Posted by CoachSpud on 3/4/2016 12:22:00 PM (view original):
RE "a lot of newer coaches thnk veterans are just bitter ... "

What else can we think if we read the forums?

I followed the Chat and I am very encouraged. I also re-read the Scouting and Recruiting threads at the top of the Hoops forums, and I can see the thinking behind the update. I can also see many areas that can only be tweaked based on experience, so I hope the Beta comes soon. I guess an open mind helps a lot in this case.

So, to be as open-minded as I think I am, I re-read the entire thread. Bitter and closed-minded veterans all over the place. Making up things about the update that they haven't even sniffed yet, and then bemoaning their own make-believe.

At least the down time before the new update is rolled out might weed out a lot of the bitterness and improve the subsequent tenor of the forums, and that will be a significant improvement for newer coaches.

Posted by the0nlyis on 3/4/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Some coaches enjoy the game the way it is. Could you possibly accommodate them by leaving one or two worlds the way they are, with the game being played the same as it is now in those worlds? (bistiza - Hall of Famer - 12:03 PM)

Unfortunately, no. I hope those coaches will keep an open mind about the changes.

It would be nice if Seble kept an open mind about what actually needs to be changed

I asked this question for two reasons.

1. I've seen several other people say they enjoy the game as it is now right here on the forums.

2. I agree with those people.

If the answer to this question had been yes, I would probably only play in the worlds which continued as they are now.

As it is, I'm willing to keep an open mind, sure - but I absolutely wish it didn't have to be that way.

For those who think these changes will cause people to leave the game, I agree - and open mind or not, I might eventually be one of them. To each their own, but I simply don't have a lot of desire to reinvent the wheel on a game I already enjoy.

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/4/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):
now that i finished, a couple closing thoughts:

- removing the need to check back every 3 hours is great. im not sure what this does to the first cycle issue, though. he says cvs/hvs will process immediately - so, what, if a guy is on someone at 6:01, everyone sees it? maybe not, because of attention points... but then, same question, at 8:01? does this make the need to be on early even greater? to watch, in real time, who is jumping on which players? i think this is a real concern and needs to be looked at closely.

- making the recruit grade A to F on a scale from d1 to d3 is silly, that grade will basically mean jack. hopefully there will be +s and -s, but still, didn't he say we won't get info per rating anymore? we'll get info like, hey this ******* is a B+ in shooting, or something. well, is that lp or per scoring? is the ability to build a team intentionally going to go away completely? this would be much less of an issue with old style practice plans, where we could mold players. but with hard caps, this could be a real issue. its possibly my biggest concern.

- creating a battle money vs scouting tradeoff was one of the greatest improvements of the potential release. variety in strategy is a good thing, sucks to see that go.

- this issue where d3 schools can recruit top d1 players, is not so much an issue for d1 schools, but new coaches are going to do really dumb things. seble says "reach" is an HD concept, but that is an oversimplification of reality. even if you could recruit anyone, absolutely, the concept of reach applies. new coaches could understand d3, because it was like, here, here are the players you can talk to. now, its going to be like hey, here are some random guys, some guys have A grades in some stuff, some have F. how do they know they are realistically limited to guys with F-C or whatever? seems like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.

- actually, more on the point, are d2 teams totally screwed? when great d2 players come around, d3 teams would sometimes battle up for them, but it was hard. what is to stop d3 schools from just taking all remaining funds, and throwing it on top d2 players, for a 10% dice roll of signing said player? i mean, why not? i think the whole strategy of just getting a 10% chance to sign a player and praying, is going to royally screw this game up. absolutely, a guy who is 5:1 effort on another guy, should not have to worry about that other guy signing the player. its crazy.

This. Nailed it.

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/4/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):
now that i finished, a couple closing thoughts:

- removing the need to check back every 3 hours is great. im not sure what this does to the first cycle issue, though. he says cvs/hvs will process immediately - so, what, if a guy is on someone at 6:01, everyone sees it? maybe not, because of attention points... but then, same question, at 8:01? does this make the need to be on early even greater? to watch, in real time, who is jumping on which players? i think this is a real concern and needs to be looked at closely.

- making the recruit grade A to F on a scale from d1 to d3 is silly, that grade will basically mean jack. hopefully there will be +s and -s, but still, didn't he say we won't get info per rating anymore? we'll get info like, hey this ******* is a B+ in shooting, or something. well, is that lp or per scoring? is the ability to build a team intentionally going to go away completely? this would be much less of an issue with old style practice plans, where we could mold players. but with hard caps, this could be a real issue. its possibly my biggest concern.

- creating a battle money vs scouting tradeoff was one of the greatest improvements of the potential release. variety in strategy is a good thing, sucks to see that go.

- this issue where d3 schools can recruit top d1 players, is not so much an issue for d1 schools, but new coaches are going to do really dumb things. seble says "reach" is an HD concept, but that is an oversimplification of reality. even if you could recruit anyone, absolutely, the concept of reach applies. new coaches could understand d3, because it was like, here, here are the players you can talk to. now, its going to be like hey, here are some random guys, some guys have A grades in some stuff, some have F. how do they know they are realistically limited to guys with F-C or whatever? seems like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.

- actually, more on the point, are d2 teams totally screwed? when great d2 players come around, d3 teams would sometimes battle up for them, but it was hard. what is to stop d3 schools from just taking all remaining funds, and throwing it on top d2 players, for a 10% dice roll of signing said player? i mean, why not? i think the whole strategy of just getting a 10% chance to sign a player and praying, is going to royally screw this game up. absolutely, a guy who is 5:1 effort on another guy, should not have to worry about that other guy signing the player. its crazy.

To comment on these:

- I don't think Seble has said that a player could sign at literally any second, but this would mean players could cherry-pick signing times to make moves, at least. definitely think any issues would come up during testing.
- I think giving imperfect information to all players like this would help the game a bit. molding and creating the perfect team is a game the top teams can play, but not everyone else. move some frustration from the average coaches to the 'great' ones.
- Separating the budgets kind of guarantees that certain teams are better in both scouting and battling. brings up another point - i would actually like to see additional ways to spend budget, like on improving your practice effectiveness, or road-trip effectiveness, etc. Any of that would be cool. maybe some day.
- I think there are already a lot of 'disasters' that we never hear about. you NEED to use the forums and players guides to get good at HD. grades might be an improvement. needing to pull-down and stuff was always an unnecessary complication for new players. it's easier to figure out that 'oh, i guess A players don't want to go D3'
- a 10% dice roll will win 10% of the time. i think everyone, at every level, needs to have backup plans now. it won't be so neat and tidy. the same D2 teams that lose to D3 10% will beat D1s 10%. same with mid-majors to majors. The people without a balance are...the super-powers that already get the best recruits 99% of the time. Now they're at, what, 75%? Have to stay lucky to stay on top? GOOD. The problem with looking at the game from a dominator's perspective is luck only decreases your chances of winning. For those in the middle, luck can bring you both up or down.

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but not really. If i made realistic, healthy decisions on what to do with my free time, i would have quit HD a while ago. I think the game needs a serious shakeup...almost for the sake of a shakeup.

billyg, you do the world population data scrapes...can you run something to show what % of coaches stay on for 2nd seasons, take 2nd jobs, move up to d2/d1, etc? I think we're living in a bit of an echo chamber here with all the complaints about the updates. the most avid forum posters are all people that have had success with the game and have a huge anchoring bias to the existing system.

at the same time, if the 'most avid posters' portion of the population are a huge part of what's keeping the worlds going at all, killing them off could absolutely have side effects. I just don't know if they'd be as bad as it would seem by listening to only them.

This strikes me as cutting off a leg when the patient only has a stubbed toe. If recruit gen is fixed, and jobs at high DI are fixed (so that A+ schools are firing people if the coach doesn't hit a high level of baseline success w/in 3 or 4 seasons), I think 90% of people's problems go away. I hate, hate, hate the idea of randomness in recruiting -- there's enough randomness in the game already. Hopefully I am wrong, but every time I read about these updates, I get a sinking feeling....

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/4/2016 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/4/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):
now that i finished, a couple closing thoughts:

- removing the need to check back every 3 hours is great. im not sure what this does to the first cycle issue, though. he says cvs/hvs will process immediately - so, what, if a guy is on someone at 6:01, everyone sees it? maybe not, because of attention points... but then, same question, at 8:01? does this make the need to be on early even greater? to watch, in real time, who is jumping on which players? i think this is a real concern and needs to be looked at closely.

- making the recruit grade A to F on a scale from d1 to d3 is silly, that grade will basically mean jack. hopefully there will be +s and -s, but still, didn't he say we won't get info per rating anymore? we'll get info like, hey this ******* is a B+ in shooting, or something. well, is that lp or per scoring? is the ability to build a team intentionally going to go away completely? this would be much less of an issue with old style practice plans, where we could mold players. but with hard caps, this could be a real issue. its possibly my biggest concern.

- creating a battle money vs scouting tradeoff was one of the greatest improvements of the potential release. variety in strategy is a good thing, sucks to see that go.

- this issue where d3 schools can recruit top d1 players, is not so much an issue for d1 schools, but new coaches are going to do really dumb things. seble says "reach" is an HD concept, but that is an oversimplification of reality. even if you could recruit anyone, absolutely, the concept of reach applies. new coaches could understand d3, because it was like, here, here are the players you can talk to. now, its going to be like hey, here are some random guys, some guys have A grades in some stuff, some have F. how do they know they are realistically limited to guys with F-C or whatever? seems like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.

- actually, more on the point, are d2 teams totally screwed? when great d2 players come around, d3 teams would sometimes battle up for them, but it was hard. what is to stop d3 schools from just taking all remaining funds, and throwing it on top d2 players, for a 10% dice roll of signing said player? i mean, why not? i think the whole strategy of just getting a 10% chance to sign a player and praying, is going to royally screw this game up. absolutely, a guy who is 5:1 effort on another guy, should not have to worry about that other guy signing the player. its crazy.

To comment on these:

- I don't think Seble has said that a player could sign at literally any second, but this would mean players could cherry-pick signing times to make moves, at least. definitely think any issues would come up during testing.
- I think giving imperfect information to all players like this would help the game a bit. molding and creating the perfect team is a game the top teams can play, but not everyone else. move some frustration from the average coaches to the 'great' ones.
- Separating the budgets kind of guarantees that certain teams are better in both scouting and battling. brings up another point - i would actually like to see additional ways to spend budget, like on improving your practice effectiveness, or road-trip effectiveness, etc. Any of that would be cool. maybe some day.
- I think there are already a lot of 'disasters' that we never hear about. you NEED to use the forums and players guides to get good at HD. grades might be an improvement. needing to pull-down and stuff was always an unnecessary complication for new players. it's easier to figure out that 'oh, i guess A players don't want to go D3'
- a 10% dice roll will win 10% of the time. i think everyone, at every level, needs to have backup plans now. it won't be so neat and tidy. the same D2 teams that lose to D3 10% will beat D1s 10%. same with mid-majors to majors. The people without a balance are...the super-powers that already get the best recruits 99% of the time. Now they're at, what, 75%? Have to stay lucky to stay on top? GOOD. The problem with looking at the game from a dominator's perspective is luck only decreases your chances of winning. For those in the middle, luck can bring you both up or down.

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but not really. If i made realistic, healthy decisions on what to do with my free time, i would have quit HD a while ago. I think the game needs a serious shakeup...almost for the sake of a shakeup.

billyg, you do the world population data scrapes...can you run something to show what % of coaches stay on for 2nd seasons, take 2nd jobs, move up to d2/d1, etc? I think we're living in a bit of an echo chamber here with all the complaints about the updates. the most avid forum posters are all people that have had success with the game and have a huge anchoring bias to the existing system.

at the same time, if the 'most avid posters' portion of the population are a huge part of what's keeping the worlds going at all, killing them off could absolutely have side effects. I just don't know if they'd be as bad as it would seem by listening to only them.

i think the first half of your points actually agree with me? not sure, but ill respond to one of the devil's advocates one.

the thing about luck... yes, its worse for top coaches. i obviously agree, you could probably find 100 posts where i talk about in team setup and game planning, how volatility is enemy #1 for top teams. of course top teams seek to minimize the impact luck has on their outcomes. but, that doesn't mean luck is good for the masses.

look at the history of luck-driven events in this game. dilemmas - massive disaster (granted, for a myriad of reasons). EEs - people have complained about the luck without pause for 10+ years. injuries - they've been toned down to a cat's meow of what they once were, due to complaints about luck. hell, even the sim engine gets complaints, about the outlier results. its enough that seble introduced feedback, to reduce very unlikely scenarios from taking place.

the history is clear - the kinds of coaches that play HD, don't want their success and failure predicated on events that are largely RNG driven. its almost paradoxical, given the underlying nature of any simulation is repeated coin flipping. but, it is what it is. making it so a guy can spend 10,000 on a player, and another guy can spend 50,000 (using the same 5:1 ratio from the dev chat), and the 10K guy still has a non-0 chance of winning - that will never fly with this crowd. it doesn't matter if you are a+ or d+, that would drive just about anyone bat **** crazy. leveling the playing field shouldn't be about randomly screwing people over hard enough that nobody can really get ahead. it should be organic. before seble wrecked recruit gen, mid majors were very successful in d1, way more than in real life, that was the least of anyone's worries. the complaints came from the other side. introducing luck-driven equalizers is not the answer.

i agree that if one guy spends 49K, and the other spends 50K, it should not be a 0/100% chance of winning, respectively (assuming those are effort points, adjusted for prestige and all). from the minute seble announced signings would have a random element, it was condemned, and i immediately supported it. i think its crazy a guy spends 1 dollar more on a tens of thousands of dollars scale, and wins 100%. but, its even more crazy for a guy to outspend another 5:1 and potentially be able to lose. this isn't real life where you have many targets and can run 6-7 men. so, if a battle is close, give the underdog a chance, and if the battle isn't close, don't. i honestly thought that would be intuitively obvious to everybody, i am genuinely somewhat stunned seble came out and said a 5:1 battle could go to the 1 guy...

To be fair, he could be just not giving a direct answer on the 5:1 question. The answer could be that the team that spends 1000 has a 99% chance. Granted, it should be 100%, but if there are OTHER factors (which he has alluded to) that make the recruit consider the team that spent 200 more equally, that might be ok.

He's stated multiple times that he doesn't like it just being a bidding war - the most money wins. Much of the changes point to that.

Also, on the letter grades ... that's true at D1 and high D1, but at D3 if am looking for a PG and all ratings are F, because all ratings are below 65 .... it's harder to sort the wheat from the chaff. Presumably the camps or ST's will get us back to what we're used to so we can recruit accordingly

if they have the "random signings" ratio be like the FSS when its says "Johnny 5 Star is struggling between western state University and Northern Tech College". That I would be totaly fine with, if its within 10-15% in attention points then yeah random can be a good thing but not IMO if its anything greater than that.

I feel this is what Seble is wanting our recruiting to look like:

PIC

we see how far ahead a certain number of schools are and then there is a calculation that determines the percent chance of signing based on how far ahead or behind you are.

i think the first half of your points actually agree with me? not sure, but ill respond to one of the devil's advocates one.

the thing about luck... yes, its worse for top coaches. i obviously agree, you could probably find 100 posts where i talk about in team setup and game planning, how volatility is enemy #1 for top teams. of course top teams seek to minimize the impact luck has on their outcomes. but, that doesn't mean luck is good for the masses.

look at the history of luck-driven events in this game. dilemmas - massive disaster (granted, for a myriad of reasons). EEs - people have complained about the luck without pause for 10+ years. injuries - they've been toned down to a cat's meow of what they once were, due to complaints about luck. hell, even the sim engine gets complaints, about the outlier results. its enough that seble introduced feedback, to reduce very unlikely scenarios from taking place.

the history is clear - the kinds of coaches that play HD, don't want their success and failure predicated on events that are largely RNG driven. its almost paradoxical, given the underlying nature of any simulation is repeated coin flipping. but, it is what it is. making it so a guy can spend 10,000 on a player, and another guy can spend 50,000 (using the same 5:1 ratio from the dev chat), and the 10K guy still has a non-0 chance of winning - that will never fly with this crowd. it doesn't matter if you are a+ or d+, that would drive just about anyone bat **** crazy. leveling the playing field shouldn't be about randomly screwing people over hard enough that nobody can really get ahead. it should be organic. before seble wrecked recruit gen, mid majors were very successful in d1, way more than in real life, that was the least of anyone's worries. the complaints came from the other side. introducing luck-driven equalizers is not the answer.

i agree that if one guy spends 49K, and the other spends 50K, it should not be a 0/100% chance of winning, respectively (assuming those are effort points, adjusted for prestige and all). from the minute seble announced signings would have a random element, it was condemned, and i immediately supported it. i think its crazy a guy spends 1 dollar more on a tens of thousands of dollars scale, and wins 100%. but, its even more crazy for a guy to outspend another 5:1 and potentially be able to lose. this isn't real life where you have many targets and can run 6-7 men. so, if a battle is close, give the underdog a chance, and if the battle isn't close, don't. i honestly thought that would be intuitively obvious to everybody, i am genuinely somewhat stunned seble came out and said a 5:1 battle could go to the 1 guy...

If in a 50k:10k battle you give the 1 guy 0% chance of winning, he has wasted that 10k. Most likely, for the 10k guy, that 10k is a pretty high % of his budget, too. Now, 10k guys has nothing for it.

If you are spreading the odds roughly proportionally to all contributors, you are ensuring that every dollar spent has value. you're getting balls in a lottery, which is at least SOMETHING, even if it doesn't materialize into a player.

They key is: you need to spread your odds out among multiple players. NEED to. Want 1 recruit? get your odds on the good enough players to add up, and you'll be fine in the long run. Better than trying to get one guy under the current system, having someone come over top, and you losing everything you've put in. The beauty of an odds system is that, over the long haul, it all balances out. All-pay auctions, on the other hand, do not.

You didn't touch on my other point. There's a survivor's bias here. This 'crowd' are the 'haves' that had enough success to keep playing the game.

There's nobody on here like "this game isn't fun, i'm getting my *** kicked, i'm gonna stop playing...but i will continue to post on the forums all the time and participate in dev chats to get the game better. because if the game is better, i'll play again.

"Haves" always care more about keeping what's theirs than about gaining something new. It's like the freakanomics Duke basketball ticket example. You can't break the A+ dynasties up without risking the C-schools taking some back from the B's.

The system you describe previously, where mid-majors were competitive...they were competitive by complete accident. The ratings system was broken. It's like the texas sharpshooter fallacy - you can't look at something you did in the past, pick a bullet hole, draw a target around it, and call yourself a sharpshooter. The ratings system needed an update, and so did recruiting, and so did many other aspects of the game. Continuous improvement is what we need here. Old system balanced mid majors? fuckin wonderful, chalk it up, we can do better.

If someone feels like all the effort they've put into the game is about to be taken away by the intro of random chance...consider them the B+ school that dumped 40k on a recruit named HD where an A+ is about to swoop in...

(the analogy needs work but i think there's something profound there)

FWIW yeah i was more agreeing with you on my first few points, just adding color.

I got about half way through the dev chat and am now pausing out of frustration (to post here and hopefully pick up where I left off later).

I really hate where this is going. Seble, please let me do the beta because it would be nice to be proven wrong and stick around but I'm just so disinterested in this point. How about starting with maybe the dumbest idea I have ever seen put forth here, with the only real competition being those short lived behavioral problem players:

"The leading team doesn't always sign the recruit" is a stupid stupid stupid implementation. Which leads to another quote that I hate: "but there will be a bit of luck involved." Where did we lose sight of this being a game? The game is suppose to be as realistic as possible within the confines of a game, not to try to exactly mimic real life. I don't see the enjoyment of this at all. I want to be able to trust the game, not rely on the whims of imaginary players with imaginary mood swings.

As has been discussed ad nauseum around here, there are major major issues with DI that simply aren't issues at the lower levels. Yet the issues of DI still aren't being addressed since recruit generation is not being addressed. Maybe that won't be an issue anymore after the update but I don't really want to dwell on this since I don't play DI anyway.

Still hate the idea of in season recruiting. A game, not real life...

I hope the beta proves me wrong

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/4/2016 4:56:00 PM (view original):

i think the first half of your points actually agree with me? not sure, but ill respond to one of the devil's advocates one.

the thing about luck... yes, its worse for top coaches. i obviously agree, you could probably find 100 posts where i talk about in team setup and game planning, how volatility is enemy #1 for top teams. of course top teams seek to minimize the impact luck has on their outcomes. but, that doesn't mean luck is good for the masses.

look at the history of luck-driven events in this game. dilemmas - massive disaster (granted, for a myriad of reasons). EEs - people have complained about the luck without pause for 10+ years. injuries - they've been toned down to a cat's meow of what they once were, due to complaints about luck. hell, even the sim engine gets complaints, about the outlier results. its enough that seble introduced feedback, to reduce very unlikely scenarios from taking place.

the history is clear - the kinds of coaches that play HD, don't want their success and failure predicated on events that are largely RNG driven. its almost paradoxical, given the underlying nature of any simulation is repeated coin flipping. but, it is what it is. making it so a guy can spend 10,000 on a player, and another guy can spend 50,000 (using the same 5:1 ratio from the dev chat), and the 10K guy still has a non-0 chance of winning - that will never fly with this crowd. it doesn't matter if you are a+ or d+, that would drive just about anyone bat **** crazy. leveling the playing field shouldn't be about randomly screwing people over hard enough that nobody can really get ahead. it should be organic. before seble wrecked recruit gen, mid majors were very successful in d1, way more than in real life, that was the least of anyone's worries. the complaints came from the other side. introducing luck-driven equalizers is not the answer.

i agree that if one guy spends 49K, and the other spends 50K, it should not be a 0/100% chance of winning, respectively (assuming those are effort points, adjusted for prestige and all). from the minute seble announced signings would have a random element, it was condemned, and i immediately supported it. i think its crazy a guy spends 1 dollar more on a tens of thousands of dollars scale, and wins 100%. but, its even more crazy for a guy to outspend another 5:1 and potentially be able to lose. this isn't real life where you have many targets and can run 6-7 men. so, if a battle is close, give the underdog a chance, and if the battle isn't close, don't. i honestly thought that would be intuitively obvious to everybody, i am genuinely somewhat stunned seble came out and said a 5:1 battle could go to the 1 guy...

If in a 50k:10k battle you give the 1 guy 0% chance of winning, he has wasted that 10k. Most likely, for the 10k guy, that 10k is a pretty high % of his budget, too. Now, 10k guys has nothing for it.

If you are spreading the odds roughly proportionally to all contributors, you are ensuring that every dollar spent has value. you're getting balls in a lottery, which is at least SOMETHING, even if it doesn't materialize into a player.

They key is: you need to spread your odds out among multiple players. NEED to. Want 1 recruit? get your odds on the good enough players to add up, and you'll be fine in the long run. Better than trying to get one guy under the current system, having someone come over top, and you losing everything you've put in. The beauty of an odds system is that, over the long haul, it all balances out. All-pay auctions, on the other hand, do not.

You didn't touch on my other point. There's a survivor's bias here. This 'crowd' are the 'haves' that had enough success to keep playing the game.

There's nobody on here like "this game isn't fun, i'm getting my *** kicked, i'm gonna stop playing...but i will continue to post on the forums all the time and participate in dev chats to get the game better. because if the game is better, i'll play again.

"Haves" always care more about keeping what's theirs than about gaining something new. It's like the freakanomics Duke basketball ticket example. You can't break the A+ dynasties up without risking the C-schools taking some back from the B's.

The system you describe previously, where mid-majors were competitive...they were competitive by complete accident. The ratings system was broken. It's like the texas sharpshooter fallacy - you can't look at something you did in the past, pick a bullet hole, draw a target around it, and call yourself a sharpshooter. The ratings system needed an update, and so did recruiting, and so did many other aspects of the game. Continuous improvement is what we need here. Old system balanced mid majors? fuckin wonderful, chalk it up, we can do better.

If someone feels like all the effort they've put into the game is about to be taken away by the intro of random chance...consider them the B+ school that dumped 40k on a recruit named HD where an A+ is about to swoop in...

(the analogy needs work but i think there's something profound there)

I am both a have and a have not. My MSU team is doing great, and I am against a number of these proposals for reasons that may affect them going forward.

That doesn't magically give me a direct line to BCS gigs in Tark and Phelan, where I am having to start in D2 to try to build back up there, the same as everyone else does. I am not enthused about other aspects of this proposal as it relates to my D2 teams and my rebuilds, since nothing about jobs is included.

I am both a have and a have not and neither fact is unduly influencing my POV. I don't believe these changes are necessary to make the game much better than it currently is. I believe these changes have a great possibility of making the game worse than it currently is, for both my A+ team and my stepping stone teams.

I, and presumably most other posters, are not so shallow that we cannot or will not honestly evaluate the proposals at hand in the interests of this game that we've obviously spent a good deal of time on, based on how we think it will impact the game as a whole.

I sort of get offended when posts like yours either explicitly or implicitly assume that only our personal self-interest drives our positions. Or mine at least - I won't presume to speak for anyone else.

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/4/2016 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/4/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):
now that i finished, a couple closing thoughts:

- removing the need to check back every 3 hours is great. im not sure what this does to the first cycle issue, though. he says cvs/hvs will process immediately - so, what, if a guy is on someone at 6:01, everyone sees it? maybe not, because of attention points... but then, same question, at 8:01? does this make the need to be on early even greater? to watch, in real time, who is jumping on which players? i think this is a real concern and needs to be looked at closely.

- making the recruit grade A to F on a scale from d1 to d3 is silly, that grade will basically mean jack. hopefully there will be +s and -s, but still, didn't he say we won't get info per rating anymore? we'll get info like, hey this ******* is a B+ in shooting, or something. well, is that lp or per scoring? is the ability to build a team intentionally going to go away completely? this would be much less of an issue with old style practice plans, where we could mold players. but with hard caps, this could be a real issue. its possibly my biggest concern.

- creating a battle money vs scouting tradeoff was one of the greatest improvements of the potential release. variety in strategy is a good thing, sucks to see that go.

- this issue where d3 schools can recruit top d1 players, is not so much an issue for d1 schools, but new coaches are going to do really dumb things. seble says "reach" is an HD concept, but that is an oversimplification of reality. even if you could recruit anyone, absolutely, the concept of reach applies. new coaches could understand d3, because it was like, here, here are the players you can talk to. now, its going to be like hey, here are some random guys, some guys have A grades in some stuff, some have F. how do they know they are realistically limited to guys with F-C or whatever? seems like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.

- actually, more on the point, are d2 teams totally screwed? when great d2 players come around, d3 teams would sometimes battle up for them, but it was hard. what is to stop d3 schools from just taking all remaining funds, and throwing it on top d2 players, for a 10% dice roll of signing said player? i mean, why not? i think the whole strategy of just getting a 10% chance to sign a player and praying, is going to royally screw this game up. absolutely, a guy who is 5:1 effort on another guy, should not have to worry about that other guy signing the player. its crazy.

To comment on these:

- I don't think Seble has said that a player could sign at literally any second, but this would mean players could cherry-pick signing times to make moves, at least. definitely think any issues would come up during testing.
- I think giving imperfect information to all players like this would help the game a bit. molding and creating the perfect team is a game the top teams can play, but not everyone else. move some frustration from the average coaches to the 'great' ones.
- Separating the budgets kind of guarantees that certain teams are better in both scouting and battling. brings up another point - i would actually like to see additional ways to spend budget, like on improving your practice effectiveness, or road-trip effectiveness, etc. Any of that would be cool. maybe some day.
- I think there are already a lot of 'disasters' that we never hear about. you NEED to use the forums and players guides to get good at HD. grades might be an improvement. needing to pull-down and stuff was always an unnecessary complication for new players. it's easier to figure out that 'oh, i guess A players don't want to go D3'
- a 10% dice roll will win 10% of the time. i think everyone, at every level, needs to have backup plans now. it won't be so neat and tidy. the same D2 teams that lose to D3 10% will beat D1s 10%. same with mid-majors to majors. The people without a balance are...the super-powers that already get the best recruits 99% of the time. Now they're at, what, 75%? Have to stay lucky to stay on top? GOOD. The problem with looking at the game from a dominator's perspective is luck only decreases your chances of winning. For those in the middle, luck can bring you both up or down.

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but not really. If i made realistic, healthy decisions on what to do with my free time, i would have quit HD a while ago. I think the game needs a serious shakeup...almost for the sake of a shakeup.

billyg, you do the world population data scrapes...can you run something to show what % of coaches stay on for 2nd seasons, take 2nd jobs, move up to d2/d1, etc? I think we're living in a bit of an echo chamber here with all the complaints about the updates. the most avid forum posters are all people that have had success with the game and have a huge anchoring bias to the existing system.

at the same time, if the 'most avid posters' portion of the population are a huge part of what's keeping the worlds going at all, killing them off could absolutely have side effects. I just don't know if they'd be as bad as it would seem by listening to only them.

I like what you said about the 10% dice roll. I was only thinking this about the lower teams stealing 1 out of every 10 recruits from me. I wasn't thinking about me stealing 1 out of 10 recruits from the higher ups. It makes me feel a little better about it, though I was already ok with it. The power players don't like it because this recruiting update is going to take away their ability to kill recruiting inside 180 at an A+ prestige without battling. Sometimes recruits pick non-traditional power schools. Larry Bird.

Posted by jsajsa on 3/4/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):
I got about half way through the dev chat and am now pausing out of frustration (to post here and hopefully pick up where I left off later).

I really hate where this is going. Seble, please let me do the beta because it would be nice to be proven wrong and stick around but I'm just so disinterested in this point. How about starting with maybe the dumbest idea I have ever seen put forth here, with the only real competition being those short lived behavioral problem players:

"The leading team doesn't always sign the recruit" is a stupid stupid stupid implementation. Which leads to another quote that I hate: "but there will be a bit of luck involved." Where did we lose sight of this being a game? The game is suppose to be as realistic as possible within the confines of a game, not to try to exactly mimic real life. I don't see the enjoyment of this at all. I want to be able to trust the game, not rely on the whims of imaginary players with imaginary mood swings.

As has been discussed ad nauseum around here, there are major major issues with DI that simply aren't issues at the lower levels. Yet the issues of DI still aren't being addressed since recruit generation is not being addressed. Maybe that won't be an issue anymore after the update but I don't really want to dwell on this since I don't play DI anyway.

Still hate the idea of in season recruiting. A game, not real life...

I hope the beta proves me wrong

i hate the idea of recruiting every 3-6 hours for 2-4 days straight, but everyone that agrees with me already quit.