Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 12:09:00 AM (view original):
Adding conference cash back in is an awful idea. The game doesn't need to go back to hacks and cheats and secret handshakes. The incentive to play in a tough conference is good RPI and tournament seeding, and the subsequent prestige boost, provided you can stay afloat. That's how it is in real life, that's how it should be in the simulation. If you need more "incentives", you're looking for something that a simulation is not and should not be designed to provide.

If the only thing the recruiting cash was allowed to be used on was scouting, then secret handshakes mean nothing. Anything you would accomplish under that system you can accomplish now, because actual recruiting money wouldn't change. As far as your assumption on needing a tough conference for RPI and seeding is a joke. I have 2 teams alone in conferences in which I seed just fine (top 5 seed is pretty regular) and each of them maintain an A+ prestige.

You talk out of 2 side on these issues. At one point you'll say the game needs to be more like real life, and other times the game needs to be more like a sim. If it needs to be real life, then I guess people need to be given more money and AP for scouting and recruiting since they may have to make up for an EE. See how that works?

I think you should remember the goal for the company should be to create something that incentivizes users to want to keep playing, and in a lot of cases, being part of a conference does that. I originally joined a power conference for that bonus recruiting cash, but enjoyed the relationship built with those other coaches over time. Enough so to prevent me from quitting the game a few times when I grew tired of the game. Point being, an incentive to create power conferences is a good thing if done correctly.

I doubt that restoring conference $$ would be simple or easy

I also dont think that "reality" is a good argument against conference cash. Recruiting $$ reflect recruiting effort - i think a successful conference makes effort more effective. One can try to reflect that with prestige or also with $$. But, seble decided to reduce the significance of conferences - for which there are arguments both ways. I do think some fun factor - comaraderie , rooting for each other - was lost. So it is.

Probably not easy but allow players to continue to develop if a conference mate is still playing. I'd root for my enemy if my players continue to develop if he's making a title run.

Posted by fd343ny on 6/4/2017 6:39:00 AM (view original):
I doubt that restoring conference $$ would be simple or easy

I also dont think that "reality" is a good argument against conference cash. Recruiting $$ reflect recruiting effort - i think a successful conference makes effort more effective. One can try to reflect that with prestige or also with $$. But, seble decided to reduce the significance of conferences - for which there are arguments both ways. I do think some fun factor - comaraderie , rooting for each other - was lost. So it is.

A successful conference already makes effort more effective, for players who care about it, via preferences. It doesn't need a proxy, it already exists.

Posted by poncho0091 on 6/4/2017 3:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 12:09:00 AM (view original):
Adding conference cash back in is an awful idea. The game doesn't need to go back to hacks and cheats and secret handshakes. The incentive to play in a tough conference is good RPI and tournament seeding, and the subsequent prestige boost, provided you can stay afloat. That's how it is in real life, that's how it should be in the simulation. If you need more "incentives", you're looking for something that a simulation is not and should not be designed to provide.

If the only thing the recruiting cash was allowed to be used on was scouting, then secret handshakes mean nothing. Anything you would accomplish under that system you can accomplish now, because actual recruiting money wouldn't change. As far as your assumption on needing a tough conference for RPI and seeding is a joke. I have 2 teams alone in conferences in which I seed just fine (top 5 seed is pretty regular) and each of them maintain an A+ prestige.

You talk out of 2 side on these issues. At one point you'll say the game needs to be more like real life, and other times the game needs to be more like a sim. If it needs to be real life, then I guess people need to be given more money and AP for scouting and recruiting since they may have to make up for an EE. See how that works?

I think you should remember the goal for the company should be to create something that incentivizes users to want to keep playing, and in a lot of cases, being part of a conference does that. I originally joined a power conference for that bonus recruiting cash, but enjoyed the relationship built with those other coaches over time. Enough so to prevent me from quitting the game a few times when I grew tired of the game. Point being, an incentive to create power conferences is a good thing if done correctly.

If you don't think adding conference cash back in the game is going to be an advantage if just limited to scouting, then what kind of incentive are you talking about? I don't make assumptions. Read through it again, and take another stab at paraphrasing what I actually said before you respond. I said "The incentive to play in a tough conference is good RPI and tournament seeding." Nowhere is it stated or implied that it's "needed"; just that it helps. Like real life. The corollary is that strong conference is already built into preferences for players.

I use the same principle in every discussion. A game simulation based on a real life sport should feel like whatever the game is simulating, with allowance made for competitive and non tedious gameplay. I should feel like a college basketball coach recruiting players and game planning, but without the tedium and redundancies. I shouldn't feel like I'm playing poker or eBay or maths. Every proposed change is run through that filter for me. If it makes the game feel more real without adding tedium, or removing competitiveness, then I'll support it. If not, no thanks.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/3/2017 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Usually Benis' ideas are pretty nice.

ALWAYS

Wait.. you think the incentive to play in a big conference isn't about money in real life? Ha.

Some challenges, get some tournaments going during non-con, something to help set them up. WNMU Cactus Ball invitational

Totally agree with this one Zorzii. I've always thought it would add so much to the game as far as coach interaction and rivalry if you could have some non-conf tournaments a la the Maui Invitational or the Wooden Classic.

"If it needs to be real life, then I guess people need to be given more money and AP for scouting and recruiting since they may have to make up for an EE. See how that works?"

Huh? No, I don't see how that works. Are you saying, when a kid leave KY early, that KY is gifted more money to find a replacement?

I haven't read through this whole thread, so this could have been mentioned. But easy obvious fix I think needs to happen is to allow new couch sign ups to be before phase 2 of recruiting, so that new coaches can recruit their own players right away, instead of penalizing them for joining a world.

Posted by zorzii on 6/4/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):
Some challenges, get some tournaments going during non-con, something to help set them up. WNMU Cactus Ball invitational

I think non-conference tourneys would be a great idea, but would require serious changes to the scheduling process, so probably doesn't fall under the categories of small or easy.

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Wait.. you think the incentive to play in a big conference isn't about money in real life? Ha.

Money for the university, ok. Money for more scouting, no.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Wait.. you think the incentive to play in a big conference isn't about money in real life? Ha.

Money for the university, ok. Money for more scouting, no.

Um yes. You're telling me that the travel budget for recruiting at Grambling St is the same as Kentucky?

You think the facilities at Valparaiso are just as good as Duke?

bigger conference equals more money for your athletic program.

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2017 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 6/4/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Wait.. you think the incentive to play in a big conference isn't about money in real life? Ha.

Money for the university, ok. Money for more scouting, no.

Um yes. You're telling me that the travel budget for recruiting at Grambling St is the same as Kentucky?

You think the facilities at Valparaiso are just as good as Duke?

bigger conference equals more money for your athletic program.

If they're going to make budget about the teams performance and history, now we're getting somewhere. But that's not what we're talking about. Duke and Kentucky don't have the budget they have because of the ACC or SEC, and their success doesn't benefit the scouting budget (or facilities, for that matter) of NC State or Mississippi State.

Conference strength and team prestige are factors that already have representation in the process. They don't need your proxy.