The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

mccabemi
Posts: 65 (0)
Hall of Famer
45
Prospect
yeah I think the variety in recruits is fine... making more average players will make it harder on the mid-majors.

My understanding until the last update was that there was going to be different KINDS of players. That, I like. If I could find a 99 def, 99 reb, 20 lp 50 pe center guy I'd be a happy guy.

11/5/2009 6:02 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
There will be both (an overall regression and an increase in the variety of players).

And while I don't think it's the single biggest issue, I think it's stunning that anyone who plays DI could think the variety of players is currently fine. (From a guy whose Cal-Riverside team has a team rating w. 11 scholarhips players of 779. When that is doable, there is clearly not enough differentiation.)
11/5/2009 7:32 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
there's about ten different ways to lower that 779 average, and the fear is that wis will pick the worst option of the ten.
11/5/2009 11:57 PM
mccabemi
Posts: 65 (0)
Hall of Famer
45
Prospect
I'm at Cal-Riverside but my prestige is a B+.

If by changing recruit variaiblity they intend to "increase the ways to skin a cat," I'm all for it.

If by regression to the mean they no longer allow the "have-nots" to compete, like Vandydave suggests, I have concerns.

I'd like to see the engine roled out first before changes were made to recruit generation, as implementation is obviously a slippery slope.

We'll see how it ends up. I always appreciate attempts at upgrading the gaming experience- whether I'd do it the same or not.

11/6/2009 10:16 AM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Fair points, mcc.

If regression really puts the low/mid teams at a huge disadvantage (which is a possibility, depending on how it is implemented) than I would agree that's not a good thing.

If it gives us more strategic options and decisons in recruiting/team building and successful eliminates the current log jam of 90+ ratings without crushing non-BCS teams, I think it's fantastic.

Time will tell ...
11/6/2009 10:32 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
We're still ironing out the details, but the player rate of improvement will be tweaked for the next release. The change earlier this year helped quite a bit, but I think it needs another smaller adjustment to slow it down.

I know one of the biggest complaints about potential has been that your players max out pretty quickly and then there is no reason to set up a practice plan any more. So hopefully we can address that with a combination of slowing the improvement rate and increasing the potential a bit for most players. That may also lead to slightly lower starting ratings, but I don't think they'll be significantly lower.
11/11/2009 12:21 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 112
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/11/2009We're still ironing out the details, but the player rate of improvement will be tweaked for the next release. The change earlier this year helped quite a bit, but I think it needs another smaller adjustment to slow it down.

I know one of the biggest complaints about potential has been that your players max out pretty quickly and then there is no reason to set up a practice plan any more. So hopefully we can address that with a combination of slowing the improvement rate and increasing the potential a bit for most players. That may also lead to slightly lower starting ratings, but I don't think they'll be significantly lower.

I hope they tie WE into this equation.
11/11/2009 12:22 PM
cthomas22255
Posts: 86 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
I think slowing the rate AND increasing potential a bit means some (many?) of your players won't max out. I agree that WE needs to be the major factor here.

I kind of like that they are mostly maxed by their senior year right now (given a WE>30 initially, which is all I recruit).
11/11/2009 12:27 PM
aejones
Posts: 457 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 374
Veteran
WE, imo, is more important now than it has been since potential started (roughly when I started playing this game).
11/11/2009 12:30 PM
taz21
Posts: 470 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 93
Prospect
What I hope it means, is that we'll have the option of developing more players as we see fit, ie pound some gaurds w/ rebounding practice that we think can play some SF for us, give more post players some PE practice and BH practice that we think could work at the SF, etc...
11/11/2009 1:54 PM
kelby_03
Posts: 78 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 242 1
Prospect
sounds like a step in the right direction!
11/11/2009 2:21 PM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By taz21 on 11/11/2009What I hope it means, is that we'll have the option of developing more players as we see fit, ie pound some gaurds w/ rebounding practice that we think can play some SF for us, give more post players some PE practice and BH practice that we think could work at the SF, etc..
Until they start generating guards with high REB potential or PFs with high PER potential, these "molded" players will still never exist.
11/11/2009 2:54 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Correct mully, and it sounds like that's what they plan on doing.
11/11/2009 3:05 PM
wisefella99
Posts: 58 (0)
Hall of Famer
55 16
Prospect

It sounds as if the assistant coach will still set up the practice plan for us based upon potential at the beginning. However, he won't tell us to change it as quickly as he does now. It's a baby step, but at least it is a positive one. Hopefully, the next step will add the ability to mold players as Taz suggests.
11/11/2009 3:21 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Which could very eaisly happen wisefella, if potentials are increased (even a small fraction 5%) and players starting ratings are decreased (maybe another 5%) and rate is slowed a bit, we will have another short players on steroids leaving the game period but with that slowing and 10% increase in potential player improvement over the course of their careers we will be able to dictate our players improvements much more while still having potential be a part of recruiting.
11/11/2009 3:37 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...75 Next ▸
The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate 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.