anygmhing that leads to a rich get richer sitjation i am opposes to. share it evenly.

"I've seen coaches banned for buying multiple accounts on the same world and using one to scout for the other.'

This is the type of thing that could destroy everything.  How could they police this? 

Posted by skinndogg on 9/11/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):

"I've seen coaches banned for buying multiple accounts on the same world and using one to scout for the other.'

This is the type of thing that could destroy everything.  How could they police this? 

By tracking your IP.  But of course, there's even ways around that.  The best way to find it is for the offender to admit it to someone.

Posted by ethan66 on 9/11/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by davis on 9/11/2013 2:57:00 PM (view original):
Enjoying this thread, a lot of good discussion.

I'd like to see more internecine warfare among conference mates.  As has been pointed out in other threads, Roy Williams doesn't stop chasing a recruit because the kid already has Duke on his "Considering" list.  The gambling analogy listed above is apt, except that if you're recruiting against someone in a Big 6 conference observing gentlemanly behavior with members of his conference, then you're really playing cards against 12 players who all have more chips than you and who won't bet into each other.  Which sucks.

With the current prestige formulas and post-season cash allocation, coaches are motivated to avoid conference mates in battles where reasonably possible.  So I'd like to get rid of conference impact on prestige.  I'd also like to get rid of post-season money going to all the schools in a conference just because one or two coaches had a long run in the dance.  This would take away the incentives for playing nice with conference mates during recruiting.  If anything, you'd be MORE interested in giving a bloody nose to a team that you're going to face two or three times a year.

This is America, damn it.  Stand or fall on your own, don't be a weenie and count on your conference mates to prop you up.

I have to say that I've never "counted on my conference mates to prop me up".  Sure, do I enjoy the prestige they bring and the extra recruiting cash?  Youbetcha, why would I turn it down?   After that, it's all up to me.  I've seen dozens of conference mates struggle along with D+ or C prestige, recruiting crappy players every year, and nobody offered them advice unless they asked for it.

But at the same time I have to agree with davis that it doesn't make a lot of sense that one or two coaches' success should benefit everyone in the conference as much as it does.  Some, yes, as it's only fair to mimick real revenue sharing contracts, but I have a hard time believing Michigan or Louisville's run last year made all that much difference to Nebraska or Seton Hall.  Maybe it did as it's a matter of scale.  And I realize a game has to make allowances for balance.  But somewhere in this calculation lies the current problem with Big 6 power schools in HD D1.

I wasn't accusing anyone in particular in terms of counting on their conference mates to prop them up, so Ethan, I hope you did not think that comment was directed at you somehow!

My point was that big (and occasionally hateful) conference rivalries are a big part of college hoops, but in this game a coach is rewarded for making nice - or even colluding with - the other coaches in his conference when recruiting rolls around.  I would like for the incentives to push coaches in the other direction, creating more intraconference competition for recruits as opposed to discouraging it.  I'm not sure how to incentivize the game to encourage coaches to do this, but a good starting point would be to take away the incentives for doing the exact opposite.

Think how different the recruiting dynamic would be if there was no conference factor in prestige, no shared recruiting money based on conference postseason performance, and a prestige boost from landing a high-profile recruit who at some point had been considering other teams within the conference.  You'd see some bloodshed under such a system, and you'd see some righteous anger directed at conference mates.  Sounds like fun to me!  LOL

i agree davis, that would be pretty sweet. i think the conference consideration in HD goes too far, and thus, the system is too geared to benefiting conference mates.

Posted by davis on 9/11/2013 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 9/11/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by davis on 9/11/2013 2:57:00 PM (view original):
Enjoying this thread, a lot of good discussion.

I'd like to see more internecine warfare among conference mates.  As has been pointed out in other threads, Roy Williams doesn't stop chasing a recruit because the kid already has Duke on his "Considering" list.  The gambling analogy listed above is apt, except that if you're recruiting against someone in a Big 6 conference observing gentlemanly behavior with members of his conference, then you're really playing cards against 12 players who all have more chips than you and who won't bet into each other.  Which sucks.

With the current prestige formulas and post-season cash allocation, coaches are motivated to avoid conference mates in battles where reasonably possible.  So I'd like to get rid of conference impact on prestige.  I'd also like to get rid of post-season money going to all the schools in a conference just because one or two coaches had a long run in the dance.  This would take away the incentives for playing nice with conference mates during recruiting.  If anything, you'd be MORE interested in giving a bloody nose to a team that you're going to face two or three times a year.

This is America, damn it.  Stand or fall on your own, don't be a weenie and count on your conference mates to prop you up.

I have to say that I've never "counted on my conference mates to prop me up".  Sure, do I enjoy the prestige they bring and the extra recruiting cash?  Youbetcha, why would I turn it down?   After that, it's all up to me.  I've seen dozens of conference mates struggle along with D+ or C prestige, recruiting crappy players every year, and nobody offered them advice unless they asked for it.

But at the same time I have to agree with davis that it doesn't make a lot of sense that one or two coaches' success should benefit everyone in the conference as much as it does.  Some, yes, as it's only fair to mimick real revenue sharing contracts, but I have a hard time believing Michigan or Louisville's run last year made all that much difference to Nebraska or Seton Hall.  Maybe it did as it's a matter of scale.  And I realize a game has to make allowances for balance.  But somewhere in this calculation lies the current problem with Big 6 power schools in HD D1.

I wasn't accusing anyone in particular in terms of counting on their conference mates to prop them up, so Ethan, I hope you did not think that comment was directed at you somehow!

My point was that big (and occasionally hateful) conference rivalries are a big part of college hoops, but in this game a coach is rewarded for making nice - or even colluding with - the other coaches in his conference when recruiting rolls around.  I would like for the incentives to push coaches in the other direction, creating more intraconference competition for recruits as opposed to discouraging it.  I'm not sure how to incentivize the game to encourage coaches to do this, but a good starting point would be to take away the incentives for doing the exact opposite.

Think how different the recruiting dynamic would be if there was no conference factor in prestige, no shared recruiting money based on conference postseason performance, and a prestige boost from landing a high-profile recruit who at some point had been considering other teams within the conference.  You'd see some bloodshed under such a system, and you'd see some righteous anger directed at conference mates.  Sounds like fun to me!  LOL

having been approached in the past by conference mates seeking collusive drafts for recruits, i have no interest in a system where its even easier for colluders to make it harder for non cheaters, and i think your proposal would make that easier. i would absolutely retire the day this was implemented.

I didn't think you were accusing me, Davis, so np :)

The key here, I think, is how a simulation can be modeled so that it's both fair and realistic.  And those two criteria are often contradictory.  HD has erred on the side of fair for a number of reasons, the main one being to make it fun and attractive to subscribers.

I'm not sure how they could simulate a more "cuthroat" or competitive system without also turning it into an even smaller niche game populated by only hardcore HDers.

Maybe they could establish something like a "PVP" world some of the roleplaying games offer, where character death is permanent - or in this case, nobody gets conference bonuses and it's every coach for themselves.   But if you stub your toe, you're out of the world and have to go through the entry process all over again.

Having been in the acc in both Naismith and Iba, I can contribute a little to this discussion...

In Naismith, jumping your conference mates was expected, anticipated, and planned. A rival a+ school would take a b- schools worst recruit in the last round if it would help him out. It was ruthless recruiting from some great coaches, it the conference was real good with good prestige. I hated it and it got old...

In Iba, teams pretty ,ich abide by unwritten gentle men's agreements and I don't see much jumping at the end. Obviously they will recruit against each other... But I won't jump any conference mates late until they do it to me. Then it's on. As a result, we regularly have 10 teams in the nt and we regularly have the most cash.

It's a huge advantage to be an outlier in a great conference, IMO. You can go in the opposite direction of the test iftuencnference and have more money to get whomever you want. Has been great for me at Georgia tech in Iba.
It's a huge DISadvantage to be an outlier in a bad conference. I honestly feel bad for auburn, Alabama, vandy, and tenn in Iba. Not enough to let me have good p,ayers, but I do feel bad. If they can get their conference up, though, I realize they could really hurt me. Yet another reason why I don't wanna jump my conference mates and see them do well.

Posted by ethan66 on 9/11/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinndogg on 9/11/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):

"I've seen coaches banned for buying multiple accounts on the same world and using one to scout for the other.'

This is the type of thing that could destroy everything.  How could they police this? 

By tracking your IP.  But of course, there's even ways around that.  The best way to find it is for the offender to admit it to someone.

What if two people in the same household play HD? What if they work together? Otherwise use the same PC? What if two people use the same internet cafe and log on one after the other such that they get the same IP?

Those are among the possible situations where you might risk banning some people who aren't cheating at all, which is why I'm not in favor of this move EVEN IF they use IP tracking to get it done.

Posted by bistiza on 9/13/2013 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ethan66 on 9/11/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinndogg on 9/11/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):

"I've seen coaches banned for buying multiple accounts on the same world and using one to scout for the other.'

This is the type of thing that could destroy everything.  How could they police this? 

By tracking your IP.  But of course, there's even ways around that.  The best way to find it is for the offender to admit it to someone.

What if two people in the same household play HD? What if they work together? Otherwise use the same PC? What if two people use the same internet cafe and log on one after the other such that they get the same IP?

Those are among the possible situations where you might risk banning some people who aren't cheating at all, which is why I'm not in favor of this move EVEN IF they use IP tracking to get it done.

Oh, absolutely.  I've been a moderator on several internet forums and that's always a problem.  On one sports site, the majority of our members live in dorms.  One IP address can relate to dozens of users.

There are other "tells" of course,  like similar usernames.  And even if they're in a college dorm on the same Wi-Fi, each computer will have a unique, physical MAC address.

If all else fails, it's also a viable tactic to ban the associated accounts and require them to submit some kind of written ID to regain access.  :)  On HD, that's a bit of overkill though.

As I said in my post you quoted, the surest way to catch someone is if they admit it.  You'd be surprised how often that happens.