Posted by joeykw18 on 6/4/2021 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Anyone else concerned that we haven't heard a peep from admin since this was announced?

Honestly, I’m not worried about it. It may not feel all that large at times but this is a really big community of people. Any single change is going to result in a lot of different perspectives weighing in on the matter with many being VERY different (as seen in this thread). While every single perspective is important, they need to be considered appropriately - if Adam commented more, it would just be a flood of “yeah, well you didn’t consider _____” with no positive feedback. It wouldn’t get him any more information by commenting, just more hate. Remember when he caught backlash for the ineligible change (although somewhat reasonable)? Remember when he caught backlash for offering a deal to people who no longer play (this one still blows my mind)?

During March Madness, Adam was hosting a NT viewing party for the play-in games. I joined and chatted with him a bit. He actually provided insights on some of the future plans, nothing he hasn’t mentioned publicly in the discord, but he acknowledged how any change is likely to receive criticism and he plans to hear everyone out before moving forward.

Firings won’t occur for quite some time. He has plenty of time to review the feedback and make changes if appropriate.

Posted by joeykw18 on 6/4/2021 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Anyone else concerned that we haven't heard a peep from admin since this was announced?

i'm not particularly concerned - i'm relatively confident he has been watching the thread (based on no inside info), and is kinda taking it all in and letting it settle, before he gives his reaction. definitely seen him jump right into smaller conversations to stimulate them and get some additional feedback and stuff, to give his reaction in real time. but in this case there is probably plenty of feedback as it is :) and perhaps him jumping in would just add fuel to the fire, which i suspect he wants to avoid. allowing a little time for passions to settle before he gives his reaction to all this, its really not a bad idea IMO.

Posted by upsetcity on 6/4/2021 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by joeykw18 on 6/4/2021 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Anyone else concerned that we haven't heard a peep from admin since this was announced?

Honestly, I’m not worried about it. It may not feel all that large at times but this is a really big community of people. Any single change is going to result in a lot of different perspectives weighing in on the matter with many being VERY different (as seen in this thread). While every single perspective is important, they need to be considered appropriately - if Adam commented more, it would just be a flood of “yeah, well you didn’t consider _____” with no positive feedback. It wouldn’t get him any more information by commenting, just more hate. Remember when he caught backlash for the ineligible change (although somewhat reasonable)? Remember when he caught backlash for offering a deal to people who no longer play (this one still blows my mind)?

During March Madness, Adam was hosting a NT viewing party for the play-in games. I joined and chatted with him a bit. He actually provided insights on some of the future plans, nothing he hasn’t mentioned publicly in the discord, but he acknowledged how any change is likely to receive criticism and he plans to hear everyone out before moving forward.

Firings won’t occur for quite some time. He has plenty of time to review the feedback and make changes if appropriate.

+1

one thing i think makes this all tricky is, as users we generally are going to prefer a step in a direction, with a second step later if necessary, to avoid whiplash and over-correcting.

as admins, they want to go in once, they have finite time and are trying to get it done so they can move on to the next thing. also they want to make changes that have an impact. seble had this same issue all the time, he was very open about his thought process and would often remark after the fact that he thought if he'd done half as big a change, nobody would have noticed. a lot of that stuff he did come in a 2nd time on, to dial back, to his credit - things like lp scoring (who remembers those few months where mediocre bigs shot 60%?), foul and fatigue impact of the press during the sim engine rewrite, the 3.0 recruiting cycle changes (3 hour cycles were to become continuous, then scaled back to 6 hours), the growth rate of potential (implemented by tarek where half your guys maxed as freshman but adjusted by seble to its reasonable current levels), and so forth.

these new admins joined an ecosystem that was fairly stale across 8 games, and they are trying to make an impact. this same cycle of them listening to feedback, and coming up with a solution that is perhaps an overcorrection, its probably the natural order of things - we should expect it. a lot of folks like the job changes, a lot of folks think they went too far, nobody seems to think they didn't go far enough. no surprise there! similarly, the firing logic starts out more impactful than some of us would like to see. firings are a sensitive subject - for obvious reasons - so i think we are all a bit worked up about it. but i don't think it reflects overly poorly on the admins, as some folks have suggested, that their proposal is too aggressive out of the gate. i think its just the way of the world.

Well than even a basic "we are evaluating feedback...." or "there will be some tweaks before Nov...." would be nice to hear.

that fair, i'd prefer to see it, too. i'm just not concerned he may be ignoring a topic that got 10K views in a week in a community of our size - there's no way. my limited interactions with adam suggest he's a fairly reasonable guy, a reasonably nice guy, and that he definitely cares what folks in the community think. so even without him saying what you just said, i'm sure its true - well, at least that they are evaluating feedback. also, i am sure a lot of folks missed it - i'm not sure exactly where it was - but earlier in this thread someone posted something about a recent ticket with adam, indicating they were at least considering the grace period issue. i think that is a fair characterization anyway...

also, the existence of this thread proves that adam was listening to the feedback resulting from the last change, the ineligible promises change - which was to give us a heads up on these kind of things. so i think overall, that is a pretty good sign. the one topic of conversation i did personally observe that adam was involved in, on a couple occasions, was that he doesn't want to ruin the mystery and excitement of changes, by telegraphing everything in advance. he seemed passionate about that, from this end. him being willing to adjust on something like that, so quickly, i gotta give him credit there. and i agree with him - just not for changes that will basically be retroactive.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/2/2021 6:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/2/2021 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 6/2/2021 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Dont like any metric in this game that ties your entire seasons success to NT games which can be as random as recruit signings.

Its true that NT games are random, but its really the only success that matters (in both real life and HD). There's really no other metric that comes close.

Think about slayterhill in Phelan’s Illinois again for a minute. Let’s say hypothetically they miraculously get to the point where, upon the eve of the first reckoning, Illinois has a #1 ranked team going in to the tournament 4-5 seasons from now (whenever it starts). They have a deep team of 6 seniors, have some good juniors who have been fully developed, are looking very good for a deep run. And then a #8 seed dials the slowdown/negative/doubleteam magic trick upset special, and now they’re out in the second round, and slayterhill is out of a job (and ~$50, and ~6 months).

Saying that NT result is “really the only success that matters” is just absurd. In real life, Illinois fans would be rioting if the AD fired the coach in that situation, *especially* if their response to criticism was something along the lines of “we know this process isn’t perfect, but we feel there must be some accountability.” Real life fans aren’t that stupid, they would know exactly who to hold “accountable”. So should we.

Having the #1 team in the regular season doesn't mean anything. There isn't a pinned thread for career #1 regular season teams. You can't compare HD Illinois to real life Illinois anyways. HD Illinois is a top program while real life Illinois has had little success recently (coming from an Illinois fan).

I didn't like the new job logic and presented several examples of things that could go wrong while you kept this laissez faire attitude. Now that you don't like the update, the sky is falling and HD is going to implode. I just thought that was kinda funny.

The dev team will figure it out and make the necessary adjustments. The world isn't going to end. Some small subset of coaches will get fired and opportunities will open up for other coaches. The cream will rise to the top. Better coaches will stay at the better jobs more consistently. Firings will do far more to balance the game than the ruin it.

Wow this is really stupid.

1. You’re the one who made the comparison between real life teams and HD teams.

2. LOL. Nothing has “gone wrong” with the new job logic. There was absolutely no harm in letting coaches get to higher levels faster. Your “sky is falling” reaction may have been part of the reason this ridiculous overreaction has been put in place. It is “kind of funny” that you’re drawing a false equivalence between the injustice of people not having to wait years and paying hundreds of dollars to qualify for teams and people who have um.... waited years and paid hundreds of dollars losing their teams. Same thing, right? Direct causation, right? Yeah. Do better.

3. The dev team better figure it out. They have yet to give any indication that they have.

ETA - you’re right about one thing, the world won’t end with regards to what happens in HD. That was true when 3.0 rolled out, and it’s true now. But another big dip in the user base could very well mean HD ends, at least as we know it. And as I said on the first page, it will be an enormous unforced error. Opening up the D1 jobs has increased D1 population, and in time will likely continue to drive populations of all divisions up - something I’ve been saying for 5 years now. We either want fuller worlds, or we don’t. Freaking out over D1 starting to fill in a short term rush, especially after such a positive change, is just myopic thinking. Coming from you, well I guess it’s understandable, but from game developers, it’s extremely disappointing.

1. I didn't say you couldn't make a comparison between real life and HD. I said that you can't compare real life Illinois to HD Illinois because they have much different expectations. Schools like UNC, Duke, MSU, Kentucky, etc would be much better comparisons.

2. I didn't say anything has gone wrong with the new job logic. I said that I initially didn't like the change and concocted far-fetched hypotheticals to support my opinion. The same thing that you're doing with your Illinois example. What if he makes the NT? What if he has a balanced scoring team? What if he plays against another team that employs the slowdown/-5/DT? What if he loses that game? What if that causes him to ragequite? I can smell the desperation in your argument. Where did I make this false equivalence that you're talking about? Feel free to be continue being outraged by things that I didn't say, and then using that to create your own narrative.

3. According to you, the dev team figured out the new job logic. Isn't that an indication? Why do you suddenly lose all faith in them?

You are way overreacting. This will affect maybe 10% (25/250) of all human-coached jobs in a world, and maybe 6% (25/350) of all D1 jobs. With the right metrics, 70% of those coaches should be able to keep their jobs so we're really only talking about maybe 3% of coaches being fired. And then what % of those coaches quit? Maybe half? Where is this mass exodus coming from?

If you want to compete at the highest level of this game, you need to be able to deal with the randomness of EE's and recruiting dice rolls. That's just part of the game. I don't care if you've paid hundreds of dollars. Money doesn't buy skill. If you're not one of the best coaches, you shouldn't be at one of the top schools (at least when there are more qualified coaches that want the job). This is a competitive game with winners and losers. You shouldn't be entitled to any job just because you paid hundreds of dollars. If you just want to enjoy the game without the pressure of firings, just take a mid-major job. Or try D2 or D3. The vast majority of coaches will not be affected by this change.

Firings create the competitive edge that this game has sorely lacked for a decade. It will allow the best coaches to rise to the top, as opposed to the guy who paid "hundreds of dollars" but never really improved. The users that want to coach at the very top of D1 will need to step up their games. It's a new challenge and I'm looking forward to it.

The good news is with the current job logic, if you get fired you'll still be qualified for any job. In fact, you can go right back to the top if you want to try it again. There should be opportunities for everyone.

I also think it would be a fun idea to add the PIT championship to the metrics, since its about equivalent to the NT 1st round. It would make the PIT much more exciting if you had a chance to fulfill your job obligations. And it would give the lower P6 schools an additional way to earn that next contract.

Not worried at all about the admin not weighing in yet.

It’s been barely over a week since this thread got started and the changes aren’t even slated to happen until November at the earliest. Let’s all take a deep breath here, we’ve got plenty of time.

Posted by joeykw18 on 6/4/2021 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Well than even a basic "we are evaluating feedback...." or "there will be some tweaks before Nov...." would be nice to hear.

I've spoke with him since. He/They have a plan. And they are listening. They want our input indirectly as well. There's dozens of minds here that contribute a different issue, or a different perspective, every day. They'll take some time, regroup and then come back and discuss once they weigh everything they want to look into.

My opinion is this firings idea may not even kick off when they originally planned for it. And that's ok. They'll get everything ready to launch, in whatever amount of time they'll need. If we have patience, we'll be alright. They won't shaft us

Lots of good thoughts here. If I were admin I would not want too complex a scheme - both for implementation and for explanation.

On the other hand, the stated plan is too simplistic

Hope admin takes seriously the ideas here and engages with folks who have long played the game and can help "game out" effects of changes

Would love an update on this, now that it's been a couple weeks. An ongoing dialogue would be great.

I haven't read 95% of these posts but I'd like to make a couple points, that may have come up already....

1. As a Louisville fan I am SUPER TRIGGERED by this list. Louisville should absolutely be Tier 1, and I assume Tier 2 is an oversight, but still, triggered.

2. If punishments will be unequal based on prestige, shouldn't advantages also be greater based on prestige? Teams used to get different recruiting budgets based on conference success. Now everyone gets budgets strictly based on openings and division and conference success has basically become meaningless. But, does it really make sense that a D- prestige team from the MEAC with 6 openings gets a cash advantage over an A+ team from the ACC with 1 opening?

Basically, I think there should be more consequences and more realism in team expectations. But, if you are going to add realism to that side of the game, then there should also be more of a benefit in recruiting for powerhouse programs, and it should be an advantage that really allows those programs to recruit nationally, while smaller programs have to recruit locally. It's kind of ridiculous that if the number 1 player is in California every team East of the Mississippi is basically out of consideration. Teams in Tier 1 and Tier 2 should have much great scouting resources and recruiting resources if you want to add realism and punishments to those teams.

1. The tiers are set here based on baseline prestige - somewhere there is a thread that shows what L-ville baseline is.
2. prestige is a major advantage - you dont get more money, but each bit of recruiting effort you spend is worth more. Now this is less of an advantage if your baseline A team is currently at C prestige. On the other hand a team that is currently an A surely should have more recruiting effect than a team that has baseline A but has fallen to C....??