Posted by cburton23 on 11/18/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 11:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 11/18/2016 10:36:00 AM (view original):
If that's what you wanted then you should have stayed at DII. That has always been what DII is, it just doesn't have a name attached to it. So if its the name you want, then that school should have advantages. The issue could have been solved by fixing firings, but alas we got a complete overhaul that takes more time, is more random and was not needed.

Thinking about it, this is the worst possible answer. Possibly ever.

Let's say I'm a new owner, this was my first post and this was my very first team. Your post then reads:

"Yeah, you're not going to be able to get a top program, they're taken. With some work, you can get a lower tier program in an elite conference. But you're not going to be able to compete. The long-time owners have all the top programs and, under the current system, they get all the top prospects. You'd be far better off stopping in DII and building a dynasty there. Good luck!!!"


Boy, as a brand new user, I'm super excited to get on my way!!!!

Why is that a bad answer? The game is called hoops dynasty, not Duke Dynasty. If the goal is to build a dynasty why does it matter where you build it. What you guys are all asking for is easily available from any EA Sports franchise. The new game does not promote competitiveness it promotes randomness.

In the old system good coaches could still make average schools compete. If you don't like the old system that is fine, but I would say you know nothing about the old system considering you admit you haven't played in years.

It's a bad answer because WifS has a product to sell. This isn't a playground for the guys who have been around the longest(although they seem to think so).

Now you're saying "Go play EA Sports if that's the kind of game you want." Another terrible answer.

As I understand, the "dice roll" is akin to a weighted dice roll. Duke may be "Very high" and have and advantage but VT can be "High" and still get the guy. It's not exactly randomness. Duke makes their pitch and has the best opportunity to get him but it's not guaranteed. Random would be Duke has been on him the entire time then VT, NC State, a couple of D2 and a D3 join the fray. And all have an equal shot at him.

I'm not claiming to be an expert. Anything but. I thought I was clear on that. But I know why I quit and I know why the long-time owners are complaining now. Hence my post.

Posted by cburton23 on 11/18/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 11:40:00 AM (view original):
One of the problems with beta testing, and it can't be replicated with 7-10 accelerated seasons, is the problem I detailed in the original post.

The top jobs were secured by better owners by the time I got there(16 seasons of effort for me). I can accept that. But, once I got to an elite conference, the game sucked because I couldn't compete with the better owners with the better schools. It just wasn't going to be possible using the recruiting process in use. So while that's great for the top 20-30 owners/schools who compete for the title every season, it sucks for the guy who was late to the party.

It's a bad product to try to sell when the top is secured.

Again, this is Hoops Dynasty. There is no reason you can't be competitive at DII no matter when you start

And there should be no reason, barring ineptitude, that I can't compete at D1 if that's my goal.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 10:17:00 AM (view original):
OK, I played the first 20 seasons in IBA so I'm not new. I'm also not familiar with 2.0 or 3.0. But there was a reason I quit after 20 seasons.

The "goal" when I joined was to work my way up to an elite team. I did OK and moved to Elon in S7. Did well there and moved to LaSalle. Finally in S17, I made the ACC but with low level VaTech. The good owners had the good schools by then but I was OK with that because I was in the premier, at the time, conference. Then I got stomped. The first season I realized if Duke or UNC(or another "next" level school) knocked on my hopefully prized recruit's door, I might as well move on.

It took 4 seasons for me to realize that I was pretty much where I was going to be for eternity. Maybe one of the top schools would open up if the owner got bored but, barring that, I would be better off getting the hell out of the ACC and going back to a LaSalle. I fully recognize the owners who had the big-time schools were better at HD than me. That's why they got there first. But I also realized there was zero chance I'd ever be able to compete because they were always going to get the best players too. Without a goal and the inability to compete at the highest level, I quit.

Now, present day, the hated "dice roll" seems to have closed that door. If I was still at VT, the appearance of Duke/UNC wouldn't mean I lose my big off-season prize. And, with him, maybe I win a game or two from the big boys. Especially with the EE situation(which will change because Duke/UNC won't have all the top players in the ACC).

How is this bad for a NEW user?

That's a perfect description of HD 2.0, and a good understanding of 3.0. New competition also explains a lot of the hand-wringing from the owners of the big time schools.

By the way, let some guys think of the game as a "dice roll," or a series of dice rolls. It is much too hard for some to understand the distinction between a dice roll over which you have no influence, and a process such as recruiting or game planning that the user influences all along. I think you're right throughout this thread about the new scouting/recruiting being good for the game and good for new users.

All sims have "dice roll" components. The better team doesn't always win(much like real-life). I think the problem here is that the recruiting of the better players to give yourself a better shot at the game result dice roll isn't being accepted the same as the game dice roll. Recruiting is now "random" while the game result isn't. I'm not sure I understand the difference.

To address the disadvantages Virginia Tech has vs Duke:

In my opinion, HD in Div-1 should have base prestige the same for all teams in the same conference.
Have 4 tiers of conferences, with base prestige for teams at A, B, C, and D.
The key would be to remove advantages within specific conferences...
Duke v Virginia Tech... Gonzaga v Pepperdine... Marquette vs Loyola Chicago... all equals under their conference prestige banner. Addresses the weirdness of Illinois because of good years in the early 2000's having a higher prestige than Indiana...
The breakdown could go something like this:

Conferences with "A" base prestige for all teams: 6 of them:
ACC.
Big 12.
Big East.
Big Ten.
Pac-12.
SEC.

Conferences at "B" for all teams: 6 of them:
A-10.
C-USA.
Horizon.
Missouri Valley.
Mountain West
WCC.

Conferences at "C" for all teams: 4 of them:
Big West.
CAA.
Ivy League.
MAC.

Conferences at "D" for all teams: the remaining 11 weakest:
Big Sky.
Big South.
MEAC.
Metro Atlantic.
NEC.
Ohio Valley.
Patriot.
Southern.
Southland.
Summit.
Sun Belt.

These could be adjusted if people think the Ohio Valley should be swapped with he Big West, but 4 levels with 6 A teams, 6 B teams, 4 C teams and 11 D teams.

If a "dice roll" makes being successful in the game less formulaic I'm all for it. My hope is that I'll have to employ unique strategies to stay competitive in 3.0 - it doesn't sound like that was the case as much in 2.0.

Posted by npb7768 on 11/18/2016 12:39:00 PM (view original):
To address the disadvantages Virginia Tech has vs Duke:

In my opinion, HD in Div-1 should have base prestige the same for all teams in the same conference.
Have 4 tiers of conferences, with base prestige for teams at A, B, C, and D.
The key would be to remove advantages within specific conferences...
Duke v Virginia Tech... Gonzaga v Pepperdine... Marquette vs Loyola Chicago... all equals under their conference prestige banner.
The breakdown could go something like this:

Conferences with "A" base prestige for all teams: 6 of them:
ACC.
Big 12.
Big East.
Big Ten.
Pac-12.
SEC.

Conferences at "B" for all teams: 6 of them:
A-10.
C-USA.
Horizon.
Missouri Valley.
Mountain West
WCC.

Conferences at "C" for all teams: 4 of them:
Big West.
CAA.
Ivy League.
MAC.

Conferences at "D" for all teams: the remaining 11 weakest:
Big Sky.
Big South.
MEAC.
Metro Atlantic.
NEC.
Ohio Valley.
Patriot.
Southern.
Southland.
Summit.
Sun Belt.

These could be adjusted if people think the Ohio Valley should be swapped with he Big West, but 4 levels with 6 A teams, 6 B teams, 4 C teams and 11 D teams.

Why? What if a big group of users join the Sun Belt and make it an incredibly competitive, high-power conference? I understand that conferences hold prestige now, but if anything I think those prestige levels should be more fluid. Given that this is a simulation, why do we have to adhere to the same "power" conferences?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 12:24:00 PM (view original):
All sims have "dice roll" components. The better team doesn't always win(much like real-life). I think the problem here is that the recruiting of the better players to give yourself a better shot at the game result dice roll isn't being accepted the same as the game dice roll. Recruiting is now "random" while the game result isn't. I'm not sure I understand the difference.

Respectfully, you've done a lot of great work at HBD, but you've been here for like five minutes and think you have a nuanced perspective on the changeover.

You're a good guy and I hope you enjoy HD 3.0, but again respectfully, you don't seem to remember much about 2.0.

I didn't think what i wrote was too controversial.
Currently, there are 13 conferences that have every team at D for a base prestige. i just adjusted it down to 11.
As it is now, the Sun Belt has all its teams with a D base prestige, except South Florida is at C-minus.

The main point of my post was to even out each team per conference... so Cincinnati would no longer have a higher base prestige than Villanova... nor Boston College more than Miami (Fla).

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=437533

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=437533

I've been here 3 years. i agree with MikeT and think his perspective is correct.

* put popcorn in microwave *

Posted by npb7768 on 11/18/2016 12:57:00 PM (view original):
I've been here 3 years. i agree with MikeT and think his perspective is correct.

* put popcorn in microwave *

Mike is 100% entitled to his perspective and I respect some people will 100% disagree with me.

I don't like parity-based recruiting. Other people do. It's all good.

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/18/2016 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 11/18/2016 12:57:00 PM (view original):
I've been here 3 years. i agree with MikeT and think his perspective is correct.

* put popcorn in microwave *

Mike is 100% entitled to his perspective and I respect some people will 100% disagree with me.

I don't like parity-based recruiting. Other people do. It's all good.

No worries kc.

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/18/2016 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 11/18/2016 12:57:00 PM (view original):
I've been here 3 years. i agree with MikeT and think his perspective is correct.

* put popcorn in microwave *

Mike is 100% entitled to his perspective and I respect some people will 100% disagree with me.

I don't like parity-based recruiting. Other people do. It's all good.

It isn't parity-based. That's just flat out wrong. Prestige and preferences are still big factors, as is how you have prioritized the recruit. The fact that there is a RNG at the end doesn't mean "parity" any more than it means the whole process is now "random".

Recruiting in 3.0 is based on probabilities, whereas it used to be entirely deterministic. Your strategy and your priorities determine how high your signing probability is. Your signing probability isn't "randomly assigned" in an effort to achieve "parity". This is a blatant mischaracterization of how the game is played now. You don't have to like a game where recruiting is based on probabilities instead of absolute determinism. But don't lie about it.

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/18/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/18/2016 12:24:00 PM (view original):
All sims have "dice roll" components. The better team doesn't always win(much like real-life). I think the problem here is that the recruiting of the better players to give yourself a better shot at the game result dice roll isn't being accepted the same as the game dice roll. Recruiting is now "random" while the game result isn't. I'm not sure I understand the difference.

Respectfully, you've done a lot of great work at HBD, but you've been here for like five minutes and think you have a nuanced perspective on the changeover.

You're a good guy and I hope you enjoy HD 3.0, but again respectfully, you don't seem to remember much about 2.0.

No, I don't think that at all.

I've read the forum, a lot of this forum, and the gripe, excluding EE as I think that problem will solve itself, has been that no one knows with 100% certainty if a recruit will sign with them if another school has shown interest. This is the hated "dice roll". If I'm mistaken, please explain. If not, then I stand by my comment.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/18/2016 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/18/2016 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 11/18/2016 12:57:00 PM (view original):
I've been here 3 years. i agree with MikeT and think his perspective is correct.

* put popcorn in microwave *

Mike is 100% entitled to his perspective and I respect some people will 100% disagree with me.

I don't like parity-based recruiting. Other people do. It's all good.

It isn't parity-based. That's just flat out wrong. Prestige and preferences are still big factors, as is how you have prioritized the recruit. The fact that there is a RNG at the end doesn't mean "parity" any more than it means the whole process is now "random".

Recruiting in 3.0 is based on probabilities, whereas it used to be entirely deterministic. Your strategy and your priorities determine how high your signing probability is. Your signing probability isn't "randomly assigned" in an effort to achieve "parity". This is a blatant mischaracterization of how the game is played now. You don't have to like a game where recruiting is based on probabilities instead of absolute determinism. But don't lie about it.

I stand behind my post.