Things That Bother Me - Page 2 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 511 (0)

Hall of Famer

143 5

Pro

1. Too many carry overs being called. IRL this gets called once in a blue moon. In my six games this season it has been called 12 times.
2. No team rebounds. IRL after a shot, the ball does sometimes go OOB off an offensive player.
3. No tie ups or alternating possessions.
4. From the May 12, 2010 release:
- Player rate of development slowed a bit more to increase the need for strategic decision making in the practice plan
Yet - by their senior season almost all players are red in almost all categories and I'm devoting 25-30 on "conditioning". How about making practice a truly strategic decision - i.e., I can fully develop a PG's passing or ball handling ability over four years, but it will come at the cost of ever fully developing his perimeter and/or low post game?
5. Durability means nothing. Not every injury has to be devastating - IRL players twist ankles and get the flu. How about increasing these 1 game type injuries throughout the season.
6. The FCP is still allowed as a standard defensive set. FCP is a situational defensive tactic that IRL most all teams employ from time to time to disrupt tempo and create extra pressure. There is NO team IRL that runs a FCP for 40 minutes, and there are certainly no players conditioned to stay on the floor for 25 to 35 mpg when running an FCP

3/25/2012 5:48 PM

emy1013

Posts: 2731 (0)

Hall of Famer

899

Prospect

I couldn't agree more with number 4.

3/25/2012 6:30 PM

bow2dacowz

Posts: 1135 (0)

Hall of Famer

20 40 415 1 1

Prospect

as far as #4 goes the only thing i dont like about that is that it would kind of defeat the purpose of potential in recruiting. because potentially a guy with 2 develop-able skills would be of the same value as a guy with 4 develop-able skills. the strategy, IMO, comes in recruiting and finding the guys who are worth bringing in and developing more-so than only being able to develop some skills once the guys get to your school

3/25/2012 7:37 PM

usc4life

Posts: 326 (0)

All Star

21

Prospect

Posted by bow2dacowz on 3/25/2012 7:37:00 PM (view original):
as far as #4 goes the only thing i dont like about that is that it would kind of defeat the purpose of potential in recruiting. because potentially a guy with 2 develop-able skills would be of the same value as a guy with 4 develop-able skills. the strategy, IMO, comes in recruiting and finding the guys who are worth bringing in and developing more-so than only being able to develop some skills once the guys get to your school

+1

3/25/2012 10:11 PM

possumfiend

Posts: 511 (0)

Hall of Famer

143 5

Pro

Posted by bow2dacowz on 3/25/2012 7:37:00 PM (view original):
as far as #4 goes the only thing i dont like about that is that it would kind of defeat the purpose of potential in recruiting. because potentially a guy with 2 develop-able skills would be of the same value as a guy with 4 develop-able skills. the strategy, IMO, comes in recruiting and finding the guys who are worth bringing in and developing more-so than only being able to develop some skills once the guys get to your school

I don't see why you think the two are mutually exclusive, and I certainly don't see why so many players have to more or less achieve all of their potentials by the start of their senior seasons. There are certainly ways to set it up so that your player with four high potential skills is still a better recruit than the player with two high potential skills (everything else being equal) and yet a coach would still be forced to make strategic decisions in setting practice schedules.

3/25/2012 11:03 PM

bow2dacowz

Posts: 1135 (0)

Hall of Famer

20 40 415 1 1

Prospect

even if that were true i fail to see why it's an improvement or any different than what we have now. you're just dumbing down the skills of the players and taking out one of the enjoyable parts of the game which is really being able to see the development of your guys. sure you might still be able to make the 4-high guy better than the 2-high guy...but it won't be by nearly as much as he would be under the current system. the current system rewards people who are strong recruiters...and perhaps some people don't like that...but it is a college hoops sim, and the single greatest element to the success of any real college program is recruiting.

the reality is that most college basketball players reach their highest potential and max out in their abilities by their senior year in college, and save for the chosen few who go on to play in the NBA, most of them will never again be as good as they are in their Sr season. and yeah, while most guys are mostly red before their careers are over (which again I think is realistic) i've certainly had guys with huge potential caps that never hit their ceilings...so it's not as if every single player is red by the time sr year rolls around. if you want more guys that will still have potential to grow as seniors....then recruit more players with high potential.

3/26/2012 12:36 AM (edited)

possumfiend

Posts: 511 (0)

Hall of Famer

143 5

Pro

I'm all for rewarding "strong recruiters", but not at the cost of punishing coaches who have the ability to develop talent. A great coach not only spots and recruits players with potential, but also helps develop that potential. IRL, not every high potential recruit pans out, and some recruits develop more than anyone ever expected, but in WIS once I outbid my fellow coaches for that recruit with high potential in four core categories my job is essentially done. I can put it on cruise control for three seasons to WATCH the development of my guys. And then in his senior season I set the recruit's practice plan to run line drills for 25 to 30 hours because there is no longer anywhere left for him to improve. There is very little skill or strategy in this, and very little surprise. I don’t think potential should be completely random, but I don’t think most players should just automatically reach their peaks - end of story. It’s boring.

And is there any empirical evidence to back the assertion that most college basketball players reach their highest potential and max out in their abilities by their senior year in college and that most of them will never be again be as good as their senior season? This strikes me as ridiculously subjective and unverifiable. I mean, who's to say he wouldn't continue to grow as a player if he were to continue playing somewhere after his senior season?

3/26/2012 4:25 AM

bow2dacowz

Posts: 1135 (0)

Hall of Famer

20 40 415 1 1

Prospect

the point is the vast majority of them will never again play basketball at a level nearly as high as college ball. some may go on and play professional, but the vast majority do not. they start a career, a family, and are not going to the gym every day to play with and against other college players. they might play a pickup game once a week against the guys in their neighborhood, but it's nowhere near the same.

you dont need empirical evidence to back that assertion. it's called common sense.

3/26/2012 9:30 AM

rednation58

Posts: 630 (0)

Hall of Famer

53

Rookie

I agree with your statement to a point. I do believe there are potential caps in real life which is why I do like the potential system here in WIS. I see it as the guys who will continue to get better are the guys that have the highest probability of getting to the pros. But some guys for whatever reason just don't have the same threshold of potential and they cap. IF what you are saying is true about potential, then there would be more Jordans and Kobe's who continue to get better even in their basketball twilight years. Potential is not unlimited no matter what strategy you use. There are only a handful of those guys that just have the WE to keep getting better. Maybe WIS could make WE more of a factor in breaking potential caps but other than that,in this sim, what strategy would you use to help a player break his cap limits? Everyone knows and accepts that the game is more about recruiting than anything else and I honestly love sitting back and watching my players grow especially if i recruited those players through tough battles. I guess I'm just saying if the guy has the talent to go play on another level, a college coach really doesnt have the tools nor the environment to unlock that potential. If x player has that potential he'd probably end up leaving your school any way in pursuit of something greater.

3/26/2012 9:44 AM

jskenner

Posts: 246 (0)

Hall of Famer

249

Prospect

Signing an ineligible who goes Juco. That's not the bothersome part, which is that the recruiting engine doesn't list him as considering you until 8pm, so no other teams know and jump in. Not really bad, but I do wish he'd show considering before 8pm, so other teams will see it. Not that big a deal.

3/26/2012 9:48 AM

trobone

Posts: 615 (0)

Hall of Famer

73 12 10

Rookie

the thing that bothers me is the hiring process... i mean how can i not be eligible for a B- arkansas job, and what's the different between not qualified and keep looking and longshot?

3/26/2012 10:01 AM

jskenner

Posts: 246 (0)

Hall of Famer

249

Prospect

With the job process changes, I'd guess about 20% of DI coaches see jobs as "qualified." Most years now, all I see is different versions of not qualified (not qualified, longshot and keep looking) and step backwards. It's so odd WIS would create such a weird, frustrating situation almost every new season for its paying customers. If they don't get it fixed, more and more DI coaches who feel unjustly stuck in DI backwaters, will leave worlds. I'm in 3 right now, and as soon as I feel cheated in this way, I'll just have to drop the teams, one by one. I really like most of the HD product, but things like this make it simply too tough to keep paying.

3/26/2012 12:37 PM

possumfiend

Posts: 511 (0)

Hall of Famer

143 5

Pro

Posted by bow2dacowz on 3/26/2012 9:30:00 AM (view original):
the point is the vast majority of them will never again play basketball at a level nearly as high as college ball. some may go on and play professional, but the vast majority do not. they start a career, a family, and are not going to the gym every day to play with and against other college players. they might play a pickup game once a week against the guys in their neighborhood, but it's nowhere near the same.

you dont need empirical evidence to back that assertion. it's called common sense.

Agreed that once a player stops playing competitively his skills will diminish and he will never be that good. That is common sense. What is not common sense it to believe a player entering into his senior season is as good as he ever could or will be and that he has actually maxed out all his potential. This isn't meant to imply limitless potential, just that practice shouldn't be so heavily devoted to conditioning during the senior season. Maxing out potential should be the exception not the rule and should closely correlate with WE.

3/26/2012 1:02 PM

isack24

Posts: 1566 (0)

Hall of Famer

81 19

Prospect

Posted by bow2dacowz on 3/26/2012 9:30:00 AM (view original):
the point is the vast majority of them will never again play basketball at a level nearly as high as college ball. some may go on and play professional, but the vast majority do not. they start a career, a family, and are not going to the gym every day to play with and against other college players. they might play a pickup game once a week against the guys in their neighborhood, but it's nowhere near the same.

you dont need empirical evidence to back that assertion. it's called common sense.

But those things are by choice or necessity, right? Not because they tried to play basketball but couldn't get any better.

Players peak because they stop playing, not because they are at their literally peak. I actually agree with overall point about keeping things the way they are now, but I don't agree about this.

Actually, I think there is evidence that most men peak physically in their mid-20s, which would almost certainly mean that if most college players kept playing competitively after college, they would probably get better.

3/26/2012 1:04 PM

possumfiend

Posts: 511 (0)

Hall of Famer

143 5

Pro

Posted by rednation58 on 3/26/2012 9:44:00 AM (view original):
I agree with your statement to a point. I do believe there are potential caps in real life which is why I do like the potential system here in WIS. I see it as the guys who will continue to get better are the guys that have the highest probability of getting to the pros. But some guys for whatever reason just don't have the same threshold of potential and they cap. IF what you are saying is true about potential, then there would be more Jordans and Kobe's who continue to get better even in their basketball twilight years. Potential is not unlimited no matter what strategy you use. There are only a handful of those guys that just have the WE to keep getting better. Maybe WIS could make WE more of a factor in breaking potential caps but other than that,in this sim, what strategy would you use to help a player break his cap limits? Everyone knows and accepts that the game is more about recruiting than anything else and I honestly love sitting back and watching my players grow especially if i recruited those players through tough battles. I guess I'm just saying if the guy has the talent to go play on another level, a college coach really doesnt have the tools nor the environment to unlock that potential. If x player has that potential he'd probably end up leaving your school any way in pursuit of something greater.

rednation, I'm not arguing for limitless potential because I do agree that there are caps in real life. My point is that so many players shouldn't be maxed out entering their senior season so that I have to spend so much time in practice on conditioning. I think development and the abilty to max out should be tied to WE as you suggest, and I also think that assuming an average WE and an average number of minutes devoted to practice in each category that by the END of the senior season a player would still be about 2 to 5 points shy of their max cap in any given category. That way during the course of their career I have the ability to put more effort into helping a PG max out in perimeter, but it may mean that instead of being 2 to 5 points shy of his cap in block shots or passing, he is 7 to 10 points shy of that particular cap.

The numbers I use aren't meant to be exact or specific, but rather are meant to illutstrate the point that the game could be more challenging without significantly dumbing it down if we had to decide whether three points of potential in perimeter was worth three points in passing.

3/26/2012 1:12 PM

Forums

Things That Bother Me Topic

Search Criteria