concrete answers about how specific things work with just 1 test season. Think the jury will be out until we all play a couple of seasons and decide for ourselves how different things are.
5/3/2010 7:57 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
Um. .there hasn't been just one test season?
5/3/2010 8:17 PM
hitman1979
Posts: 449 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 166 148 31
Prospect
I definitely don't like the sound of things so far.
5/3/2010 8:26 PM
barretchap
Posts: 194 (0)
Hall of Famer
321
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 5/03/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 5/03/2010

Personally, I think the certain positions should have some sort of minimum. If the player is listed as a PG, they should not have a 20 BH with low potential. Guards should have a minimum of X at BH and P, PF and C have X at LP and Reb. Or at least have the chance to get there with potential. Why even have positions listed then? Why not just have a bunch of players and the coach chooses the position they play.

I'm all for having big men with good PER, etc... but there needs to be some definition of position and penalties for playing out of position.




I agree with this mainly because height isn't taken into account. There is no reason why you should be able to let your 6'4 SF who has 83ath/70sp and 99D guard my 6'11 C who has 60ath/55sp and 96LP and have any success. However if there is no position penalty couple with individual matchups meaning this SF should be able to do a great defending a guy who is 7 inches taller.
Perhaps they should split defense into two or more categories...interior defense and perimeter defense?
5/3/2010 9:12 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 5/03/2010
Personally, I think the certain positions should have some sort of minimum. If the player is listed as a PG, they should not have a 20 BH with low potential. Guards should have a minimum of X at BH and P, PF and C have X at LP and Reb. Or at least have the chance to get there with potential. Why even have positions listed then? Why not just have a bunch of players and the coach chooses the position they play.

I'm all for having big men with good PER, etc... but there needs to be some definition of position and penalties for playing out of position.



disagree, why not just get rid of "positions" being assigned to players, they are essentially arbitrary.
5/3/2010 9:15 PM
tkimble
Posts: 1347 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 335 1 1
Rookie
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/3/2010 10:43 PM
brianp87
Posts: 1340 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 46 89
Prospect
I didnt experience increased injuries. It is in the 3rd season right now.
5/3/2010 10:44 PM
tribewriter
Posts: 561 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 2 40 172 4 11
Pro
I only played GD for a few seasons, but I recall switching players' positions numerous times after they were signed, based on their core attributes.
5/3/2010 11:45 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/3/2010 11:57 PM
sully712
Posts: 124 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 301 2 22
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/4/2010 7:50 AM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...8 Next ▸
How to be successfull in the new HD Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.