Working on recruit creation now. It's shaping up and we're getting close to where we want to be. Overall it probably won't look that much different, but there will be more of a bunching toward the average with fewer extremes. But those extremes may be a bit better than what you get now.

Also, I'm tweaking the selection of favorite school a bit. It will be spread out a little more than it is currently. Basically, if a player wants to stay close to home, his favorite will be a school pretty close to him and vice versa if the player wants to be far from home. If he has no preference it could be a nearby school or a nationally prominent school based on prestige. But the latter group will include more schools than it does currently. Also, a recruit's favorite should now be a school that he will actually be interested in attending based on his talent. Overall, maybe not quite as realistic but should work better within the context of the game.

For those of you who don't check it because it only updates once in a great while.

I remember Seble mentioning in recruit creation there would be an emphasis on creating perimeter oriented big men, but from the looks of this update it doesn't seem so. Considering the "overall it probably won't look that much different," comment, and perimeter oriented big men would be a big difference.

Yes this is going to be included per a talk with seble. They have changed the way recruits are generated, before they generated the recruits position and then ratings. I asked them if they had thought about doing it the opposite way, which they said is going to be how the new engine handles recruit generation.

Until the favorite school carries some weight in recruiting, it is pointless to waste any time on it. Merely changing it to correlate with his distance preference and talent doesn't excite me at all.

Yeah I agree Weena... seems about as pointless as the DUR update.

Quote: Originally Posted By Weena on 11/04/2009Until the favorite school carries some weight in recruiting, it is pointless to waste any time on it. Merely changing it to correlate with his distance preference and talent doesn't excite me at all.

That and the fact that you have to have purchased FSS to even know that information and FSS is pretty much a local activity. Rather doubt that as a coach at UCLA you're going to know that a kid from Michigan is your school's favorite.

Exactly, Rails. It's continually surprising how obtuse WIS leadership is in dealing with their veteran (valid) customer ideas and concerns. They simply don't respect our knowledge and perspective on the game. And they don't bother to learn how the game really works. It's ultimately what may make many of us hang it up permanently.

Quote: Originally posted by jskenner on 11/04/2009Exactly, Rails. It's continually surprising how obtuse WIS leadership is in dealing with their veteran (valid) customer ideas and concerns. They simply don't respect our knowledge and perspective on the game. And they don't bother to learn how the game really works. It's ultimately what may make many of us hang it up permanently.

Couldn't agree more.

After today I am starting to think jsk and dalt might be the same person

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 11/04/2009I remember Seble mentioning in recruit creation there would be an emphasis on creating perimeter oriented big men, but from the looks of this update it doesn't seem so. Considering the "overall it probably won't look that much different," comment, and perimeter oriented big men would be a big difference

I followed up with him about this (he got back to me very promptly):

"Yes, that [more skill variance at each position] will be a key part of the update. I probably should have mentioned it, but it was in the original discussion of the release so I assumed that was known. As for bunching toward the average, that was meant in an overall rating sense. There will still be plenty of different types of players, with different strengths and weaknesses."

That's what I wanted to hear ...

What is the point in it?

I can't see them ever finding a balance between making it a meaningful attribute to the game without over powering it and pretty much driving recruiting.

Up until this point I've never recruited a player who had one of my teams as a favorite school. Heck I might have but I NEVER look at the stupid thing.

WIS should come out and say what effect these things have. Perhaps they do change recruiting but since we're doing it all blind we're more likely to attribute the loss/wins to prestige, distance and money spent. If WIS said that it gave you a 5% bonus to all recruiting I'd actually look into entering that into my decision process.

I dunno, theres alot of ideas we all probably have. At this point theres no point even discussing them because we all know they'll be ignored by the people who we want to hear them.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 11/04/2009

I followed up with him about this (he got back to me very promptly):

"Yes, that [more skill variance at each position] will be a key part of the update. I probably should have mentioned it, but it was in the original discussion of the release so I assumed that was known. As for bunching toward the average, that was meant in an overall rating sense. There will still be plenty of different types of players, with different strengths and weaknesses."

That's what I wanted to hear ...

Definitely sounds good.

As far as the favorite school it should probably just be taken out. I don't think it holds much weight even in real life. I went to high school with a kid who grew up loving Syracuse his favorite player as a kid was Lawrence Moten. In fact recruiting services constantly mentioned his love for Syracuse when updating his recruiting and despite heavy recruiting from Syracuse he went to NC State.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 11/04/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 11/04/2009

I followed up with him about this (he got back to me very promptly):

"Yes, that [more skill variance at each position] will be a key part of the update. I probably should have mentioned it, but it was in the original discussion of the release so I assumed that was known. As for bunching toward the average, that was meant in an overall rating sense. There will still be plenty of different types of players, with different strengths and weaknesses."

That's what I wanted to hear ...

Definitely sounds good.

As far as the favorite school it should probably just be taken out. I don't think it holds much weight even in real life. I went to high school with a kid who grew up loving Syracuse his favorite player as a kid was Lawrence Moten. In fact recruiting services constantly mentioned his love for Syracuse when updating his recruiting and despite heavy recruiting from Syracuse he went to NC State.

Julius Hodge?

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 11/04/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 11/04/2009
I remember Seble mentioning in recruit creation there would be an emphasis on creating perimeter oriented big men, but from the looks of this update it doesn't seem so. Considering the "overall it probably won't look that much different," comment, and perimeter oriented big men would be a big difference.

I followed up with him about this (he got back to me very promptly):

"Yes, that [more skill variance at each position] will be a key part of the update. I probably should have mentioned it, but it was in the original discussion of the release so I assumed that was known. As for bunching toward the average, that was meant in an overall rating sense. There will still be plenty of different types of players, with different strengths and weaknesses."

That's what I wanted to hear ...

IMO, it is not the variance in the skills which limit the big guys as per players or the guards as inside players, it is the engine. if you don't think this is so, play a balanced sf set to zero at sg for about 4 games, then play them at pf for 4 games, again set to zero. the sf will take about 50-60% 3's from sg, and about 10% 3's from PF. at least that is my experience?

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 11/04/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 11/04/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 11/04/2009
I remember Seble mentioning in recruit creation there would be an emphasis on creating perimeter oriented big men, but from the looks of this update it doesn't seem so. Considering the "overall it probably won't look that much different," comment, and perimeter oriented big men would be a big difference.

I followed up with him about this (he got back to me very promptly):

"Yes, that [more skill variance at each position] will be a key part of the update. I probably should have mentioned it, but it was in the original discussion of the release so I assumed that was known. As for bunching toward the average, that was meant in an overall rating sense. There will still be plenty of different types of players, with different strengths and weaknesses."

That's what I wanted to hear ...

IMO, it is not the variance in the skills which limit the big guys as per players or the guards as inside players, it is the engine. if you don't think this is so, play a balanced sf set to zero at sg for about 4 games, then play them at pf for 4 games, again set to zero. the sf will take about 50-60% 3's from sg, and about 10% 3's from PF. at least that is my experience

Doesn't that make sense on some level, though? Unless you're running a Wisconsin-style swing or something, you just aren't going to see PFs on the perimeter that often.

Now, whether we should have the option to do that is an entirely different question.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 11/04/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 11/04/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 11/04/2009
I remember Seble mentioning in recruit creation there would be an emphasis on creating perimeter oriented big men, but from the looks of this update it doesn't seem so. Considering the "overall it probably won't look that much different," comment, and perimeter oriented big men would be a big difference.

I followed up with him about this (he got back to me very promptly):

"Yes, that [more skill variance at each position] will be a key part of the update. I probably should have mentioned it, but it was in the original discussion of the release so I assumed that was known. As for bunching toward the average, that was meant in an overall rating sense. There will still be plenty of different types of players, with different strengths and weaknesses."

That's what I wanted to hear ...

IMO, it is not the variance in the skills which limit the big guys as per players or the guards as inside players, it is the engine. if you don't think this is so, play a balanced sf set to zero at sg for about 4 games, then play them at pf for 4 games, again set to zero. the sf will take about 50-60% 3's from sg, and about 10% 3's from PF. at least that is my experience

That's 100% correct, I've been banging that drum for years.

That said, pe for big men was just one example out of many possible (ie. guards who can rebound, more defensive specialists, etc. etc. etc.) And even then, having the high pe still makes the player an overall more effective scorer. But the end result in all of that would be to give more differentiation between recruits, and that's a good thing.