Posted by Teemo_Suppor on 8/24/2020 6:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Teemo_Suppor on 8/24/2020 6:32:00 PM (view original):
Is it fair play that AB uses teams for a season and then abandons them where nobody can use them and buffs his resume, again beating other people out for prime schools? He doesn't set schedules or recruit well on his one and dones. Is that in good faith?

Edit: oh you answered already. Wow lol ok

I'd be happy to consider making loyalty more of a factor, but again that's a totally different issue than what this whole discussion was about.

No it's not. The reason this thread is so huge is because AB wanted to do his thing and ended up not being able to. So he sent off a ticket and made a thread where, because of him, things are in bad faith and bad for the game and others are not. This is all intertwined where one person can game the system and another can't.
People just want clarity and consistency.

Edit: I would LOVE loyalty to be a factor and a real metric. Perhaps even a contract system where you take a job with a X season contract and then you gain or lose metrics based on your tenure.

+1

I just read the entire thread, and this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.

Posted by upsetcity on 8/24/2020 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 6:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:11:00 PM (view original):
How were you targeting recruits for a different school here? You signed them in session 1.

I'll just lay out my steps for my strategy so it becomes clear.

1. Scout D2 in my local area that I'd normally scout and pursue and save $500
2. Get scholarships on guys I'd take at my future D2/D3 team (maybe bump down sims or D2s)
3. Scout FSS D3 around my area with that $500
4. Fill up my openings with those players
5. Get to new school
6. Sign player my old school was at VH with no schollies on

Make sense?

So yes, please stop doing that. While it's certainly a gray area, you're clearing not operating the current school in good faith, which goes against the spirit of fair play. I'm not sure I would ever issue punishment for that, but it's exactly what I mean when I reference people bending the rules in order to gain any small advantage.

This is not the same as a coach recruiting for the current school, deciding to change jobs, then signing some of those players. I understand it's a fine line, and not something that's easy to prove, but intentions should matter. In this case, you're clearly using the current school to gain an advantage at a future school.

What about signing a freshman with promises with clear intentions of him transferring after you don't honor his promises?

Or what about cutting all the players you can and only fielding a team of 8 and going 1-25 when you can do better?

Just trying to measure the gray area.

Yes, making promises without intention to keep them is poor form. That's really one that needs to be solved with Reputation. Reputation may need to be ramped up in the recruiting process.

What would be the purpose of intentionally going 1-25?

Cut all players with limited futures, only play the guys you signed with high potential to promote optimal growth. Do it for two seasons and now your seniors and juniors are maxed out and you can field an actual winning team. Give up short term success for long term benefits.

Within reason, I don't have a problem with this because ultimately you're trying to win at that school.

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 6:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 6:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:11:00 PM (view original):
How were you targeting recruits for a different school here? You signed them in session 1.

I'll just lay out my steps for my strategy so it becomes clear.

1. Scout D2 in my local area that I'd normally scout and pursue and save $500
2. Get scholarships on guys I'd take at my future D2/D3 team (maybe bump down sims or D2s)
3. Scout FSS D3 around my area with that $500
4. Fill up my openings with those players
5. Get to new school
6. Sign player my old school was at VH with no schollies on

Make sense?

So yes, please stop doing that. While it's certainly a gray area, you're clearing not operating the current school in good faith, which goes against the spirit of fair play. I'm not sure I would ever issue punishment for that, but it's exactly what I mean when I reference people bending the rules in order to gain any small advantage.

This is not the same as a coach recruiting for the current school, deciding to change jobs, then signing some of those players. I understand it's a fine line, and not something that's easy to prove, but intentions should matter. In this case, you're clearly using the current school to gain an advantage at a future school.

What about signing a freshman with promises with clear intentions of him transferring after you don't honor his promises?

Or what about cutting all the players you can and only fielding a team of 8 and going 1-25 when you can do better?

Just trying to measure the gray area.

Yes, making promises without intention to keep them is poor form. That's really one that needs to be solved with Reputation. Reputation may need to be ramped up in the recruiting process.

What would be the purpose of intentionally going 1-25?

When you take over a new team; it’s sometimes easier to cut the whole team and that way you get full openings for your first full season. It’s the easiest way to overhaul a complete rebuild.

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I've added the following two items to the list:

1. Increase loyalty penalties for moving jobs often and/or raise minimums for schools.
2. Greatly increase reputation impact on recruiting and have reputation properly affected by failed promises.

These are valid items. I wish we could untangle ab90 from Sportsbulls here, but I guess that's not gonna happen.

I like it

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:32:00 PM (view original):
In hindsight, so many of these issues would be gone if I had kept recruiting to one session. I wish I had stuck to my guns on that one.

All good. And I'm glad you're admitting that mistake and you can always do something in the future.

The reason I do these things is not to be nefarious, but I am a perfectionist and I am going to use every creative, out-of-the box strategy I can. I think other elite coaches think like that too.

I don't visit the forums much as it gets frustrating with the lack of communications and my first post at Seble expressed that. But I'm always happy to see when people are able to admit to a fault on their end and equally happy when people can forgive them for it.

My overall point is its hard to have a game where you're punishing some and not others like this. Like, one could easily say what ab is doing is poorer form than what I did for the game (in fact I'd argue that). Its just hard to put rules on things that were factored into game design.

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:32:00 PM (view original):
In hindsight, so many of these issues would be gone if I had kept recruiting to one session. I wish I had stuck to my guns on that one.

Omg yes!! 2 sessions has caused so many problems!

I don't recall too many people clammoring for 2 sessions or why it was even done. I did think it was a good idea conceptually because it gave you something to do during the season. I was dead wrong.

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I've added the following two items to the list:

1. Increase loyalty penalties for moving jobs often and/or raise minimums for schools.
2. Greatly increase reputation impact on recruiting and have reputation properly affected by failed promises.

These are valid items. I wish we could untangle ab90 from Sportsbulls here, but I guess that's not gonna happen.

Untangle ab from Sportsbulls? What? I think this one went over my head, lol, explain?

For the record guys..... I'm here with you everyday hashing it out. I love HD. You all are great to argue with. I just want a great game too. Glad seble stopped in to say hello.

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I've added the following two items to the list:

1. Increase loyalty penalties for moving jobs often and/or raise minimums for schools.
2. Greatly increase reputation impact on recruiting and have reputation properly affected by failed promises.

These are valid items. I wish we could untangle ab90 from Sportsbulls here, but I guess that's not gonna happen.

Idea: have players leave a school if your loyalty is garbage/turn down promises if reputation is garbage, have rep/loyalty expand 10+ seasons, make it so one switch is fine but another switch will leave you with bottom of the barrel programs

And change promises so you can't start 5 freshman all season then start your upperclassmen in the first round of the NT as a 11th seed.

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I've added the following two items to the list:

1. Increase loyalty penalties for moving jobs often and/or raise minimums for schools.
2. Greatly increase reputation impact on recruiting and have reputation properly affected by failed promises.

These are valid items. I wish we could untangle ab90 from Sportsbulls here, but I guess that's not gonna happen.

Untangle ab from Sportsbulls? What? I think this one went over my head, lol, explain?

PG-13

Posted by Benis on 8/24/2020 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:32:00 PM (view original):
In hindsight, so many of these issues would be gone if I had kept recruiting to one session. I wish I had stuck to my guns on that one.

Omg yes!! 2 sessions has caused so many problems!

I don't recall too many people clammoring for 2 sessions or why it was even done. I did think it was a good idea conceptually because it gave you something to do during the season. I was dead wrong.

In fact many people were loudly clamoring for it. I never even considered it until the beta period.

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I've added the following two items to the list:

1. Increase loyalty penalties for moving jobs often and/or raise minimums for schools.
2. Greatly increase reputation impact on recruiting and have reputation properly affected by failed promises.

These are valid items. I wish we could untangle ab90 from Sportsbulls here, but I guess that's not gonna happen.

Untangle ab from Sportsbulls? What? I think this one went over my head, lol, explain?

We can't seem to discuss these issues separately, when they really are unrelated to me.

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I've added the following two items to the list:

1. Increase loyalty penalties for moving jobs often and/or raise minimums for schools.
2. Greatly increase reputation impact on recruiting and have reputation properly affected by failed promises.

These are valid items. I wish we could untangle ab90 from Sportsbulls here, but I guess that's not gonna happen.

Untangle ab from Sportsbulls? What? I think this one went over my head, lol, explain?

We can't seem to discuss these issues separately, when they really are unrelated to me.

I'd argue they aren't. They're actions that are done to try to fairly increase someones competitive advantage and can be seen as poor form or in the gray area that are interpreted by one person as whether they are or are not

I would disagree with the term "fairly". That's why we're having this discussion.