There have been quite a few questions surrounding the update coming 6/26, so I've scheduled a developer chat for Thursday afternoon at 2 pm.  You can begin submitting questions now by clicking here.

No

Posted by zhawks on 6/21/2012 8:35:00 PM (view original):
No

zhawks, really liked your question about basline prestige being affected by our own "history" within worlds.  That idea makes a lot of sense, since we actually have enough seasons for that at this point.  I think they could certainly work out a hybrid of baseline prestige, which is slightly altered by "all-time" championships or Final fours in a world, and things like that.

Posted by grantduck on 6/22/2012 3:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/21/2012 8:35:00 PM (view original):
No

zhawks, really liked your question about basline prestige being affected by our own "history" within worlds.  That idea makes a lot of sense, since we actually have enough seasons for that at this point.  I think they could certainly work out a hybrid of baseline prestige, which is slightly altered by "all-time" championships or Final fours in a world, and things like that.

Thanks I have a post somewhere a few years ago about my overall thought. Glad seble isn't 100% against

Does a teams History within a given world affect the teams baseline prestige? i.e. doesn't it make sense to have the history we have built become at least part of the formula? (zhawks - Hall of Famer - 2:22 PM)

No, baseline prestige never changes. The team's prestige changes from season to season based on results, but baseline stays the same for all worlds. I'm not necessarily against what you're suggesting, but that would be a significant change to the system.


Saw this in the developer chat and I think what zhawks says is how it should be. It takes away from the idea that you can take a program like georgia st and make them into a powerhouse stronger than maybe a kansas who has struggled a bit over the last 15 seasons. Elite schools will not always stay elite in real life and sometimes recovery is long in the process because it's been awhile since they've had success. I never really liked the baseline prestige, because it means a team can continue to fail, but hold a certain level of prestige better. Not using world history is almost like a safety net for some schools.

Posted by poncho0091 on 6/23/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Does a teams History within a given world affect the teams baseline prestige? i.e. doesn't it make sense to have the history we have built become at least part of the formula? (zhawks - Hall of Famer - 2:22 PM)

No, baseline prestige never changes. The team's prestige changes from season to season based on results, but baseline stays the same for all worlds. I'm not necessarily against what you're suggesting, but that would be a significant change to the system.


Saw this in the developer chat and I think what zhawks says is how it should be. It takes away from the idea that you can take a program like georgia st and make them into a powerhouse stronger than maybe a kansas who has struggled a bit over the last 15 seasons. Elite schools will not always stay elite in real life and sometimes recovery is long in the process because it's been awhile since they've had success. I never really liked the baseline prestige, because it means a team can continue to fail, but hold a certain level of prestige better. Not using world history is almost like a safety net for some schools.

i agree with the idea, but i do feel strongly that a major program with a great (and large) fan base can ascend the ranks pretty quickly. kentucky was at an all time low before pitino, barred from the post season for 2 seasons. they were pretty far down before calipari too, but it only took 1 post season in each case to get them back to the front of the basketball scene. indiana is hot right now and it won't take more than a few strong seasons to have people talking about indiana like they are one of the elite programs in the game again. it is taking tom crean a while, but he also took over a program with major penalties, that could hardly even field a team, so there was pretty much 0 chance of him bringing them back instantly.

so to me, all those major programs can attract a great coach, and pay him the big bucks. after a couple good classes and a couple solid post season appearances, the fan base is just as rabid, and the networks all pay attention to that - they are obviously biased towards the big programs, everything they do is geared to getting more eyeballs. before you know it, the difference between a top program for 10 seasons and a top program for 2 (with a great history) is next to nothing.

i think it is good for the elite programs in HD to always be attractive. i was thrilled to take over a B- kentucky from A+ texas a&m, but it turned out to be a worse position. i just don't think it makes sense to take great programs that have artificially less-than-exceptional recruit grounds - and further knock them down. i would vote for capping the drop in baseline prestige on any school by 2 partial grades.

anyway, i am all for allowing baseline to be modified, for having history part of it, i just advise caution in over doing it. also, jobs should change (they should change regardless), to put some weight on baseline prestige. its ridiculous when a B prestige kentucky is easier to pick up than a B+ prestige mississippi, makes no sense at all.

In my scenario the current WIS baseline would always remain a small part of the equation

Posted by zhawks on 6/23/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):
In my scenario the current WIS baseline would always remain a small part of the equation

i like the idea of 5 worlds having constant baseline prestige and 5 worlds having variable baseline prestige. the worlds would be advertised as such to make sure people know what they're getting into...i don't think there's a real compromise to be made that satisfies both sides (i.e. a new player who would be put off by a weak duke and an experience player who would be put off by a st. bonaventure team in Iba that is destined to fall back to C prestige)

I feel (and have voiced this many times in the past) that baseline prestige should be on a similar dynamic scale that current prestige is. It would be a hidden value (nobody would know) but could allow for WIS to have more leway in many different aspects of the game, most importantly job hiring and firing. You can retain the current "WIS Baseline" (WB) as both a small portion of the dynamic baseline (DB) prestige as well as have it used for job firing and hiring process as well.

I think that the teams last 20 years should maintain the DB prestige calculation with 20-30% the WB. The 4 year window I think should be moved to a 5 year window, I think WIS algorithm for calculating prestige is fine otherwise.

If you use the DB to compare to the WB you can easily use that for job firing, once a coach is fired that took the DB too far from the WB, the school could get a small boost back towards the WB once that coach is fired (keeps the RL aspect so many strive for) I think this would greatly inhance firings because the current prestige value of a top school doesn't varry enough for that logic to be used fully.

This also helps in job hiring process, you can have the school start out trying to hire at the current prestige and DB levels, then they slowly move down towards their WB for hiring purposes, allowing for those mid range mid majors with C+ and hire prestiges that are great opportunities for both new coaches and to keep the game competitive and coaches feeling rewarded, but also get rid of the pesky SIM school with a decent prestige that isn't fun for anyone in either recruiting or wishing you could have gotten the job.

I think that this solves quite a few problems, job hiring and firing processes, which have been longer overdue for a fix, as well as recruiting that seble has mentioned coming up next, I do think that there are some other good ideas to keep recruiting more competitive but I think ultimietly the best thing to make it competitive is to make sure there are mid majors with solid prestiges having non-simmy coaches.

Posted by jetwildcat on 6/23/2012 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/23/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):
In my scenario the current WIS baseline would always remain a small part of the equation

i like the idea of 5 worlds having constant baseline prestige and 5 worlds having variable baseline prestige. the worlds would be advertised as such to make sure people know what they're getting into...i don't think there's a real compromise to be made that satisfies both sides (i.e. a new player who would be put off by a weak duke and an experience player who would be put off by a st. bonaventure team in Iba that is destined to fall back to C prestige)

While I like the idea - I don't think you can do this now that the worlds are established. If they wanted to open up a new world with the new stuff, they could do that but I highly doubt they would as there isn't any need.

Additionally, I think that A+ prestiges should only be obtainable by schools that have won a National Title.

Posted by zhawks on 6/23/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Additionally, I think that A+ prestiges should only be obtainable by schools that have won a National Title.

I don't think this has to necessarily be a given.  "What if" (pun absolutely intended) a team made, say, four consecutive title games but lost them all?  That's not good enough for an A+ prestige?

St. John's in Rupp (jake_marley) has made 10 consecutive Elite Eights.  If he hadn't won a couple of titles in that span, do you really think that wouldn't be worthy of an A+ prestige?

Posted by emy1013 on 6/23/2012 8:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 6/23/2012 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Additionally, I think that A+ prestiges should only be obtainable by schools that have won a National Title.

I don't think this has to necessarily be a given.  "What if" (pun absolutely intended) a team made, say, four consecutive title games but lost them all?  That's not good enough for an A+ prestige?

St. John's in Rupp (jake_marley) has made 10 consecutive Elite Eights.  If he hadn't won a couple of titles in that span, do you really think that wouldn't be worthy of an A+ prestige?

Sure there can be some crazy outliers like this that would work.

Posted by poncho0091 on 6/23/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Does a teams History within a given world affect the teams baseline prestige? i.e. doesn't it make sense to have the history we have built become at least part of the formula? (zhawks - Hall of Famer - 2:22 PM)

No, baseline prestige never changes. The team's prestige changes from season to season based on results, but baseline stays the same for all worlds. I'm not necessarily against what you're suggesting, but that would be a significant change to the system.


Saw this in the developer chat and I think what zhawks says is how it should be. It takes away from the idea that you can take a program like georgia st and make them into a powerhouse stronger than maybe a kansas who has struggled a bit over the last 15 seasons. Elite schools will not always stay elite in real life and sometimes recovery is long in the process because it's been awhile since they've had success. I never really liked the baseline prestige, because it means a team can continue to fail, but hold a certain level of prestige better. Not using world history is almost like a safety net for some schools.

I agree with some of the sentiment, but, you use Kansas as an example (even though they won the Nat'l Championship only 4 seasons ago...) - ok, so Kansas won in 2008, but you are right, before that there was some struggles. It was 20 years from their last title. But all that does is prove the point that baseline exists. Even 20 years after the fact Kansas was still able to assemble a roster of Cole Aldrich, Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers and Brandon Rush. I don't see Georgia State doing that... not saying that's how it should be in What If world, but when you start talking real life its important to see the big picture...