Posted by seble on 12/23/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
You definitely have a good point there, I'm just not sure how I can reasonably determine that without the logic becoming overly complex.  It's definitely something I'll consider though.

Posted by seble on 12/23/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
You definitely have a good point there, I'm just not sure how I can reasonably determine that without the logic becoming overly complex.  It's definitely something I'll consider though.

Posted by girt25 on 12/23/2011 7:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/23/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
You definitely have a good point there, I'm just not sure how I can reasonably determine that without the logic becoming overly complex.  It's definitely something I'll consider though.

seble, I actually think it's pretty straightforward -- to get full credit, you need to win with your own players. Simple, logical, and I know it's doable because this used to be a component.

Posted by girt25 on 12/23/2011 7:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/23/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
You definitely have a good point there, I'm just not sure how I can reasonably determine that without the logic becoming overly complex.  It's definitely something I'll consider though.

seble, I actually think it's pretty straightforward -- to get full credit, you need to win with your own players. Simple, logical, and I know it's doable because this used to be a component.

How would you define "Your own players"?  if your team had any sim players on it?  A multiplier based on what portion of the roster is recruited by you?  Say, if you only recruited half of the players you only get half credit?  No credit at all until you have four seasons under your belt?

(Not disagreeing with you, just asking; like the idea)

Posted by girt25 on 12/23/2011 7:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/23/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
You definitely have a good point there, I'm just not sure how I can reasonably determine that without the logic becoming overly complex.  It's definitely something I'll consider though.

seble, I actually think it's pretty straightforward -- to get full credit, you need to win with your own players. Simple, logical, and I know it's doable because this used to be a component.

Posted by mjp8 on 12/23/2011 10:05:00 PM (view original):
radar, it is one thing to take over a good team and continue to win.  It is totally different to take over a good team and win for 2 years and then leave before any of your recruits have an impact.

Far too many coaches who just poach good jobs with NT ready teams, do a year or two and move on to the next one. They have an inflated record but have never actually built a good team or won due to their own skills. If you think good recruiting is not 80% of success in this game you are full of it, it is very easy to take over a NT ready team and make the NT. It is not easy to take over a C- team that the SIM has been running for 20 years and make the NT in your first season or two.

Lets look at the situation radar and mjp8 have commented on, First, lets go to the "real" world situations. Poaching good jobs is acceptable if a coach is a consistant winner at the stops he takes his coaching skills to. In the "real" world situation an AD takes into account coaches and their longevity at a school, but they also look at what a coach does leading a program. It is more important for a young coach to spend at least 4 or 5 seasons minimum at a D3 school, showing that he can lead a program and recruit, build a program, like what mjp8 is talking about. A D2 program wants to see that a coach is good in almost all areas of building a program. Yet, if a beginning D3 coach takes over a program wins immediately, even if he inhearited a great team, it shows that the coach knows his on the court business and a D2 program, maybe not a top one, but a middle of the road one, will take a chance and hire him. Once a coach builds a resmue on D2 and shows he can win at that level, most D2 programs will take the winner, with less emphasis on building, especially if he shows he can take a talented team to wins. Winning immediately at a high Level D2 is most important, especially if the cubbord is full of players. Once a coach wins at D2, especially if he gets to the National Tourn (D2) and wins consistantly (3 or 4 seasons), D1 AD's will target that coach for hire. If a coach wins the National title, even with another coaches recruits, D1 programs (lower level) take note and usually give those coaches a chance to coach at the highest level, especially if jobs are available. Since this sim doesn't deal with assistant coaching, you have to let the D1 programs hire the successful D2 coahes in any instance or your D1 numbers are insaficient. (this is not like the "real" world and you cannont do anything about it. Once a coach hits the D1 level, its win baby win, and D1 programs will move up "hot" coaches after immediate success at the D1 level, even without 3 or 4 recruiting classes. Look at Marquette's head coach Buzz Williams for an example....he would not be able to move up in this sim as he did in real life. Not a chance. If, as mjp8 would want,make this sim more of a recruiting sim and not an in game coaching sim, them don't move up coaches faster. With that you will lose many coaches, and I really think the lack of coaches right now can be atribuitated to this.
 

Posted by jskenner on 12/24/2011 5:02:00 AM (view original):
seble's response re: compensating for beta testing is very telling. He says they "can't afford that economically right now." Thinking as a businessman, it mystifies me how HD thinks NOT trying to appease disgruntled customers (of teams who were messed up in job-move timing) is a good move, even in the short term. Many of these teams will lose their coaches NOW, and these coaches may drop more teams out of frustration, even if not directly affected by the problem. If HD started giving out free seasons, specifically to those who complain about this issue in a ticket, they could recover some loyalty. Maybe they are doing this unofficially. I hope so. I do know that I dropped a team recently (DI Ok St in Phelan) over EE frustration, and if any of my teams suffer like others over newly-created job movement issues, I'll drop those, too. If seble et al don't nail the "fix" to the fix, this will begin to affect 3 of my 4 remaining teams beginning this season. And I suspect a lot of customers feel the same. He may not think WIS can handle compensating beta testers. If that's the case, and if the new "fix" remains wrongly coded, then this corporate mentality may lose a lot of longterm revenue for WIS. I really do wish them well in nailing the new fix.

Posted by jskenner on 12/24/2011 5:02:00 AM (view original):
seble's response re: compensating for beta testing is very telling. He says they "can't afford that economically right now." Thinking as a businessman, it mystifies me how HD thinks NOT trying to appease disgruntled customers (of teams who were messed up in job-move timing) is a good move, even in the short term. Many of these teams will lose their coaches NOW, and these coaches may drop more teams out of frustration, even if not directly affected by the problem. If HD started giving out free seasons, specifically to those who complain about this issue in a ticket, they could recover some loyalty. Maybe they are doing this unofficially. I hope so. I do know that I dropped a team recently (DI Ok St in Phelan) over EE frustration, and if any of my teams suffer like others over newly-created job movement issues, I'll drop those, too. If seble et al don't nail the "fix" to the fix, this will begin to affect 3 of my 4 remaining teams beginning this season. And I suspect a lot of customers feel the same. He may not think WIS can handle compensating beta testers. If that's the case, and if the new "fix" remains wrongly coded, then this corporate mentality may lose a lot of longterm revenue for WIS. I really do wish them well in nailing the new fix.

Posted by austinpeevey on 12/24/2011 12:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mjp8 on 12/23/2011 10:05:00 PM (view original):
radar, it is one thing to take over a good team and continue to win.  It is totally different to take over a good team and win for 2 years and then leave before any of your recruits have an impact.

Far too many coaches who just poach good jobs with NT ready teams, do a year or two and move on to the next one. They have an inflated record but have never actually built a good team or won due to their own skills. If you think good recruiting is not 80% of success in this game you are full of it, it is very easy to take over a NT ready team and make the NT. It is not easy to take over a C- team that the SIM has been running for 20 years and make the NT in your first season or two.

Lets look at the situation radar and mjp8 have commented on, First, lets go to the "real" world situations. Poaching good jobs is acceptable if a coach is a consistant winner at the stops he takes his coaching skills to. In the "real" world situation an AD takes into account coaches and their longevity at a school, but they also look at what a coach does leading a program. It is more important for a young coach to spend at least 4 or 5 seasons minimum at a D3 school, showing that he can lead a program and recruit, build a program, like what mjp8 is talking about. A D2 program wants to see that a coach is good in almost all areas of building a program. Yet, if a beginning D3 coach takes over a program wins immediately, even if he inhearited a great team, it shows that the coach knows his on the court business and a D2 program, maybe not a top one, but a middle of the road one, will take a chance and hire him. Once a coach builds a resmue on D2 and shows he can win at that level, most D2 programs will take the winner, with less emphasis on building, especially if he shows he can take a talented team to wins. Winning immediately at a high Level D2 is most important, especially if the cubbord is full of players. Once a coach wins at D2, especially if he gets to the National Tourn (D2) and wins consistantly (3 or 4 seasons), D1 AD's will target that coach for hire. If a coach wins the National title, even with another coaches recruits, D1 programs (lower level) take note and usually give those coaches a chance to coach at the highest level, especially if jobs are available. Since this sim doesn't deal with assistant coaching, you have to let the D1 programs hire the successful D2 coahes in any instance or your D1 numbers are insaficient. (this is not like the "real" world and you cannont do anything about it. Once a coach hits the D1 level, its win baby win, and D1 programs will move up "hot" coaches after immediate success at the D1 level, even without 3 or 4 recruiting classes. Look at Marquette's head coach Buzz Williams for an example....he would not be able to move up in this sim as he did in real life. Not a chance. If, as mjp8 would want,make this sim more of a recruiting sim and not an in game coaching sim, them don't move up coaches faster. With that you will lose many coaches, and I really think the lack of coaches right now can be atribuitated to this.
 

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/23/2011 8:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 12/23/2011 7:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/23/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
You definitely have a good point there, I'm just not sure how I can reasonably determine that without the logic becoming overly complex.  It's definitely something I'll consider though.

seble, I actually think it's pretty straightforward -- to get full credit, you need to win with your own players. Simple, logical, and I know it's doable because this used to be a component.

How would you define "Your own players"?  if your team had any sim players on it?  A multiplier based on what portion of the roster is recruited by you?  Say, if you only recruited half of the players you only get half credit?  No credit at all until you have four seasons under your belt?

(Not disagreeing with you, just asking; like the idea)

 

Posted by girt25 on 12/24/2011 10:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/23/2011 8:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 12/23/2011 7:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 12/23/2011 1:32:00 PM (view original):
You definitely have a good point there, I'm just not sure how I can reasonably determine that without the logic becoming overly complex.  It's definitely something I'll consider though.

seble, I actually think it's pretty straightforward -- to get full credit, you need to win with your own players. Simple, logical, and I know it's doable because this used to be a component.

How would you define "Your own players"?  if your team had any sim players on it?  A multiplier based on what portion of the roster is recruited by you?  Say, if you only recruited half of the players you only get half credit?  No credit at all until you have four seasons under your belt?

(Not disagreeing with you, just asking; like the idea)

 

a_b, I think these are all fair and relevant questions that would be open to interpretation/discussion. Here are my thoughts, please feel free to disagree: 

How would you define "Your own players"?  
Players that you recruited.

if your team had any sim players on it?  
Not your players.

A multiplier based on what portion of the roster is recruited by you?  Say, if you only recruited half of the players you only get half credit?  
I'd either envision some type of multiplier, or perhaps to receive full credit, the players need to be recruited by you; if you win with a roster of players you didn't recruit, you'd receive some percentage of full credit, which would vary based on something like the percentage of minutes that were played by guys that you recruited. (That way, a coach with five of his own players that all started would deservedly get more credit than a coach with five of his own players who barely saw the court.) I don't think that would be too difficult to program at all.

No credit at all until you have four seasons under your belt?
Oh no, you would definitely receive credit. Just not full, 100% credit if you're not winning with your players.