my questions would be based at the following:

• For new recruits, increased averages for most other individual ratings across the board to raise the overall average - I echo the previous sentiments.  is this for DI or across the board?  I don't think DII or DIII need much in the way of adjustment, but DI does.

• Added a fix so that recruits won't be generated with very low start rating and average/high potential - does this mean we won't see recruits with ratings of 10 or below have average/high potential?  if so, I'm sort of bummed about this one because as someone who plays zone, there are lots of guards with low REB/BLK ratings for which I like high potential to get them to 15 or 20 during their JR/SR years.

Overall I like the changes though.     

As someone with a very good team in Naismith, I'm seriously ****** about the timing here - why implement it halfway through the CT instead of waiting until the end of the season?  I'd hate to think that I'd be playing a different version of the game at the part of the season that matters the most than I was during the regular season.

i'm with haas on the potential thing.  i mean what is the point of that change? what's wrong with having a low rating but high potential?

Because if you have no possibility of achieving your potential then by definition you do not have high potential. I think they are referring to centers with a green 1 on speed or perimiter or haasdrs guard example. For haasdr the guys he is looking for should become the average potential guys and there should be more low potential guys than in the past. Right?


What up mully.

I agree with all the coaches questioning the release in the middle of seasons....that logic is very unsound. Why not make the changes between seasons?

Posted by tpob18 on 2/2/2011 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Because if you have no possibility of achieving your potential then by definition you do not have high potential. I think they are referring to centers with a green 1 on speed or perimiter or haasdrs guard example. For haasdr the guys he is looking for should become the average potential guys and there should be more low potential guys than in the past. Right?


What up mully.

I just don't think there's a need to change the average/high potential for players with initially low ratings in a category.  For instance, I have a guard on my DII team who started with a 1 in LP, and because he's got a good WE and maxed out other categories, I have his LP up to 25 late in his SR season.  I'd not have been able to do this if the potential were reduced.

Yeah I have three Centers that had high potential in speed with less than 10 start rates. One is at 41 now. The other two with similar practice plans are at 12 and 10. All three though had a green rating. If only the guy at 41 is green now in recruiting that is an improvement, right?

The 41 has an 88 we right now. The other two are 47 and 45. Shouldn't potential be tied to WE and not just a made up cap that a guy has no chance to reach?

I was trying to hold off discussion until tomorrow, but I will clear up a few things.

- Since the engine was re-written in a new technology last year, there is currently no way to apply a new engine version on a world-by-world basis.  I plan to work on that in the future though, because there are times when it's necessary.  Suffice it to say, it's not an easy task.  This update is mostly minor fixes and tweaks, and the more significant changes were basically "across the board" changes, so they should affect all teams pretty much evenly. 

- With regard to the change to low start ratings: I'm not changing the upper limits, just basically bumping up the start rating to the point where improvement will be more reasonable.  So for example, instead of a guy with a 2 rating in Defense with a max of 58, now he would be maybe an 11 rating with a max of 58.  This is temporary fix until there's time to redo the player improvement logic, which would be a major change.

Posted by seble on 2/2/2011 3:01:00 PM (view original):
I was trying to hold off discussion until tomorrow, but I will clear up a few things.

- Since the engine was re-written in a new technology last year, there is currently no way to apply a new engine version on a world-by-world basis.  I plan to work on that in the future though, because there are times when it's necessary.  Suffice it to say, it's not an easy task.  This update is mostly minor fixes and tweaks, and the more significant changes were basically "across the board" changes, so they should affect all teams pretty much evenly. 

- With regard to the change to low start ratings: I'm not changing the upper limits, just basically bumping up the start rating to the point where improvement will be more reasonable.  So for example, instead of a guy with a 2 rating in Defense with a max of 58, now he would be maybe an 11 rating with a max of 58.  This is temporary fix until there's time to redo the player improvement logic, which would be a major change.

seble, I ultimately defer to your programming knowledge here, but is it really that hard to simply ramp up the rate of improvements for ratings that are 1-10? Seems like it would be a fairly simple change to the code that wouldn't have to have an effect on other areas.

Thanks very much for the communication here.

And seble, the one other question that seems to be prevalent is whether recruit ratings are being raised a bit for DI only, or across the board. Because not only do I think it's not necessary at DII/DIII, I think it would be detrimental.

If you raised the ratings abit for recruits from, say #15 or #20-100 at each position, I think that would be absolutely perfect.

It would address the big issue -- gross inequality between the have and have nots at DI. It would also serve to create more of a divide between low/mid DI recruits and DII recruits, when right now there really isn't one. (It's not uncommon to see a BCS or mid-major take a recruit from a DII school.) And it wouldn't further overinflate the ratings of DII/DIII players.

Posted by seble on 2/2/2011 3:01:00 PM (view original):
I was trying to hold off discussion until tomorrow, but I will clear up a few things.

- Since the engine was re-written in a new technology last year, there is currently no way to apply a new engine version on a world-by-world basis.  I plan to work on that in the future though, because there are times when it's necessary.  Suffice it to say, it's not an easy task.  This update is mostly minor fixes and tweaks, and the more significant changes were basically "across the board" changes, so they should affect all teams pretty much evenly. 

- With regard to the change to low start ratings: I'm not changing the upper limits, just basically bumping up the start rating to the point where improvement will be more reasonable.  So for example, instead of a guy with a 2 rating in Defense with a max of 58, now he would be maybe an 11 rating with a max of 58.  This is temporary fix until there's time to redo the player improvement logic, which would be a major change.

thanks for the quick response on the low start ratings question.  I am VERY interested to hear what's going on with the player rating increases.  I think girt's comment summaries things well.     

Posted by seble on 2/2/2011 3:01:00 PM (view original):
I was trying to hold off discussion until tomorrow, but I will clear up a few things.

- Since the engine was re-written in a new technology last year, there is currently no way to apply a new engine version on a world-by-world basis.  I plan to work on that in the future though, because there are times when it's necessary.  Suffice it to say, it's not an easy task.  This update is mostly minor fixes and tweaks, and the more significant changes were basically "across the board" changes, so they should affect all teams pretty much evenly. 

- With regard to the change to low start ratings: I'm not changing the upper limits, just basically bumping up the start rating to the point where improvement will be more reasonable.  So for example, instead of a guy with a 2 rating in Defense with a max of 58, now he would be maybe an 11 rating with a max of 58.  This is temporary fix until there's time to redo the player improvement logic, which would be a major change.

glad to hear my large-font post in the other thread was justified. lol.

always the better result of the two options :)