And seble, while the intent may be that the majority of weight goes to ratings, that's not at all how it actually plays out. Partly it's the randomnes factor. But I think a huge part is that there are just a lot of really good players who are fairly comparable.

When so many are comparable, you can't effectively differentiate through ratings (even if that's your intent), so that team success ends up being the overwhelming deciding factor.

Another, separate issue: Guys who leave early after absolutely terrible seasons. I've had a big man leave early who shot under 40% from the field, and a sg leave early that shot 26% from 3p range. I know stats shouldn't be everything, but a big man shooting 40% wouldn't be an EE candidate for the USBL, let alone the NBA.

Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 11/11/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 11/11/2009
Looking closer at the slotting logic, I misspoke before. The majority of weight is given to ratings, but also factored in are All-American/Player of the Year selection(s), team wins, and team prestige. So postseason success isn't explicitly a factor.

I like this - It helps reduce the "rich get richer" factor by somewhat limiting A+ prestige teams from having dominant senior classes

Moy, I agree with you to a point. If the top prestige schools is also recruiting the top players that should go pro then yes they should leave early. But losing 3-4 players early in any given year makes a team very dependant on the random generation of recruits.

Daalt - I do think ratings currently play a much bigger role than NT success. Almost every 900+ rated JR I have is drafted despite a dismal 1st round NT exit. I don't think its OVER-weighted towards postseason success.

The problem again - its that these players are leaving to be the 59th pick overall when they could easily be a lottery pick with a deep NT run the next season.... they are leaving NBA money on the table which rarely happens in RL

Moy, I don't know what you are seeing because there are always PLENTY of guys that do not go pro that very well should have. 1003 rated junior at UNC stays? 950 junior pf... He got ko'd in round 2 of the nt, likely why they did not leave.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/11/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 11/11/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 11/11/2009
Looking closer at the slotting logic, I misspoke before. The majority of weight is given to ratings, but also factored in are All-American/Player of the Year selection(s), team wins, and team prestige. So postseason success isn't explicitly a factor.

I like this - It helps reduce the "rich get richer" factor by somewhat limiting A+ prestige teams from having dominant senior classes.

Moy, I agree with you to a point. If the top prestige schools is also recruiting the top players that should go pro then yes they should leave early. But losing 3-4 players early in any given year makes a team very dependanton the random generation of recruits.

The A+ schools are not so dependant on local recruits. Its easy to get internationals as an A+. Its also easier to go out 400-500 miles whereas thats suicide for a lesser prestiged school.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/11/2009
Moy, I don't know what you are seeing because there are always PLENTY of guys that do not go pro that very well should have. 1003 rated junior at UNC stays? 950 junior pf... He got ko'd in round 2 of the nt, likely why they did not leave.

I'm just seeing my teams. I RARELY have a 900+ JR stay on board for one more season. Must have something to do with my team prestige and wins then.



EDIT - That kind of bothers me then - I had a 950 or so rated PF leave Illinois after a 1 and done in season 38.... oh, and he was drafted 59th overall.

Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 11/11/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/11/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 11/11/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 11/11/2009
Looking closer at the slotting logic, I misspoke before. The majority of weight is given to ratings, but also factored in are All-American/Player of the Year selection(s), team wins, and team prestige. So postseason success isn't explicitly a factor.

I like this - It helps reduce the "rich get richer" factor by somewhat limiting A+ prestige teams from having dominant senior classes.

Moy, I agree with you to a point. If the top prestige schools is also recruiting the top players that should go pro then yes they should leave early. But losing 3-4 players early in any given year makes a team very dependanton the random generation of recruits.

The A+ schools are not so dependant on local recruits. Its easy to get internationals as an A+. Its also easier to go out 400-500 miles whereas thats suicide for a lesser prestiged school.

Which is still being dependant on random generation of recruits. I have seen too many times where all the Internationals are bad or the west coast is loaded as is the south but nothing in the Northeast. 400-500 miles is not a Huge distance. With your numbers you are saying that A+ schools can recruit roughly 20% of the US, as opposed to roughtly 10% (350 miles) that other schools can recruit. Sure that is a bigger number but it doesn't mean anything, the recruits still have to be randomly generated in the right areas, you lose your two starting pgs and low and behold there are none anywhere near you. Moy its not as easy as you are making it out to be.

Quote: Originally Posted By moy23 on 11/11/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/11/2009
Moy, I don't know what you are seeing because there are always PLENTY of guys that do not go pro that very well should have. 1003 rated junior at UNC stays? 950 junior pf... He got ko'd in round 2 of the nt, likely why they did not leave.

I'm just seeing my teams. I RARELY have a 900+ JR stay on board for one more season. Must have something to do with my team prestige and wins then.



EDIT - That kind of bothers me then - I had a 950 or so rated PF leave Illinois after a 1 and done in season 38.... oh, and he was drafted 59th overall.

Right and they have had a TON more success over their careers then my kids have had. Again nothin' against lm2, luck was on his side. But it goes to show that the system needs to take into account ratings more.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/11/2009
Which is still being dependant on random generation of recruits. I have seen too many times where all the Internationals are bad or the west coast is loaded as is the south but nothing in the Northeast. 400-500 miles is not a Huge distance. With your numbers you are saying that A+ schools can recruit roughly 20% of the US, as opposed to roughtly 10% (350 miles) that other schools can recruit. Sure that is a bigger number but it doesn't mean anything, the recruits still have to be randomly generated in the right areas, you lose your two starting pgs and low and behold there are none anywhere near you. Moy its not as easy as you are making it out to be.

Never said it was easy - just easier. I certainly can reach much farther with my A+ UofI team than my D+ SIU team.

All I am sayinhg is that personally, although I would benefit greatly by removing or lowering team prestige factors, I don't like to see the "rich get richer" in HD meaning the A+ prestiges keep more JRs onboard for another season. Teams like my UofI team would be unstoppable. We are A+ prestiges because we can recruit... some years are tougher than others.... thats part of the game/challenge I enjoy.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/11/2009Right and they have had a TON more success over their careers then my kids have had. Again nothin' against lm2, luck was on his side. But it goes to show that the system needs to take into account ratings more

sure. but it also needs to make sure these guys aren't going to be a 45+ draft selection.

Why don't we agree to hold off and see how it plays out after the next release. It doesn't make sense to make a change now when recruit generation will be changing as well as rate of player improvement.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 11/11/2009Why don't we agree to hold off and see how it plays out after the next release. It doesn't make sense to make a change now when recruit generation will be changing as well as rate of player improvement.

I can agree to that. Can this be something that is looked at during beta testing also? I assume enough seasons will be ran that with a quick pull of data it can be seen who is / isn't leaving.

seble, I partly see your point, but there are certain parts of the EE system that are simply broken, and can't be fixed by tweaks to recruit generation. Fixing them would require a philosophical shift in how EE's are viewed/handled.

One takeaway that I do hope resonates with you from this is that, before future changes, I think it would be really effective to poll users on what potential changes would be most important to them. Because while the engine is no doubt at the very top, there are other things (both now and with the previous regime) that were addressed in lieu of issues that most felt were much more important.

(And I know that sometimes it was with quick fix issues, and I understand that, but there are even a number of quick fix issues that could've/should've been addressed instead.)

dalter I agree with you there. But I will give the new recruit generation a chance to solve the issue. I agree I don't think it will, but I will give it its chance (although I think the chance should be in beta testing to decide if it is working or not, not 6 months of the new engnie in worlds).

We'll definitely regroup after this release and prioritize any outstanding issues. I have to say though, that 90% of the tickets and forum feedback I've seen in the last year is related to the engine, rankings, tournament seedings, and recruit/player quality. That's why this release is addressing those issues.