Posted by cornfused on 2/2/2011 2:17:00 PM (view original):
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.

agreed, my team is probably just looking at the PI instead of the NT this year but it only makes sense to wait till after the season.

Posted by jjboogie on 2/2/2011 5:33:00 PM (view original):
i will send a chat question in regarding REB - i see nothing in this release to address how incredibly out of whack the REB rating is treated...which is very disappointing...

Agreed. I had 6 guys over 90 rating last season in div II and we out rebounded our opps by 3 a game. I don't get how that would even be close to possible nobody was near my reb/ath and I should have had games where I out rebounded teams by 15+ but it never happened. I miss the old rebounding

Posted by stinenavy on 2/2/2011 9:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nbstowman on 2/2/2011 9:10:00 PM (view original):
So does this mean we revert to the way that it was before, in that any decent coach with a prestige of C or higher in D1 can have all upperclass players with 99 ratings in all cores? I agree recruit generation needs a tweak, but I don't want to completely revert to the previous way either.

Quote from seble
"- 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."

The max isn't changing.

stine, you're not responding to what nbstowman was referring to.

Your quote deals only with categories that start in the single digits. Different change.

He's talking about the fact that average starting ratings for most categories are reported to be going up. That's what has the potential to bring back the old ill to the game, with way too many homogenous, 90+ players and teams in DI.

nbstowman, I think if done right, this change could be great and would represent a happy medium between the old system and the new one.

Execution is everything on this one. Fingers crossed.

But that's the key, it has to be done right. Done wrong, it could be worse than it is now.

Posted by furry_nipps on 2/2/2011 10:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jjboogie on 2/2/2011 5:33:00 PM (view original):
i will send a chat question in regarding REB - i see nothing in this release to address how incredibly out of whack the REB rating is treated...which is very disappointing...

Agreed. I had 6 guys over 90 rating last season in div II and we out rebounded our opps by 3 a game. I don't get how that would even be close to possible nobody was near my reb/ath and I should have had games where I out rebounded teams by 15+ but it never happened. I miss the old rebounding

Oh gosh, rebounding is broken, that's a good example. I wonder if seble realizes it's broken? 

Posted by nbstowman on 2/2/2011 9:10:00 PM (view original):
So does this mean we revert to the way that it was before, in that any decent coach with a prestige of C or higher in D1 can have all upperclass players with 99 ratings in all cores? I agree recruit generation needs a tweak, but I don't want to completely revert to the previous way either.

letting the ridiculous overdramatization slide... i sure hope not!

i hope that the averages of the top players, like at least top 50 or so nationally and probably more, did not go up. that would be pretty terrible, those players are plenty good enough already. what i really hope happened is that the #100 nationally to say #400 nationally improve, but not the players above or below that range. those are the players who need to improve to correct the balance in d1. and i don't think d2/d3 would benefit from having better players available, those players are good enough already.

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/2/2011 10:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nbstowman on 2/2/2011 9:10:00 PM (view original):
So does this mean we revert to the way that it was before, in that any decent coach with a prestige of C or higher in D1 can have all upperclass players with 99 ratings in all cores? I agree recruit generation needs a tweak, but I don't want to completely revert to the previous way either.

letting the ridiculous overdramatization slide... i sure hope not!

i hope that the averages of the top players, like at least top 50 or so nationally and probably more, did not go up. that would be pretty terrible, those players are plenty good enough already. what i really hope happened is that the #100 nationally to say #400 nationally improve, but not the players above or below that range. those are the players who need to improve to correct the balance in d1. and i don't think d2/d3 would benefit from having better players available, those players are good enough already.

coach_billyg, that's exactly what they should do, I couldn't have put it better myself. Hope the guy upstairs is listening to someone who understands the game so well like you!

Posted by girt25 on 2/2/2011 3:26:00 PM (view original):
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.

In regards to all the changes, I will go over them later, but for now I will address this one. I have to agree with Girt on this, but I will word it differently. My opinion is not neccessarily a complaint one way or the other to the new fixes, but just an observation I have made the last 2 or 3 seasons here in D11 Allen World. 

So here goes... One of the 2 or 3 things that has bothered me the most is that there isn't any division between upper level D11 recruits and low level D1 recruits. This last recruiting season (47 in Allen) is a good example. Instead of battling (MPollen at Lander as an example) for a recruit in the 500 to 540 range, we both were constantly battling low level D1 SIM teams with a D/D- prestige. There needs to be a division/gap of say 50 or 100 points between upper D11 and lower D1. I wouldn't change anything in the D111 and D11 recruit generation, just the D1 generation. Before the last change, D111 recruits use to average between 400 & 490 and currently they average between 390 & 480. Both are fine. D11 use to be 450 to 550 and currently they are 440 to 540. This is fine also.

My problem is that D1 recruiting starts at 500 and goes up from there to 800. D1 recruits should start at 600 and go up, not 500. Right now the #261 overall & #45 rated PG has a Overall Player Rating of 541. That's way to low of an Overall Player Rating to be Rated as the #45 PG. #50 is at 541, #73 is 538, #77 is 532, etc. The same holds true for SG's, #30 is 559, #39 is 552, #43 is 539, #48 is 548, etc, etc, etc. The same holds true for all the rest of the positions, SF, PF, and Centers. There's no reason D1 teams (any of them) should be scabbing the upper D11 recruits. If the guys in my examples are rated that high (both the overall rated recruit # as well as position rating), their Overall Player Rating scores should be higher to pull them out of the upper level of D11. There's a huge difference in real life between D11, and both levels of D1 (low to mid D1 and upper D1) and there should be in Hoops Dynasty as well.

I completely agree with coach_billyg -

i hope that the averages of the top players, like at least top 50 or so nationally and probably more, did not go up. that would be pretty terrible, those players are plenty good enough already. what i really hope happened is that the #100 nationally to say #400 nationally improve, but not the players above or below that range. those are the players who need to improve to correct the balance in d1. and i don't think d2/d3 would benefit from having better players available, those players are good enough already.

+1

i like the higher FG %s personally....i would rather see a higher scoring game than a defensive struggle. 

As a coach at DIII Naismith, I don't like the timing of this.  I understand that some world had to draw the short straw on the timing of this, so I can accept it.  I have two concerns going foward:

(1) Is this going to make FCP more effective?  If so, I am disappointed.  If FCP becomes more effective than it already is, then what would be the point of playing any other strategy?  Why waste time trying to taylor your recruiting to a niche defense, when you can just grab the best athletes available and run FCP and win?  It's the easiest strategy to implement, the fastest way to build a successful program, and if it also becomes the most effective strategy, then this game is going to be a lot less interesting to me.

(2) Are the changes to recruit rating going to create less variety in recruits?  That, too, would be disappointing.  I presonally don't care if many recruits start low, as long as there is a nice mix of levels, potentials, and different ways the ratings are arrayed (so as to generate different styles of players). 

I like variety and having the ability to create a team that is individual, without facing a handicap of having to play a certain style or simply having higher ratings across the board in order to succeed.  Whether or not the assist total is perfectly in line with real world results is unimportant to me.  I want the game to be fun, not a perfect simulation of stats.

Posted by umpikes on 2/2/2011 10:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/2/2011 10:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nbstowman on 2/2/2011 9:10:00 PM (view original):
So does this mean we revert to the way that it was before, in that any decent coach with a prestige of C or higher in D1 can have all upperclass players with 99 ratings in all cores? I agree recruit generation needs a tweak, but I don't want to completely revert to the previous way either.

letting the ridiculous overdramatization slide... i sure hope not!

i hope that the averages of the top players, like at least top 50 or so nationally and probably more, did not go up. that would be pretty terrible, those players are plenty good enough already. what i really hope happened is that the #100 nationally to say #400 nationally improve, but not the players above or below that range. those are the players who need to improve to correct the balance in d1. and i don't think d2/d3 would benefit from having better players available, those players are good enough already.

coach_billyg, that's exactly what they should do, I couldn't have put it better myself. Hope the guy upstairs is listening to someone who understands the game so well like you!

Biilly G and Courtmagic are basically saying the same thing and I agree.  Only a small subset need improvement, not the top 50 players and not D2/D3 guys.  Probably something like the #15 to #60 players at their position.

Right now I routinely see guys in the #120 range who are equal to guys in the #30 range, and that shouldn't happen....I coach a A- prestige D1 school and I almost battled a D2 school for a high potential RS guy.  That's rediculous that I am even considering that.  (he went to a mpollon at Lander in Allen, who obviously knows what he is doing). 

But there is too much overlap between the mid and low D1 recruits and the top D2 recruits.  I want there to be no question that the #50 PG/SG/SF/PF/C would whip the #100 PG/SG/SF/PF/C, and right now, if I removed the rankings, we couldn't tell the difference.

Message from seble:

Frank,

"When we generate recruits, we don't do it by division or range. We generate a big pool of players and then let them fall where they should based on their ratings. So yes, this change will impact all recruits."

Boo! This could've been a changed that helped the game, if they'd followed the coach_billyg/girt25 (and numerous others) plan. Could've solved a very bad problem. Now it appears it's more likely to make things worse vs. better. Yuck.

I think this is super important and seble needs to take his time to figure this one out so it can be done correctly.

Pardon me if this has been covered, but did this new engine get rolled out for recruit generation in Phelan. Because the low- to mid-level DI recruits are absolutely awful in Phelan this time around. 80th ranked SG is someone I might not even try to recruit for my DII team.

Posted by fmschwab on 2/3/2011 8:30:00 AM (view original):
Message from seble:

Frank,

"When we generate recruits, we don't do it by division or range. We generate a big pool of players and then let them fall where they should based on their ratings. So yes, this change will impact all recruits."

Boo! This could've been a changed that helped the game, if they'd followed the coach_billyg/girt25 (and numerous others) plan. Could've solved a very bad problem. Now it appears it's more likely to make things worse vs. better. Yuck.

I think this is super important and seble needs to take his time to figure this one out so it can be done correctly.

only the starting attributes are changing, not the max/cap on the attribute, right?

Posted by moy23 on 2/3/2011 8:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fmschwab on 2/3/2011 8:30:00 AM (view original):
Message from seble:

Frank,

"When we generate recruits, we don't do it by division or range. We generate a big pool of players and then let them fall where they should based on their ratings. So yes, this change will impact all recruits."

Boo! This could've been a changed that helped the game, if they'd followed the coach_billyg/girt25 (and numerous others) plan. Could've solved a very bad problem. Now it appears it's more likely to make things worse vs. better. Yuck.

I think this is super important and seble needs to take his time to figure this one out so it can be done correctly.

only the starting attributes are changing, not the max/cap on the attribute, right?

Moy, I think you're confusing two changes.

The "only starting ratings are changing, cap isn't" applies to the change re: the very low start ratings.

The overall increase in ratings has nothing to do w. that. (In fact, if starting ratings were moved up but caps weren't, that would be pretty pointless, and really a negative because there'd be less improvement, and just a cosmetic change w. no real impact)

What I don't get is that the last time they changed recruits, they made the top-end recruits better and the rest of the recruits worse, so they clearly have the ability to segment it ... so they should be able to make an adjustment to just the segment of the recruit population that needs it (low/mid DI recruits) and leave the others alone. There has to be a way to do that.