Development Blog Update - Page 3 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 811 (0)

Hall of Famer

97 55 11

Prospect

Posted by caesari on 5/16/2012 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Hey, more attention is coming to HD! WIS is starting to pay attention again!

I'm just excited they still look at this product.

agree 100%

5/17/2012 6:35 AM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by coach_ms on 5/16/2012 11:41:00 AM (view original):
4 seems like a waste.. Let the coaches determine what role a player should have.. we are already told how to practice the players based on the potential color codes.. pretty soon HD wont even need coaches to coach.. Whats next? Telling us how to game plan? Instead of #4 why dont we add in-game coaching.. Like when to call a timeout (10-0 run, etc) or late game free throw shooting lineups when we are ahead, late game 3pt shooting lineup when we are behind..

I agree that #4 seems like a very significant waste of time. I would go so far as viewing that as a negative, not a positive.

Please don't do this, and please spend your time and energy on something else that deserves it and that people have been clamoring for. There are a lot of areas that people have been griping about for a long time that could be addressed instead of this.

5/17/2012 6:51 AM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

I'll be looking into the logic that updates prestige between seasons for DI teams. Specifically I'm focusing on reducing the impact of baseline prestige to tie things more to recent success instead.

Excellent, thank you very much.

2. I'll be reviewing the logic that ranks players for the NBA draft. It's been pointed out that big guys are generally ranked higher than guards, so I'll balance things out more.
That's fine, I suppose. A small thing in a sea of more significant ones though.

     3. I'll review the logic that determines whether a given underclassman will enter the draft. I'll likely end up reducing the odds that a highly projected player will come back to school.
OK, good. But while you're doing that, can you fix EE's in general? The recent "five player rule" has been a disaster that has only benefitted the elite teams that already had too many advantages. And the fact that you can toss on a senior transfer to get to the five-man limit is a joke that people are using to game the system. All kinds of other things you could do ... just make it progressively more unlikely to lose multiple EE's (two harder than one, three harder than two), or any other number of solutions. But don't just tee this up for the elite teams to benefit as it does currently.

Oh -- and you definitely need to make it less likely that an EE leaves from a non-BCS school. Probably way less likely. It's crippling to those schools.

4. I'm going to add "player roles" to the game. This feature may be hard to understand without seeing it in action, but the plan is to have a custom overall rating formula for each position. So each coach could assign weights to each player rating to come up with their own overall rating. There would be a PG, SG, SF, PF, and C formula, but the idea would be to also add more specialized ones, such as "Perimeter Big Man" or "Scoring Point Guard". There are a lot of potential uses for something like this, but to start with the plan is to add features to recruit searching to make that process easier and less time-consuming. I'll have more details about this later on once it's fleshed out more.
As mentioned above ... please don't. So many things you could be doing to fix things that people have been clamoring for rather than inventing this. Please ...

5. I'd like to make some improvements to how AI teams are set up with game plan, practice plan, etc. They wouldn't be actively changing from game to game, but there is room for improvement in that initial setup.
This is also OK. Wouldn't be in my (or I think most people's) top 10, but doesn't hurt.

What about recruit generation in DI? That and baseline prestige are (by far) the two biggest problems right now.
Then there are all kinds of smaller things that people would love to see and are actually asking for -- putting some logic/consistency behind scouting trip responses is a great example, but there are a dozen (or more) others that people have been actively asking for and would bring a really nice benefit. Please focus on one or more of those instead of wasting so much time on #4.

5/17/2012 7:10 AM (edited)

jskenner

Posts: 246 (0)

Hall of Famer

249

Prospect

Yes, recruit generation is a big frustration for every team not at the very top.

5/17/2012 7:19 AM

jdno

Posts: 655 (0)

Hall of Famer

152

Rookie

girt, you said:

Oh -- and you definitely need to make it less likely that an EE leaves from a non-BCS school. Probably way less likely. It's crippling to those schools.

To me, this is swinging too far the other way as a blanket statement. If you lost some of your 5* players off of Marshall, it wouldn't be crippling. You lost big-man Boyd a couple of seasons ago to EE and still snagged a 1-seed in the NT the following season (and this season also). It didn't cripple you. So, I think school and/or conference prestige should play a factor in determining a kid going EE. You're an A prestige right now at Marshall, and CUSA was the top RPI-conference this season with a B- prestige (though this will likely get bumped up to a B after tonight's title game and prestige rolls for everyone), so to include CUSA in the non-BCS talk like you're proposing seems flat out wrong to me.

Now, if High Point is the only human-coached school in its conference and, thus, its conference has C/C- prestige b/c of all the trashy SIMs and H.P. has at most a B- prestige, then, yeah, it probably should be harder for a stud from its school to leave early.

I agree about recruit generation needing to be addressed...and I think even the undelrying logic that dictates the geographical spread of recruits should be looked at.

And while we're at it, I'd really like to see seble add a second group of recruits for us to look at in addition to the current high school seniors. Essentially these are high school juniors that would be seniors the following season. Do I try to grab a backup this season if there's a better kid close by next season? Do I get aggressive this season and risk striking out or do I play it more conservative and get aggressive next season b/c there's simply better recruits then? These dynamics would add an absolute ton more recruiting strategy if you could see what the next class looks like while also looking at the current class.

5/17/2012 9:22 AM

therewas47

Posts: 659 (0)

Hall of Famer

156 1

Prospect

I was a little confused by #4 as well. Am I missing something or is that pretty much what 90% of us do in excel?

5/17/2012 10:19 AM

arssanguinus

Posts: 1120 (0)

Hall of Famer

283 1

Pro

Posted by girt25 on 5/17/2012 6:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by coach_ms on 5/16/2012 11:41:00 AM (view original):
4 seems like a waste.. Let the coaches determine what role a player should have.. we are already told how to practice the players based on the potential color codes.. pretty soon HD wont even need coaches to coach.. Whats next? Telling us how to game plan? Instead of #4 why dont we add in-game coaching.. Like when to call a timeout (10-0 run, etc) or late game free throw shooting lineups when we are ahead, late game 3pt shooting lineup when we are behind..
I agree that #4 seems like a very significant waste of time. I would go so far as viewing that as a negative, not a positive.

Please don't do this, and please spend your time and energy on something else that deserves it and that people have been clamoring for. There are a lot of areas that people have been griping about for a long time that could be addressed instead of this.

Please describe in what way its a negative to have another tool at your disposal that will actually only put out good answers if you give it good input? Are you a fan of 'fake difficulty'?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty

Or do you more favor this:?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HintsAreForLosers

5/17/2012 10:41 AM (edited)

jskenner

Posts: 246 (0)

Hall of Famer

249

Prospect

I think some are critical of #4 because of the assumption that it's development will distract from the improvements perceived to be more important by a large portion of the customer base. That improvement is fine, but not really asked for or as nearly important as the other 4 items, plus those NOT included in the list of recruit generation and job promotion logic. JMO.

5/17/2012 10:42 AM

arssanguinus

Posts: 1120 (0)

Hall of Famer

283 1

Pro

Except various people have a different four items, and all of them presume that ONLY their four items are important and anything other than THEIR four items is a waste of time.

And specifically, I see people saying that making recruiting easier to do and less time consuming would be a bad thing in and of itself - which is to me a faintly ridiculous position to take, at least on areas of difficulty that have nothing to do with judgement and more to do with how long it takes to do things.

5/17/2012 10:49 AM (edited)

jskenner

Posts: 246 (0)

Hall of Famer

249

Prospect

Totally agree with you, ars. It tends to irk me when some take the tack of "only the changes I want matter, and others are off base in their desires." I think those arguing for more difficulty in recruiting, that it "require a lot of time" are obviously those who like to put a lot of time into recruiting, or at least don't mind doing so if it gives an advantage. So be it. I personally don't think changes making recruiting less time consuming are wastes of time.

But I also don't think the majority of customers think they're as important as other changes. I base my current belief on what I read on the forums. Maybe I'm just residing in my echo chamber and don't bother to notice threads about other improvement requests (such as easier recruiting, etc.). But my perceptioin is in good faith, and I do try to at least glance at any discussion about improvements, whether dear to my heart or not.

Ultimately, I'm in the camp that pleasing more customers should be the rule when it comes to improvements, and I just don't think "making recruiting easier" (whatever the method) is something many customers care much about. I could be completely wrong about this, and if anyone is personally wanting such an improvement more than improvements to recruit generation, job promotion logic, prestige update logic, EE logic and AI logic, feel free to tell me. Again, JMO.

5/17/2012 11:02 AM

jskenner

Posts: 246 (0)

Hall of Famer

249

Prospect

And it also irks me the powers that be with HD don't seem to think recruit generation or promotion logic are top-tier issues. I won't single out seble on this. I assume he's under pressures I simply can't apprectiate. But whoever the HD power brokers are, I do so wish they'd recognize those 2 issues as vital to continued, longterm, growing interest in the game. After all, these are MY biggest gripes, so they must be important. ;)

5/17/2012 11:08 AM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by jdno on 5/17/2012 9:22:00 AM (view original):
girt, you said:

Oh -- and you definitely need to make it less likely that an EE leaves from a non-BCS school. Probably way less likely. It's crippling to those schools.

To me, this is swinging too far the other way as a blanket statement. If you lost some of your 5* players off of Marshall, it wouldn't be crippling. You lost big-man Boyd a couple of seasons ago to EE and still snagged a 1-seed in the NT the following season (and this season also). It didn't cripple you. So, I think school and/or conference prestige should play a factor in determining a kid going EE. You're an A prestige right now at Marshall, and CUSA was the top RPI-conference this season with a B- prestige (though this will likely get bumped up to a B after tonight's title game and prestige rolls for everyone), so to include CUSA in the non-BCS talk like you're proposing seems flat out wrong to me.

Now, if High Point is the only human-coached school in its conference and, thus, its conference has C/C- prestige b/c of all the trashy SIMs and H.P. has at most a B- prestige, then, yeah, it probably should be harder for a stud from its school to leave early.

I agree about recruit generation needing to be addressed...and I think even the undelrying logic that dictates the geographical spread of recruits should be looked at.

And while we're at it, I'd really like to see seble add a second group of recruits for us to look at in addition to the current high school seniors. Essentially these are high school juniors that would be seniors the following season. Do I try to grab a backup this season if there's a better kid close by next season? Do I get aggressive this season and risk striking out or do I play it more conservative and get aggressive next season b/c there's simply better recruits then? These dynamics would add an absolute ton more recruiting strategy if you could see what the next class looks like while also looking at the current class.

jdno, a few thoughts:

-Your High Point example is more what I'm talking about. I don't have a problem if Marshall loses an EE. My thoughts have zero to do with C-USA Rupp -- I've been consistently making this argument for a long time before C-USA was even a twinkle in my eye.

-Boyd was ranked in the 50's or 60's at his position when I signed him. He was pretty far from a 5*. And it was silly that he left.

-I'd wager that I have one of the few non-BCS programs in any world that can really withstand losing EE's. It's not really fair to say, "Well, Marshall lost an EE once and they were OK, so therefore, all non-BCS teams will be fine". The reality is that most won't be.

-I make most of my comments on this issue from the point of view of my UNC-Allen team. I see what goes on, and how the EE system they have is a rich-get-richer system. All your teams are high BCS squads, so I don't blame you for arguing that side of things, it'll certainly help your squads.

-I'm not saying that it should be impossible for non-BCS teams to lose EE's. I am saying that right now it's too easy, and that it's a huge shame when non-BCS teams lose marginal EE's when guys as good or better routinely stick around with the big boys. To me, that's a flaw in the system ... a system where the deck is already too stacked for the big boys.

5/17/2012 11:34 AM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Oh, and I LOVE the idea for seeing the junior recruits. I have been pitching that to the powers that be at WIS for years. Would be fantastic, for all the reasons that you mention.

5/17/2012 11:35 AM

gillispie1

Posts: 5030 (0)

Hall of Famer

95

Veteran

i like #4. and i LOVE the player role thing as opposed to just PG, SG, etc. i am pretty sure i clamored for that last time this issue came up, as that makes things way more useful than just PG, SG, etc. i think you guys under estimate the awesomeness of #4. its NOT that hard for seble to build (guessing, considering i wrote the same thing in my own tool, it should be a good guess). and it can save a boat load of time. i love it.

now, i used to be in the camp, DONT do this now, because other stuff is more pressing. but really, this is an easy fix, like showing potential on recruits, that makes every day life much more enjoyable. i am a big fan.

i do agree that d1 recruit generation remains the #1 issue in the game. seble - i know you don't have a high end d1 team. but you do watch college hoops, im sure. its fine that the top couple teams in the country would beat say the 40th best team in the nation most of the time. but if you watch in march, you know the difference from #10 to #40 is not staggering. in HD it is - i mean, there are top 20 teams coached down to 40, 60, 100. but talent wise, its just too much. the # of mid majors who make runs in the NT is too low. the player curve if you will has too many players at the top, not enough and the top-middle.

also, jobs. a lot of coaches come here, unable to move up, and they should be. *it is very important that job movement takes into account your school's situation*. its really bad that if a coach takes over a TERRIBLE team, has a couple bad seasons (as is guaranteed, even the best coach in the game cannot prevent that), and turns them into a few NT appearances in a row, that should be worth SO much more than taking over a team who is low end NT and keeping them there. but its not. and that, in short, is 90% of the jobs problem. you went to 10 seasons - which is great - except that its screwed over by coaches who have the kinds of teams i am referring to, who have to wait 10 seasons to get the bad ones off their resumes. makes no sense really, a bad side effect of an otherwise very good change.

5/17/2012 11:43 AM

arssanguinus

Posts: 1120 (0)

Hall of Famer

283 1

Pro

So gil, what would you say is the solution - have the first few years at a job be a "mulligan" - only counting at a greatly discounted rate?

5/17/2012 11:56 AM

Forums

Development Blog Update Topic

Search Criteria