Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 10/09/2009holy crap. great dialogue, some thought out posts, and quite a few "old timers" chiming in. is the the HD of 2006??

i'm with dalt on this, distance disadvantages serve their purpose. mully made a great comment though on making values more linear and i'll have to mull that one over.

I echo this comment!

lost / acn both your ideas are pretty good, again, just not all that much of an improvement over what we have - acn your idea is pretty close to what they now have, except the 250 mile pressure point is now 190, the 500 pressure point you ask for is 360/370 and the 1000 pressure point is somewhere around 1400 miles (I have it written down somewhere), then there is another pressure point which generally only applies for internationals, somewhere around 2500.

lost, I agree with you on the tendancy to want to add sim city components to the simulation, I know madden football used to be a great bare bones simulation of games, but each season more add ons came on board, such that the simulation took a back seat to the 'stuff'. I 'm hoping that seble is not big into the 'stuff', although I am sure others are hoping just the opposite.

acn - I think the travel costs are pretty much tiered right now. The cost from 0-360 miles really isnt too much different.

I'd still have the same problem with your suggestion as a recruit 501 miles away would cost much more than a recruit 499 miles away.

If CS could explain why they have the price breaks set up like they do maybe I would understand their logic better.

it makes sense to me why 499 vs 501 or specifically 360 vs 370 - 360 is about a 6hr drive, which is probably about the limit for drive vs fly - and the founding fathers are essentially saying flying is X dollars more expensive than driving.

I suspect that the 190 mile limit was picked because that is not an overnight drive.

The 1400 mile point is probably a 2 day thing, with considerably more expensive flights?

I thought my son told me that tarek arrived at this stuff after asking real coaches what the costs were????

OR, you're right, that's how it was explained back when this new cost system was introduced -- at a certain point you'd have to fly and it would cost more, etc.

I don't think the current system is perfect, but I'm not really sure that any of the suggestions necessarily improve on it, either.

I think w. any suggestion that is made, you really have to make sure to think about the overall impact it'll have on the game, on the big schools vs. small schools, etc. It's a delicate balance, and in HD, it's very easy for a couple seemingly minor changes to greatly swing the pendulum one way or the other (as I think we've all experienced, lol).

A semi-related but different topic would be what people think of the current big vs. small set-up in HD. HD is much, much friendlier to the small schools (I'm talking DI, obviously) than real life.

I think that's a good thing for the overall health of the game, because it keeps DI fun and competitive for those outside the BCS cnoferences. I can't stress enough how huge that is for both the health of the game and for staying as true as reasonably possible to the original premise of building a dynasty anywhere.

dalter - I used to (when I was leaving the d2 / d3 part of the game for d1) tell my son I could take over any d- d1 program, and get them in the NT in 2 or 3 seasons, often I was able to get them in right away. with the vast number of sim coaches in d1 low levels these days, I would guess that is still true, although it is MUCH harder now that practice planning has been taken away, it used to be that one could just about get any 575 player and mold them into a very serviceable 750 starter, with pretty good core skills. Now, low level d1 coaches gotta pretty much take what they can get, after the higher prestige schools pick over the pool

funny, since almost all vet coaches want lower rated players, this picking over, is just gonna get worse when selbe changes the recruiting pool into lower rated players

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 10/08/2009
I never said get rid of distance altogether and I wouldnt want that. I was just surprised by how much more I spent with relatively even prestige and still lost. If this is how it is, I can live with it, I just never knew, thats all. I'm just trying to learn more about the game.

The impact distance has is directly correlated to having recruits placed in the "right" hometowns with which to begin. If the placement process is flawed, then it magnifies the distance issue imho.

I, too, would love to see some variability in terms of ratings. Teams don't rate the same player exactly the same. I also think FSS plays a huge role in recruiting and as is, it's primarily a local activity which means it has magnified the distance/placement issue since FSS was introduced.

I'd love to see something that gave like a range for current ratings, and the more you scout a player the smaller that range gets. Say like REB would be a 10-15 point range for everyone to see, and then it would get down to a 5 pt range with FSS and with multiple scouts you could get it down to the exact number. A PF with a range of 65-80 would be interesting to see.

Quote: Originally Posted By Rails on 10/09/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 10/08/2009
I never said get rid of distance altogether and I wouldnt want that. I was just surprised by how much more I spent with relatively even prestige and still lost. If this is how it is, I can live with it, I just never knew, thats all. I'm just trying to learn more about the game.

The impact distance has is directly correlated to having recruits placed in the "right" hometowns with which to begin. If the placement process is flawed, then it magnifies the distance issue imho.

I, too, would love to see some variability in terms of ratings. Teams don't rate the same player exactly the same. I also think FSS plays a huge role in recruiting and as is, it's primarily a local activity which means it has magnified the distance/placement issue since FSS was introduced.

I agree with you there Rails, you think it wouldn't be too hard to switch it up from how many d1 schools to where recruits actually come from. Didn't you have a (maybe more?) really bit post about this a while back? Did you ever take that to seble?

Quote: Originally Posted By berm on 10/09/2009I'd love to see something that gave like a range for current ratings, and the more you scout a player the smaller that range gets. Say like REB would be a 10-15 point range for everyone to see, and then it would get down to a 5 pt range with FSS and with multiple scouts you could get it down to the exact number. A PF with a range of 65-80 would be interesting to see

It would be nice to see something like that, maybe your 15 point range for un-scouted, 10 point range and potential with FSS and the more you use evals the closer you get to his exact rating, yet you might not ever get there 100%.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/09/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By berm on 10/09/2009
I'd love to see something that gave like a range for current ratings, and the more you scout a player the smaller that range gets. Say like REB would be a 10-15 point range for everyone to see, and then it would get down to a 5 pt range with FSS and with multiple scouts you could get it down to the exact number. A PF with a range of 65-80 would be interesting to see.

It would be nice to see something like that, maybe your 15 point range for un-scouted, 10 point range and potential with FSS and the more you use evals the closer you get to his exact rating, yet you might not ever get there 100%

I really like this idea.

In an extension of that, If they ever allowed you to fire/hire assistant coaches, you could choose assistant coaches who could narrow this window faster or slower... vs. assistant coaches who could "get the most out of practice time" and improve your players faster or slower in that regard.

While were on the subject, I'd really, really like to see to see some sort of recruiting brought into the regular season. You'd send your scouts out to AAU events or HS showcases and get more accurate projections depending on how and where you spent your in season recruiting.

I'd make sure that it was a factor that was easily overcome w/ a new coach, and as w/ potential, I'd eliminate for D3 and introduce later once a coach has a season or 2 to familarize themselves w/ the other aspects of the game. I've found the regular season to often become a bit dull until the NT begins, I think this could spice up the regular season a bit at times for vets.

I also like the idea about the HBD style projections. Perhaps if they ever introduce coach hiring, some aspect like this would be easier to implement.

In season would be nice, I don't want the game to turn into a "I have to be around every 12 hours to do something in my 2 a day world" game, but I like the idea of 10 or so tournaments you can pay to watch. Give each school x money at the start of the year, they can either use on tournaments or bank for recruiting. That would add a bit of insentive too to carryover some money and strategy in whether or not to take a walk on or two.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/09/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By Rails on 10/09/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By sully712 on 10/08/2009
I never said get rid of distance altogether and I wouldnt want that. I was just surprised by how much more I spent with relatively even prestige and still lost. If this is how it is, I can live with it, I just never knew, thats all. I'm just trying to learn more about the game.

The impact distance has is directly correlated to having recruits placed in the "right" hometowns with which to begin. If the placement process is flawed, then it magnifies the distance issue imho.

I, too, would love to see some variability in terms of ratings. Teams don't rate the same player exactly the same. I also think FSS plays a huge role in recruiting and as is, it's primarily a local activity which means it has magnified the distance/placement issue since FSS was introduced.

I agree with you there Rails, you think it wouldn't be too hard to switch it up from how many d1 schools to where recruits actually come from. Didn't you have a (maybe more?) really bit post about this a while back? Did you ever take that to seble

No, no. Rails didn't want it to see where recruits actually came from in real life, that would be a disaster. He wanted it reflected based on how many human-coached DI schools there were rather than total schools, and there is definitely merit to that.