Posted by johnsensing on 6/14/2016 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 6/12/2016 6:40:00 PM (view original):
For all the makeup that Seble tries to use to cover up this new offering, he won't be able to hide what this truly is. At the heart of all this is his attempt to help the mass of players who can't succeed on their own. Players want more randomness, from game results down to recruiting. "Why should the best team win all the time"...."why should the best coaches get the best recruits"? "Please Seble, is there something you can do so that I can hope to compete with the top coaches". "Please can we add new worlds go I can get a Big6 job".

Some call this the entitlement generation. And it has finally crept into HD. Lets blame the game for my failures! How soon we forget everyone had to start in DIII and work their way up. And of course it makes good business sense for Seble to listen to the whiners. WHY? Only 64 teams make the dance in each division. Lets face it, there are A LOT more bad coaches out there than good ones. The majority wins. So some of us will hang it up and say goodbye to Hoops Randasty. Meanwhile a new group of coaches who are left will figure out a way to rise to the top....

Then we can hear from all the others who still have failed, how changes need to be made to help them succeed.

I agree strongly with the first paragraph of this. Prestige appears to be pretty much dead, based on the beta forum's discussion of battles. One thing I think people are missing (or at least, I haven't seen it said yet) is that the new update will basically destroy the strategic facets of the current recruiting engine -- it seems like there are going to be too many variables for recruiting to be anything other than a crapshoot. Currently, you can figure out (or at least approximate) how to win battles. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and people will be able to figure out what three very good preferences are worth versus two, and whether a very bad hurts you more than a bad, but I am afraid we're all just going to be button smashing on recruits to figure out whose preferences match best.

This bang on. The original post was very good too.

I don't understand some of you that are all for the new updates....it's great that you like them, but why does everyone gave to like it or shut up? Seems hypocritical.

Also, I'd be willing to bet my house the net result of this update will be fewer coaches across all worlds. That will be the true measuring stick of this upgrade. It's too late now, but WIS's resources should have been put into marketing and tweaking the recruit generation

jeff my doctor said xanax wasn't strong enough, they were considering giving me horse tranquilzer last time I heard.

Posted by mullycj on 6/14/2016 4:54:00 PM (view original):
So since you disagree with my notion let me phrase it a different way. Would you agree that most of the coaches in BETA who want the change are in favor of randomness where the best teams don't always win and the better recruiter doesn't always get their player?

Yes, I do agree with that.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/14/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 6/12/2016 6:40:00 PM (view original):
For all the makeup that Seble tries to use to cover up this new offering, he won't be able to hide what this truly is. At the heart of all this is his attempt to help the mass of players who can't succeed on their own. Players want more randomness, from game results down to recruiting. "Why should the best team win all the time"...."why should the best coaches get the best recruits"? "Please Seble, is there something you can do so that I can hope to compete with the top coaches". "Please can we add new worlds go I can get a Big6 job".

Some call this the entitlement generation. And it has finally crept into HD. Lets blame the game for my failures! How soon we forget everyone had to start in DIII and work their way up. And of course it makes good business sense for Seble to listen to the whiners. WHY? Only 64 teams make the dance in each division. Lets face it, there are A LOT more bad coaches out there than good ones. The majority wins. So some of us will hang it up and say goodbye to Hoops Randasty. Meanwhile a new group of coaches who are left will figure out a way to rise to the top....

Then we can hear from all the others who still have failed, how changes need to be made to help them succeed.

you say this like seble hasn't come out directly and stated that a big part of this change is about leveling the field. he also said its a lot about making recruiting more fun in general, not just the leveling the field thing, but he has been pretty open about that goal - no? your phrasing seems to suggest the opposite.

johnsensing - i am not convinced at all that prestige is no longer a factor. although maybe it is less. the ratio was about 3:1 between some d1 and d2 school on prestige and he made it bigger, seems like that means its fairly substantial. i never thought prestige was this massive thing anyway, maybe 50% per partial grade has long been my guess (multiplied per # of grades, not added). i figured the prestige shown in beta was under my 50% per grade mark when that thread came around but when it was changed, maybe its more, i don't know.

I don't think the leveling that Seble is talking about is the same as what mully is talking about. Seble wants to level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots - make things somewhat more equal between teams of different prestige, conference, etc. Basically make the mid-majors more competitive. That's not the same as going in trying to level the playing field between good and poor coaches, which is what mully is talking about. I think that was an unintended consequence, though it should have been somewhat obvious... I guess what hid it to an extent is the fact that the leveling Seble wanted is most applicable to D1, and the leveling we don't like is more applicable at D2 and D3 where scouting huge numbers of recruits is less feasible.

I will say that from a game theory perspective, I don't really know what an enhanced reliance on preferences was supposed to achieve. It's a good argument for the conspiracy theory about leveling the playing field between better and lesser coaches. But in reality, I think the main thing this does is increase the role of luck within the great coach bracket - the better coaches are going to take better advantage of preferences that favor them and do a better job of learning to recognize when preferences push them out of a battle. So this doesn't really help the poorer coaches in the long run, it just makes things more random amongst the aleady better coaches. It's sort of like the role of luck in poker - sure, playing overly-aggressively or too tight might save you money in one hand, but over the long run it makes you leaky. Luck is a big factor when players of equal skill level match up. Phil Ivey will crush me at any game 95% of the time, and the bigger the sample the bigger the edge. I'd still win some hands. A bad coach might take a recruit from you because the preferences favored him, but you'll save your money because you recognized the scenario, and when the situation reverses maybe he won't. So in the long run you come up with a better group of players.

I was not sure which system you were talking about it half of this Dahs:

no matter what the system, the cream will rise to the top....if those guys from the "pre-era of entitlement" who walked to school, up hill, both ways, are truly better coaches, they'll figure it out and dominate again.

If they take their ball and go home, for whatever reason, they will be replaced by someone else. That's how it works.

Seble's job is to create a game that sells, the current version of the game isn't keeping customers so he is trying to make one that does.

marketing sells.....bad products dont

We are on the same page Dahs. What Seble really intends deep inside, only Seble knows though.

Posted by the0nlyis on 6/14/2016 6:16:00 PM (view original):
jeff my doctor said xanax wasn't strong enough, they were considering giving me horse tranquilzer last time I heard.

i was gonna suggest that crazy **** michael jackson took to fall asleep... you know, the surgical anesthetic he took each night (that ultimately killed him)

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/14/2016 7:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/14/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 6/12/2016 6:40:00 PM (view original):
For all the makeup that Seble tries to use to cover up this new offering, he won't be able to hide what this truly is. At the heart of all this is his attempt to help the mass of players who can't succeed on their own. Players want more randomness, from game results down to recruiting. "Why should the best team win all the time"...."why should the best coaches get the best recruits"? "Please Seble, is there something you can do so that I can hope to compete with the top coaches". "Please can we add new worlds go I can get a Big6 job".

Some call this the entitlement generation. And it has finally crept into HD. Lets blame the game for my failures! How soon we forget everyone had to start in DIII and work their way up. And of course it makes good business sense for Seble to listen to the whiners. WHY? Only 64 teams make the dance in each division. Lets face it, there are A LOT more bad coaches out there than good ones. The majority wins. So some of us will hang it up and say goodbye to Hoops Randasty. Meanwhile a new group of coaches who are left will figure out a way to rise to the top....

Then we can hear from all the others who still have failed, how changes need to be made to help them succeed.

you say this like seble hasn't come out directly and stated that a big part of this change is about leveling the field. he also said its a lot about making recruiting more fun in general, not just the leveling the field thing, but he has been pretty open about that goal - no? your phrasing seems to suggest the opposite.

johnsensing - i am not convinced at all that prestige is no longer a factor. although maybe it is less. the ratio was about 3:1 between some d1 and d2 school on prestige and he made it bigger, seems like that means its fairly substantial. i never thought prestige was this massive thing anyway, maybe 50% per partial grade has long been my guess (multiplied per # of grades, not added). i figured the prestige shown in beta was under my 50% per grade mark when that thread came around but when it was changed, maybe its more, i don't know.

I don't think the leveling that Seble is talking about is the same as what mully is talking about. Seble wants to level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots - make things somewhat more equal between teams of different prestige, conference, etc. Basically make the mid-majors more competitive. That's not the same as going in trying to level the playing field between good and poor coaches, which is what mully is talking about. I think that was an unintended consequence, though it should have been somewhat obvious... I guess what hid it to an extent is the fact that the leveling Seble wanted is most applicable to D1, and the leveling we don't like is more applicable at D2 and D3 where scouting huge numbers of recruits is less feasible.

I will say that from a game theory perspective, I don't really know what an enhanced reliance on preferences was supposed to achieve. It's a good argument for the conspiracy theory about leveling the playing field between better and lesser coaches. But in reality, I think the main thing this does is increase the role of luck within the great coach bracket - the better coaches are going to take better advantage of preferences that favor them and do a better job of learning to recognize when preferences push them out of a battle. So this doesn't really help the poorer coaches in the long run, it just makes things more random amongst the aleady better coaches. It's sort of like the role of luck in poker - sure, playing overly-aggressively or too tight might save you money in one hand, but over the long run it makes you leaky. Luck is a big factor when players of equal skill level match up. Phil Ivey will crush me at any game 95% of the time, and the bigger the sample the bigger the edge. I'd still win some hands. A bad coach might take a recruit from you because the preferences favored him, but you'll save your money because you recognized the scenario, and when the situation reverses maybe he won't. So in the long run you come up with a better group of players.

oh, i get it! important distinction - glad i am now up to speed.

as far as leveling the field between the good and ****** coaches, i'm not really that worried. i've never won the battle about the supremacy of coaching over recruiting mechanics (counting play eval, team composition plans, etc as coaching, not recruiting), but i still feel that the coaching side far outweighs pure recruiting mechanics. sure, the team you recruit is way more important than game planning - but knowing what makes a player and team good, having the long-term thinking / planning in your recruiting - none of that is really changing.

so, in terms of raw mechanics - sure. you already can be just a solid recruiting mechanics guy and destroy in this game, and that won't change - but i'll give you guys that recruiting mechanics are inherently shifting to being less skill and more luck driven. i think that is going to take a big bite out of the press, and make man the supreme defense across the large majority of the game, which inherently will reduce dynasties - because we all know that even if man and press are fair over most ranges of talent/depth, that a press team will still excel over a man team at the highest levels of talent/depth. i think that will be fairly big, but if you take that away, the change to the rest of recruiting mechanics... i guess it feels somewhat modest. of course, the combination of the playing field leveling, mid major vs Kentucky/UNC part, plus the luck part, will be big. but if you actually just isolate the part about the luck, abstracting away from the bonus money changes and all, i don't think its a huge deal. its a modest increase in luck in a modest component of what makes teams successful in this game. maybe there is 25% more luck in 25% of what makes teams successful, something in that ballpark.

so, i understand what you guys are saying now - and i agree, to an extent - but i think its largely overstated in mully's OP, just from the luck / helping ****** coaches side of things. ****** coaches are still going to get wrecked by the good ones, on a highly consistent basis.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/14/2016 11:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 6/14/2016 6:16:00 PM (view original):
jeff my doctor said xanax wasn't strong enough, they were considering giving me horse tranquilzer last time I heard.

i was gonna suggest that crazy **** michael jackson took to fall asleep... you know, the surgical anesthetic he took each night (that ultimately killed him)

well if you can put me in contact with a guy I'm game