Posted by moy23 on 9/4/2010 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 9/4/2010 8:57:00 PM (view original):
When you have a situation where people feel that only a pre-selected handful of teams can really compete at high levels, and the gap is big enough that it frustrates people, makes them leave, unhappy, etc. that's bad for DI and HD -- and it trumps the bloody hell out of matching up more exactly with real life.

Daalt..... there are probably close to 3000 people playing hd. The fact that 5 or 10 of them are upset does not mean all hell is breaking loose. You definitely have a flair for the dramatic.

"5 or 10"? Who's got the flair for the dramatic? There are more than that in this thread alone. There are more than that that have left DI Allen in the last season or so.

You don't get the magnitude of this one. You will eventually.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/4/2010 11:03:00 PM (view original):
Why can't you appease both sides?  Have one world run with the way "5 or 10" of us want it to be like and the other worlds can be the way they are now.  If that one world is unprofitable, shut it down.  Most companies offer variations of the same product line to appeal to as broad a consumer base as possible.  Imagine GM offering one vehicle - take it or leave it.  The one size fits all that WIS employs for HD really should be re-evaluated.

What???  You want them to maintain 2 different code versions in different worlds.  It is hard enough to get 1 instance of the code stable.  Having more than one version of the code in production would not (IMHO) do anything to make it more enjoyable for the customer.

Posted by hughesjr on 9/5/2010 2:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/4/2010 11:03:00 PM (view original):
Why can't you appease both sides?  Have one world run with the way "5 or 10" of us want it to be like and the other worlds can be the way they are now.  If that one world is unprofitable, shut it down.  Most companies offer variations of the same product line to appeal to as broad a consumer base as possible.  Imagine GM offering one vehicle - take it or leave it.  The one size fits all that WIS employs for HD really should be re-evaluated.

What???  You want them to maintain 2 different code versions in different worlds.  It is hard enough to get 1 instance of the code stable.  Having more than one version of the code in production would not (IMHO) do anything to make it more enjoyable for the customer.

I'm not even saying I agree with the suggestion or not, but why would that be so difficult? The game code would be exactly the same, and I think that's really the tricky part.

Posted by daalter on 9/5/2010 2:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 9/4/2010 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 9/4/2010 8:57:00 PM (view original):
When you have a situation where people feel that only a pre-selected handful of teams can really compete at high levels, and the gap is big enough that it frustrates people, makes them leave, unhappy, etc. that's bad for DI and HD -- and it trumps the bloody hell out of matching up more exactly with real life.

Daalt..... there are probably close to 3000 people playing hd. The fact that 5 or 10 of them are upset does not mean all hell is breaking loose. You definitely have a flair for the dramatic.

"5 or 10"? Who's got the flair for the dramatic? There are more than that in this thread alone. There are more than that that have left DI Allen in the last season or so.

You don't get the magnitude of this one. You will eventually.

I do not think that "what if" means that you should be able to take any team (like Jacksonville State) and turn them into a Duke or Kentucky or Kansas.

If every team at D1 can be Duke or Kentucky or Kansas then what kind of reward would it be to get Duke or Kentucky or Kansas.

I would dare say that it should not be easy (if even possible at all) to make Jacksonville State be Duke.

I don't think the majority of the coaches out there want a Jacksonville State to be able to become a Duke.

There are not enough "Real World" players to make every team an elite program ... why should there be enough players in HD to make every team into an elite program.  There are X very good recruits and people have to be able to identify them and then compete for them.  Sounds like a good thing to me.

First, without looking, I'd bet my next paycheck that these are the comments of someone with little-to-no DI experience. I don't comment on DIII for a reason -- because I don't know much about it, and understand that I'm not qualified to weigh in on anything that is DIII specific.

Aside from that:

No one is saying that it should be easy to turn Jax State into Duke.
No one is saying that there should be enough players to make every team elite.
You are creating straw men there.
What people are saying is that it's now too difficult to take low/mid teams and make them consistently competitive with traditionally bigger schools. No one is saying that this should be easy, no one is saying that everyone should be able to do it ... merely that the latest changes have gone too far in establishing an extremely wide chasm in between the haves and have nots, and this has negative effects on the game.

But even with an increased ability to take low/mids and make them nationally significant, there would still exist some really compelling factors that would always make the big-time teams the most attractive and rewarding:

-These are the name schools. People are really interested in getting UCLA, Kentucky, etc. for the simple fact that they are UCLA, Kentucky, etc.
-There is a huge inherent baseline prestige advantage. That alone is enough to keep those schools extremely desirable.
-There is a huge advantage in postseason money. Again, that alone would be enough as well.

I tire of the "you have no D-i experience" ... guess what, neither to you with the new engine.  And the D-I experience you do have in the new engine, you don't like ... because you want it to be exactly like it was.

I do not need "OLD" DI experience ... that is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

You have probably never been arrested for prostitution in Bangkok (or maybe you have) ... how is that relevant to playing HD with this engine.

hughes - you are free to have that opinion, I happen to think the new 'engine' and the old engine almost react identical, there really are very few differences.  By the way, you heard it here, seble took the old engine, rewrote it in a new language and replicated it, no small feat, and he deserves  credit.

Hence, I submit that experience in the old engine does count toward an understanding of the new engine, since they react almost identical. 

Seems the conversation has sort of split into two of them

1 - how relevant should baseline prestige be?

2 - how is the new recruit generation affecting competitiveness?

Everyone has an opinion on this, for those who did not know, prestige used to more or less not float, if you look at your teams, you will see dash marks for prestige if you look back far enough.  The no float made being competitive with mid majors quite difficult.  Floating has made competing with all teams significantly easier, obviously removing all prestige would help elven more, but probably would change the game substantially and generate lots of controversy.  As I recall, making prestige float was a very popular change.

I think any thought that mid majors have 'no chance' competing with the new recruit generation is wrong, only that they have less a chance than before, since before there were more top end recruits available.  I think even the most ardent supporters of the new recruit generation implementation might have to admit odds of winning have gotten shifted since the change.

I might have the most d1 experience with the new engine, as I have 8 teams in d1, overall I have seen some odd things with recruiting, but it seems to me the group so far hit the hardest has not been the low or mid level d1 teams, but rather the low level bcs teams and the hi mid majors.  But even with my teams, I probably have only recruited maybe 15-20 times - a little early to know for sure. 

I also have recruited maybe 5-6 times in d2 under the new system, quite honestly, it is a challenge, but for sure lots of opportunity, regardless of prestige.  I would think that is very positive for the average coach.  I would guess the same is true for d3 also.  No wonder the new recruit generation has created some controversy, as the d1 vets see mostly bad, and those mostly in d2 / d3 see mostly good.

If the high end of d1 (ranked 1 thru 10 by position)  were  tweeked just a little down, and the 10 thru 50 by position were pushed forward a little more than a tweek, half way between where they are and where the elite players are tweeked to, the game might be pretty close to spot on, where at least a high percent of the coaches would be happy. 

Have a great labor day weekend everyone

I was with you until that last paragraph OR. Dropping the top elites down and raising the mid-range recruits (10-50) essentially just erased the whole reason for the recruit change.... to have elite players that play like elite players.

I would be for slightly less 700 rated frosh, say 35-40 per season instead of 45-50.... and more low-end recruit increases, say take sebles 590-600 flat line on the recruit generation curve and bump it to 610. I'd leave that 10-30 group alone assuming you are talking about each position ranking, like iguana was.

Posted by girt25 on 9/5/2010 2:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/5/2010 2:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/4/2010 11:03:00 PM (view original):
Why can't you appease both sides?  Have one world run with the way "5 or 10" of us want it to be like and the other worlds can be the way they are now.  If that one world is unprofitable, shut it down.  Most companies offer variations of the same product line to appeal to as broad a consumer base as possible.  Imagine GM offering one vehicle - take it or leave it.  The one size fits all that WIS employs for HD really should be re-evaluated.

What???  You want them to maintain 2 different code versions in different worlds.  It is hard enough to get 1 instance of the code stable.  Having more than one version of the code in production would not (IMHO) do anything to make it more enjoyable for the customer.

I'm not even saying I agree with the suggestion or not, but why would that be so difficult? The game code would be exactly the same, and I think that's really the tricky part.

Budget cuts ;)

Posted by daalter on 9/5/2010 2:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 9/4/2010 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 9/4/2010 8:57:00 PM (view original):
When you have a situation where people feel that only a pre-selected handful of teams can really compete at high levels, and the gap is big enough that it frustrates people, makes them leave, unhappy, etc. that's bad for DI and HD -- and it trumps the bloody hell out of matching up more exactly with real life.

Daalt..... there are probably close to 3000 people playing hd. The fact that 5 or 10 of them are upset does not mean all hell is breaking loose. You definitely have a flair for the dramatic.

"5 or 10"? Who's got the flair for the dramatic? There are more than that in this thread alone. There are more than that that have left DI Allen in the last season or so.

You don't get the magnitude of this one. You will eventually.

Maybe I don't get the magnitude.... but like I said its not a bad thing to have some vets leave. It opens the world up for the newer coaches that are less static in their ways and don't disagree with every change since they know no differently. Face it, we've all become grumpy old complaining vets.

I say let the di vets leave. The game will go on without them. Hd is still running since plumpy, Davis, oldave, lumberjack2, combalt, and you even, left. Your argument about mass exodus sounds like a disgruntled employee leaving a fortune 500 saying you guys are going to miss me, you need me. That's not true.... someone else will fill the void....as with di Allen.

come to think of it...you cry 'mass exodus' a lot. everyone will quit because of less reward points, because of potential, because of new recruit generation.... the game will go on... you must know that.

There's nothing wrong with turnover in a customer base if that's your strategy.  If you base your moves on knowing that you are being smart.  Often, though, turnover is an indicator that you are failing to satisfy people who are initially attracted to you.  For most companies, that's a problem as it's much easier to keep a customer than it is to gain a new customer.  If there were associated extra costs with some customers, those might be the ones that it would be good to lose but I don't think that idea applies to a product like WIS.  I really doubt WIS thinks losing paying customers is a part of their overall strategy.  You have to be very good at marketing your product to make that deal work.

While you can sometimes see a mass exodus (if you can agree on the definition), things usually go downhill (fail) at a slow rate.  The Romans didn't sit around thinking "We are done as a civilization" even though in hindsight, it's easy to see the gradual decline.  So what I'd like to know is how the number of paying teams looks.  Is it staying level?  On a decline?  That's way more important to know than anyone's opinions as to whether coaches are leaving or staying. 

Specifically, I agree that the recruiting changes have made it tough on non-top BCS schools.  I coach Virginia in Smith and it's disheatening to see the few good players already "claimed" by UNC, Maryland, Duke, etc. after the first recruiting cycle.  I'm already a letter grade down in prestige, I have the same conference money as they do, and if I have more money due to open scollies, that only means I have more holes to fill and can't afford the top guys anyway.  It feels like a battle I won't win very often and is always extremely risky.  At least, if I'm in a non-BCS conference, I feel like I'm in the same boat as the rest of my mates and can still compete to win the conference.  Is that situation realistic?  Sure.  Is it fun?  Definitely not.

In the past, I had my issues with baseline prestige.  I finally accepted that if I wanted to play their game, I had to change my approach and move to a BCS school.  This time around, it feels like now I have to change again and go for a top BCS school.  That might actually be impossible.  So what choice do I have?  Drop to a non-BCS and be happy with winning my conference?  Drop even farther down the ladder to D2 and play against a lot of sim teams and beginner coaches on their way up to the "big time"?  (I know there are top coaches in D2 and intend no disrespect to them, I just don't think D2 has the same level of coaching talent overall).

I'm not going to say the game is better or worse.  It's just less fun for me.  That's the bottom line for all of us.

Posted by daalter on 9/5/2010 2:51:00 AM (view original):
First, without looking, I'd bet my next paycheck that these are the comments of someone with little-to-no DI experience. I don't comment on DIII for a reason -- because I don't know much about it, and understand that I'm not qualified to weigh in on anything that is DIII specific.

Aside from that:

No one is saying that it should be easy to turn Jax State into Duke.
No one is saying that there should be enough players to make every team elite.
You are creating straw men there.
What people are saying is that it's now too difficult to take low/mid teams and make them consistently competitive with traditionally bigger schools. No one is saying that this should be easy, no one is saying that everyone should be able to do it ... merely that the latest changes have gone too far in establishing an extremely wide chasm in between the haves and have nots, and this has negative effects on the game.

But even with an increased ability to take low/mids and make them nationally significant, there would still exist some really compelling factors that would always make the big-time teams the most attractive and rewarding:

-These are the name schools. People are really interested in getting UCLA, Kentucky, etc. for the simple fact that they are UCLA, Kentucky, etc.
-There is a huge inherent baseline prestige advantage. That alone is enough to keep those schools extremely desirable.
-There is a huge advantage in postseason money. Again, that alone would be enough as well.

There are some people calling for a complete elimination of baseline prestige. In theory, that would make it just as easy to win at Jax State as Duke.

In Iba, the most successful program over the past 15-20 seasons has been St. Bonnie. I realize they are a-10 and that is just a level below the big six, but if you are the best (and lostmyth is) then you can win at that level. I'm not sure I would want to play a sim where UL-Monroe, Southern Utah and Maryland Eastern Shore were powerhouses every season. If I wanted that I would play D-2 where the names of the schools mean nothing in a real life sense

I think some of the people calling for the removal of baseline prestige are really just speaking out of frustration.  The topic has been talked about endlessly on this site and many possible solutions have been offered.  I doubt many supporters of change of BL would really want it removed completely when the topic was discussed in detail with all the alternatives laid out.

Posted by hughesjr on 9/5/2010 2:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 9/4/2010 11:03:00 PM (view original):
Why can't you appease both sides?  Have one world run with the way "5 or 10" of us want it to be like and the other worlds can be the way they are now.  If that one world is unprofitable, shut it down.  Most companies offer variations of the same product line to appeal to as broad a consumer base as possible.  Imagine GM offering one vehicle - take it or leave it.  The one size fits all that WIS employs for HD really should be re-evaluated.

What???  You want them to maintain 2 different code versions in different worlds.  It is hard enough to get 1 instance of the code stable.  Having more than one version of the code in production would not (IMHO) do anything to make it more enjoyable for the customer.

They already have an older code that was stable.  It was abandoned by the last several updates.