Development Blog Update - Page 9 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by milkamania on 5/19/2012 7:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 5/19/2012 6:55:00 PM (view original):
billyg, I think some of your thoughts/ideas are good, and others not so much. The ones that are very artificial (make the top five guys not have a distance factor) are largely the ones that I would be very much against. If you have a system that actually works, you don't need all the artificial BS, with recruiting slapped together like some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption.

I do like your idea of having better and more varied second and third tier players, which is something we've long agreed upon. I think most (not all, but most) of recruiting would be fixed with this alone. Couple that with seble's intended change to make prestige more related to on-court performance and not so tethered to baseline prestige, and I think we have a nice, viable DI system again.
it's a computer simulation girt, everything is artificial BS. you say that removing distance factors for top 5 recruits is slapping things together. but distance factors already exist, so you aren't adding artificial BS, you're just making adjustments to the BS that already exists. just improving recruit quality at the 2nd and 3rd tier (which I approve of) doesn't mean that there isn't anything "artificial" about recruiting.

lets say Duke coming off a nat'l title needs a PG, and the one they love grew up in california. right now, there is virtually no chance that duke gets that player, even if Duke is his favorite school. or if the #1 C grew up in Maine. right now, he's playing at syracuse, uconn or BC, that's pretty much it. making the truly elite recruits be truly national recruits would increase the odds of battles, which would benefit everyone. you shouldnt get a 5 star recruit for 2,000 just cause he grew up 20 miles away and people are afraid of battling because of the distance advantage

Your first sentence is a silly argument. "Well, this is fake basketball, so ..." If that's your take, you could rationalize absolutely anything on the grounds that it's a fake/artificial game. There's a point here, no? It's trying to simulate real basketball. And that kind of Rube Goldberg stuff doesn't exist there, and it shouldn't have to here.

What's the goal here? To make things more realistic? To make the game run better? To level the playing field? I think a key is to decide what the goal is here. (And I think different people may answer that question differently ... which of course will lead to different suggestions and ideas about what should be done.)

You think the answer to DI woes is to give Duke a better shot at the #1 pg in Cali? That's not what's needed to address the issues at hand, imho.

(Also, be careful what you wish for re: battles. In real life if Duke swings and misses on that #1 pg in Cali, they'll still end up with an ACC caliber player. In HD, they're stuck with garbage. Or worse, their other players all become targets and the entire recruiting year is crippled. The negative of losing a battle in HD is so much ridiculously, exponentially higher than it is in real life -- that's the reason why there are fewer battles. So if you you think that we have to have more battles to fix things -- and I don't think that at all -- that's the area that needs to be addressed.)

5/19/2012 7:52 PM (edited)

milkamania

Posts: 295 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 201 1

Rookie

Posted by girt25 on 5/19/2012 7:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by milkamania on 5/19/2012 7:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 5/19/2012 6:55:00 PM (view original):
billyg, I think some of your thoughts/ideas are good, and others not so much. The ones that are very artificial (make the top five guys not have a distance factor) are largely the ones that I would be very much against. If you have a system that actually works, you don't need all the artificial BS, with recruiting slapped together like some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption.

I do like your idea of having better and more varied second and third tier players, which is something we've long agreed upon. I think most (not all, but most) of recruiting would be fixed with this alone. Couple that with seble's intended change to make prestige more related to on-court performance and not so tethered to baseline prestige, and I think we have a nice, viable DI system again.
it's a computer simulation girt, everything is artificial BS. you say that removing distance factors for top 5 recruits is slapping things together. but distance factors already exist, so you aren't adding artificial BS, you're just making adjustments to the BS that already exists. just improving recruit quality at the 2nd and 3rd tier (which I approve of) doesn't mean that there isn't anything "artificial" about recruiting.

lets say Duke coming off a nat'l title needs a PG, and the one they love grew up in california. right now, there is virtually no chance that duke gets that player, even if Duke is his favorite school. or if the #1 C grew up in Maine. right now, he's playing at syracuse, uconn or BC, that's pretty much it. making the truly elite recruits be truly national recruits would increase the odds of battles, which would benefit everyone. you shouldnt get a 5 star recruit for 2,000 just cause he grew up 20 miles away and people are afraid of battling because of the distance advantage

Your first sentence is a silly argument. "Well, this is fake basketball, so ..." If that's your take, you could rationalize absolutely anything on the grounds that it's a fake/artificial game. There's a point here, no? It's trying to simulate real basketball. And that kind of Rube Goldberg stuff doesn't exist there, and it shouldn't have to here.

What's the goal here? To make things more realistic? To make the game run better? To level the playing field? I think a key is to decide what the goal is here. (And I think different people may answer that question differently ... which of course will lead to different suggestions and ideas about what should be done.)

You think the answer to DI woes is to give Duke a better shot at the #1 pg in Cali? That's not what's needed to address the issues at hand, imho.

(Also, be careful what you wish for re: battles. In real life if Duke swings and misses on that #1 pg in Cali, they'll still end up with an ACC caliber player. In HD, they're stuck with garbage. Or worse, their other players all become targets and the entire recruiting year is crippled. The negative of losing a battle in HD is so much ridiculously, exponentially higher than it is in real life -- that's the reason why there are fewer battles. So if you you think that we have to have more battles to fix things -- and I don't think that at all -- that's the area that needs to be addressed.)

my point was simply that there is already a distance factor built into recruiting, so making an adjustment to it isn't adding some kind of "artificial BS" as you put it, it's just making an adjustment to what already exists. if you think that's silly, its no more silly than a state not being allowed to generate a D1 quality recruit because there aren't any D1 schools in that state.

and I agree that losing a battle here is much worse than in RL, but i thought the point of what we were trying to do is make D1 more equitable, make mid majors more competitive. having Uconn get 4 5 star recruits with no battles because no one wants to head into new hampshire or maine isn't only unrealistic, it's bad for the game.

I'm not claiming to be an expert here, and my D1 experience is limited and fairly unremarkable, but there are ways to improve recruiting other than to just make more good recruits. in real life, if north carolina only has 1 open scholarship, then can still try and recruit a stud. here that's not possible. should they be able to?? i don;t know, what would that do to the game?? we're just throwing out ideas here. I can't think of a way to do recruiting without budgets as we know them, nor do I think all recruiting should be national without some distance adjustments, but some tweaks can be made.

5/19/2012 9:36 PM

coach_billyg

Posts: 2072 (0)

Hall of Famer

92

Pro

i have to agree with milk on this one. girt, i sort of get where you are coming from, and agree generally that real life shouldn't drive everything in the game, especially recruiting (it SHOULD drive how game play feels, IMO, but not everything else - but quick digression - did you see the article on the miami heat, where losing chris bosh actually makes them MORE likely to win the current series? according to the WIS bball sim, of course. i should mention out of fairness, it had them going down in all the other series significantly, at least like 10% less likely to win the whole series, which isn't much per game actually. but really... really, thats the engine we play with. chris bosh injured, good thing for the heat, as long as they come back after they beat the pacers. incredible :)

anyway, i think milk has a good point. recruiting is already this big slapped together hack job. everything from the way recruits are generated geographically to the way their ratings are jammed together to the way prospects gain favor with a school, is one massive, artificial, nonsensical system. really, nothing about it is realistic or seamless.

i can appreciate your desire to keep things "pure" and "clean", but i think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one :) you've already said you don't want a major overhaul, and to get pure and clean, you'd have to scrap the whole damn system! im pretty sure neither of us want that...

i agree that you could probably fix the recruiting system mostly with just recruit generation. but, i am sort of trying to sneak one in there, if you will. i love the idea of making truly elite players, and that was a major goal of seble's, which i am not quite ready to give up on. i do think d1 recruiting could go back to normal without the distance thing - it just wouldn't be right to generate such a limited number of top recruits, without opening it up regionally. it adds to much luck, from recruit generation. so if you leave as many good players, and add the 2nd and 3rd tier players that we both seem to want, its probably ok, but you clearly don't have elite players. i think the distance factor on the whole needs to be revisited, but site staff has not gone for that at all from what i can tell - so i figured it was a compromise. i really don't think the "hack" affects the quality of the recruiting program as a whole, although i concede that a ton of little hacks like that would bring things down. but im more than willing to take 1 more than we have now, to get actually elite recruits in there. i dont mean recruits so good that 2 of them means you are national champion, just good enough to add some of the fun and spice of d2/d3. d1 is really lacking in a way, because of that, IMO - and id like to see that fixed.

5/21/2012 12:49 AM

tedlukacs

Posts: 89 (0)

Hall of Famer

235

Prospect

Recruit generation is the key, as so many have said. Maybe 8 or 10 seasons back, had two A+ D2 schools that could recruit decent D1 players, most ranked at their positions. Later, those players were dissing me, and some D1 schools are now actually dipping down and signing D2 players, while some D2 schools are taking D3 players. That's a sign of the trickledown effect. Mid-level D1 schools are taking lower-ranked D1 players than they had to take previously, while the lower-ranked D1 schools had to make do with players I would have turned up my nose at when my D2 teams were at their zenith. With the dumbing down of recruits, it is very difficult to take over a sim-run BCS school with low prestige and build it up to even modest competetiveness. If you remove distance constraints from the top 5 at every positions, as some have said, the conferences generating tons of appearance money (the ACC in Iba, for example) will snare the lion's share of top recruits, country-wide, and perpetuate a dynasty. Almost no school will be able to compete with them for ANY recruit they want. We need, as so many have stated, more good but not great recruits, so that the mid-majors and low-prestige BCS schools can have a reasonable chance to build a team, other than striking it lucky on a couple of recruits that happen to improve far more than FSS and evals indicated.

5/21/2012 1:24 PM

chemguy1979

Posts: 35 (0)

Hall of Famer

158 4

Prospect

Posted by tedlukacs on 5/21/2012 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Recruit generation is the key, as so many have said. Maybe 8 or 10 seasons back, had two A+ D2 schools that could recruit decent D1 players, most ranked at their positions. Later, those players were dissing me, and some D1 schools are now actually dipping down and signing D2 players, while some D2 schools are taking D3 players. That's a sign of the trickledown effect. Mid-level D1 schools are taking lower-ranked D1 players than they had to take previously, while the lower-ranked D1 schools had to make do with players I would have turned up my nose at when my D2 teams were at their zenith. With the dumbing down of recruits, it is very difficult to take over a sim-run BCS school with low prestige and build it up to even modest competetiveness. If you remove distance constraints from the top 5 at every positions, as some have said, the conferences generating tons of appearance money (the ACC in Iba, for example) will snare the lion's share of top recruits, country-wide, and perpetuate a dynasty. Almost no school will be able to compete with them for ANY recruit they want. We need, as so many have stated, more good but not great recruits, so that the mid-majors and low-prestige BCS schools can have a reasonable chance to build a team, other than striking it lucky on a couple of recruits that happen to improve far more than FSS and evals indicated.

I completely agree with this entire post.

I coach at Oral Roberts in the Summit League in Phelan and it's practically impossible for me to compete with any BCS team for recruits because of the amount of money that they have at their disposal. Having more good recruits will allow for skilled coaches at mid-major and low-major schools strategize better so they can actually contend against mid-level BCS squads and potentially improve for their prestige otherwise there's little motivation for me to stay at my current program that I've struggled to build.

5/21/2012 2:03 PM

abitaamber

Posts: 303 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 1 102 5

Prospect

One thing I've mentioned before is that I would in favor of some sort of penalty for taking more than one walk-on. Some teams basically play with an 8 or 9 man roster every year (been guilty of it myself), and wind up with 6 schollys every year. I feel like that if you have more than one walk-on, you ought to get a diminshed figure for scholly money.

I also wouldn't be opposed to diminishing returns for 5th and 6th schollies in general, regardless of whether the openings were via walk-on.

5/21/2012 3:05 PM

therewas47

Posts: 659 (0)

Hall of Famer

156 1

Prospect

update:
I've had a chance to work through the "player role" concept that was brought up as item #4 above. For the initial phase it will work like this:

- A player role is effectively a custom formula for overall rating. You'll be able to assign weight to each of the 12 ratings as you see fit and then view an overall number using those weights.

- There will be a new page that will be a summary list of all of your saved player role formulas. You'll be able to edit/delete existing ones or create new ones.

- The edit page will include a table of your roster with the current role formula applied to it. This will make it easier to tweak the weight values to get the best result.

- When creating a new formula, you'll be able to load an existing formula as a template to start from. The templates will include any of your existing role formulas as well as a few pre-defined system ones.

- On the recruit search page, there will be a new search option called "Overall Rating". This option will let you select either the current default (which is just the total of all the ratings) or any of your player role formulas.

I may find other spots where it makes sense to incorporate this feature, but as of now that is it. I hope this makes a little more sense now. Some of you may use it a lot and others may not use it at all, but I hope it will prove to be a useful tool.

5/24/2012 2:30 PM

therewas47

Posts: 659 (0)

Hall of Famer

156 1

Prospect

I don't dislike this. Just interested in how it will be different than what we do in excel. Will we be able to set certain values to different color potential for recruits so we can project how good they'll become? That would save a ton of time.

5/24/2012 2:35 PM

dacj501

Posts: 4779 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 305

Pro

how is this going to be useful given potential? For most programs the ideal recruits have lots of high pots. Will this tool incorporate potential somehow into the custom formulas? Otherwise how is it useful for recruiting?

5/24/2012 2:42 PM

backboy13

Posts: 586 (0)

Hall of Famer

73 2

Prospect

Posted by dacj501 on 5/24/2012 2:42:00 PM (view original):
how is this going to be useful given potential? For most programs the ideal recruits have lots of high pots. Will this tool incorporate potential somehow into the custom formulas? Otherwise how is it useful for recruiting?

If not, it's rather useless. Hardly ever will I recruit a player based on what he looks like as a freshman.

5/24/2012 2:47 PM

padgett1547

Posts: 66 (0)

Hall of Famer

47 1

Rookie

Posted by dacj501 on 5/24/2012 2:42:00 PM (view original):
how is this going to be useful given potential? For most programs the ideal recruits have lots of high pots. Will this tool incorporate potential somehow into the custom formulas? Otherwise how is it useful for recruiting?

+1

5/24/2012 3:02 PM

padgett1547

Posts: 66 (0)

Hall of Famer

47 1

Rookie

Posted by backboy13 on 5/24/2012 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dacj501 on 5/24/2012 2:42:00 PM (view original):
how is this going to be useful given potential? For most programs the ideal recruits have lots of high pots. Will this tool incorporate potential somehow into the custom formulas? Otherwise how is it useful for recruiting?
If not, it's rather useless. Hardly ever will I recruit a player based on what he looks like as a freshman.

+1.

As someone mentioned before it sounds like this is just window dressing in comparison to the bigger problems that are present.

5/24/2012 3:04 PM

caesari

Posts: 4817 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 56 144 14

Prospect

I don't think it's useless. If a center had 2 ATH but HH potential, would you recruit him? If another similar guy had 30 ATH but average potential, I'd take the average guy 10 times out of 10

5/24/2012 8:46 PM

dacj501

Posts: 4779 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 305

Pro

Posted by caesari on 5/24/2012 8:46:00 PM (view original):
I don't think it's useless. If a center had 2 ATH but HH potential, would you recruit him? If another similar guy had 30 ATH but average potential, I'd take the average guy 10 times out of 10

can I choose neither? Now if the 30 guy had high potential thats another story. Unless this new weighted formula thing somehow incorporates potential it won't really be useful since if it treats all 30 ath guys the same for instance and I am only interested in the ones with high potential I can't see how it helps...

5/24/2012 9:19 PM

mykids_31206

Posts: 219 (0)

Hall of Famer

95 60

Prospect

I am glad that the impact of baseline prestige will be reduced. However, I would like to know seble's logic on why he wont let baseline prestige change over long periods of time instead of reducing its impact.

5/27/2012 4:05 PM

Forums

Development Blog Update Topic

Search Criteria