Does anyone mind explaining why slowdown is considered so powerful? And why rowle's Minnesota team should've used it because when I last played HD, I really only remember running slowdown if I was at a semi-big to big disadvantage.

Posted by tmacfan12 on 1/8/2022 10:36:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone mind explaining why slowdown is considered so powerful? And why rowle's Minnesota team should've used it because when I last played HD, I really only remember running slowdown if I was at a semi-big to big disadvantage.

Slowdown isn’t a “cheat code” exactly, but tempo is designed very poorly in this game, and not balanced at all. Slowdown is generally much more powerful than uptempo on a couple levels.

1) There is always very little downside to running slowdown. On the risk/reward question, it’s heavily tilted toward reward. The biggest reward, for most teams, is leaning most heavily on their most talented players. That allows coaches to carry fewer scholarship players with the “normal” sets and focus resources more heavily on their preferred superstar recruits year after year. The only risk is that if you have the better team, running slowdown will hasten the end of the game, which can hurt if you happen to be getting a bad sim - see earlier discussion on Wisconsin’s 3 particularly bad losses; Wisconsin was running uptempo, but their opponents slowed down, leading to…

2) It’s much easier for slowdown to dictate tempo than uptempo. If one team decides to slow down, that’s it, there will be fewer possessions. If the other team decides to go uptempo, they *may* squeeze a few extra possessions out (not always though), but the only real effect that choice has on the game is tiring the uptempo team out. Leading to….

3) Uptempo usually harms the performance of the team running it. Beyond fatigue trouble and the related foul issues, expect more turnovers and worse FG%. Slowdown has no such downside (see 1 above). This makes zero sense tactically from a game design perspective, of course. Run slowdown against a press? Lol. Run slowdown and expect a higher shooting percentage by passing up open shots waiting for the clock to run down? Lolol.

All that said, dogggg is not completely wrong, there are good times to run uptempo, in fact I do it myself quite a bit. But you need to have teams specifically designed to do it. They have to have lots of stamina to withstand the fatigue pressure, lots of ballhandling and speed to mitigate turnovers (otherwise what’s the point of extra possessions?), and yes - you should also have the better team in general, to benefit from the extra possessions. There are still some instances when you can find an otherwise strong team that might have weak stamina, and you can use uptempo to try to trigger the legendary “fatigue cascade” but in general slowdown is so powerful, with most coaches who know how to press that button, that’s not really the goal in most cases.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/8/2022 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 1/8/2022 10:36:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone mind explaining why slowdown is considered so powerful? And why rowle's Minnesota team should've used it because when I last played HD, I really only remember running slowdown if I was at a semi-big to big disadvantage.

Slowdown isn’t a “cheat code” exactly, but tempo is designed very poorly in this game, and not balanced at all. Slowdown is generally much more powerful than uptempo on a couple levels.

1) There is always very little downside to running slowdown. On the risk/reward question, it’s heavily tilted toward reward. The biggest reward, for most teams, is leaning most heavily on their most talented players. That allows coaches to carry fewer scholarship players with the “normal” sets and focus resources more heavily on their preferred superstar recruits year after year. The only risk is that if you have the better team, running slowdown will hasten the end of the game, which can hurt if you happen to be getting a bad sim - see earlier discussion on Wisconsin’s 3 particularly bad losses; Wisconsin was running uptempo, but their opponents slowed down, leading to…

2) It’s much easier for slowdown to dictate tempo than uptempo. If one team decides to slow down, that’s it, there will be fewer possessions. If the other team decides to go uptempo, they *may* squeeze a few extra possessions out (not always though), but the only real effect that choice has on the game is tiring the uptempo team out. Leading to….

3) Uptempo usually harms the performance of the team running it. Beyond fatigue trouble and the related foul issues, expect more turnovers and worse FG%. Slowdown has no such downside (see 1 above). This makes zero sense tactically from a game design perspective, of course. Run slowdown against a press? Lol. Run slowdown and expect a higher shooting percentage by passing up open shots waiting for the clock to run down? Lolol.

All that said, dogggg is not completely wrong, there are good times to run uptempo, in fact I do it myself quite a bit. But you need to have teams specifically designed to do it. They have to have lots of stamina to withstand the fatigue pressure, lots of ballhandling and speed to mitigate turnovers (otherwise what’s the point of extra possessions?), and yes - you should also have the better team in general, to benefit from the extra possessions. There are still some instances when you can find an otherwise strong team that might have weak stamina, and you can use uptempo to try to trigger the legendary “fatigue cascade” but in general slowdown is so powerful, with most coaches who know how to press that button, that’s not really the goal in most cases.

Thanks for taking the time to write this all up and answer my question, very interesting stuff. I do remember generally staying away from fast-paced as I found with even my best teams at Michigan State I had mixed success with it and at the time found normal tempo to be more predictable.... By the way, has the actual sim engine been touched much over the years?

I think your Minnesota team is a little bit different than you might have thought. If I asked you what the biggest strength of your team is, what would you have said?

My answer would be that you have 2 totally elite players (Roderick and Rosas). There aren't many teams in the nation that run man and have this good of a guard/big combo. I actually can't find a single other team, which is shocking and Wooden is certainly having a down year at the top. Illinois would be the best team in the country by far if they ran Mo/Man and slowdown, but they run a weird FB/Press with elite STA and non-elite depth instead.

But your team has some major flaws (I would put it at second best in the country still behind Purdue...when I say major flaws I mean flaws when we are talking about being a 30% title win contender). Your 2nd best big (Madrid) is total garbage, so you made the right move to play Lafrance at the 4. Taylor only has SO IQs, and his ratings are solid across the board but it's one more year until he can lead a team. I love Johnson as a role player to complement Roderick and Rosas, but he's not a true team leader. Napier is another great role player (his job should be to give 13 minutes of good defense at the 2 off the bench, which is exactly how you used him). Then Hefner leaves a LOT to be desired (I wouldn't really want him to get minutes yet with low IQs, no scoring, no speed, no passing). Scott is super usable as a backup big, then I see no reason to give Miller/Livingston/Barr any minutes.

I would try to run a slowdown 8 guy rotation on fairly fresh, allowing Miller and Hefner to pitch in 5 minutes or whatever when needed to make sure your guys are super fresh, since they're obviously not that bad. Livingston could also play that role but you don't need him to.

If you ran Press, my tone would totally be different. I'd be talking up how deep your team was, because that system requires a totally different quality of player to be successful. If you ran Mo/Press with this team you would run Normal or maybe even Uptempo and be the title favorites, hands down. But running man, you needed to get Roderick and Rosas on the court as much as possible (by running slowdown) and just let everyone else support them. Your talent margin over USC (when you take out Roderick and Rosas) isn't very high, and he had 7 points of team STA on you which is a *ton*. In the end, you ran them out of the gym for the first 30 minutes until your guys were tired (and by tired, I mean they were coming into the game at about fairly fresh instead of fresh), which is maybe a 3-5% penalty to their ratings. Also I think you set Rosas to getting tired instead of fairly fresh which is really bad since you made your best player well less useful. Look how tired he is at the end of the second half! Might as well just play Madrid at Fresh for him.

Slowdown is really only a "cheat code" when you have a weaker team, as it really helps randomize results. But you have the ideal team to win 5 slowdown vs slowdown games in a row, since Roderick and Rosas create such a talent diference against weaker teams you can just ride them...and of course you have *serviceable* guys behind them.

Next year you keep everyone other than Roderick and Rosas...hopefully Johnson and Taylor will develop into an elite backcourt by NT next year...they'll have one more year of IQ growth at the least, and they are both growing some. Lafrance will probably need to play the 4 again, which sucks. Maybe if you start Miller every game in the regular season he is decent by NT? His development this year was not optimal, which is a mistake. Madrid will be low ATH, but he should compose a solid trio with Scott and Miller in the frontcourt. Livingston can be a decent defensive backup, or maybe even a starter at the 3. You guys wlll be solid, definitely top 5 as Taylor emerges as a stud guard with (hopefully) decent offseason growth.

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/8/2022 12:14:00 PM (view original):
I think your Minnesota team is a little bit different than you might have thought. If I asked you what the biggest strength of your team is, what would you have said?

My answer would be that you have 2 totally elite players (Roderick and Rosas). There aren't many teams in the nation that run man and have this good of a guard/big combo. I actually can't find a single other team, which is shocking and Wooden is certainly having a down year at the top. Illinois would be the best team in the country by far if they ran Mo/Man and slowdown, but they run a weird FB/Press with elite STA and non-elite depth instead.

But your team has some major flaws (I would put it at second best in the country still behind Purdue...when I say major flaws I mean flaws when we are talking about being a 30% title win contender). Your 2nd best big (Madrid) is total garbage, so you made the right move to play Lafrance at the 4. Taylor only has SO IQs, and his ratings are solid across the board but it's one more year until he can lead a team. I love Johnson as a role player to complement Roderick and Rosas, but he's not a true team leader. Napier is another great role player (his job should be to give 13 minutes of good defense at the 2 off the bench, which is exactly how you used him). Then Hefner leaves a LOT to be desired (I wouldn't really want him to get minutes yet with low IQs, no scoring, no speed, no passing). Scott is super usable as a backup big, then I see no reason to give Miller/Livingston/Barr any minutes.

I would try to run a slowdown 8 guy rotation on fairly fresh, allowing Miller and Hefner to pitch in 5 minutes or whatever when needed to make sure your guys are super fresh, since they're obviously not that bad. Livingston could also play that role but you don't need him to.

If you ran Press, my tone would totally be different. I'd be talking up how deep your team was, because that system requires a totally different quality of player to be successful. If you ran Mo/Press with this team you would run Normal or maybe even Uptempo and be the title favorites, hands down. But running man, you needed to get Roderick and Rosas on the court as much as possible (by running slowdown) and just let everyone else support them. Your talent margin over USC (when you take out Roderick and Rosas) isn't very high, and he had 7 points of team STA on you which is a *ton*. In the end, you ran them out of the gym for the first 30 minutes until your guys were tired (and by tired, I mean they were coming into the game at about fairly fresh instead of fresh), which is maybe a 3-5% penalty to their ratings. Also I think you set Rosas to getting tired instead of fairly fresh which is really bad since you made your best player well less useful. Look how tired he is at the end of the second half! Might as well just play Madrid at Fresh for him.

Slowdown is really only a "cheat code" when you have a weaker team, as it really helps randomize results. But you have the ideal team to win 5 slowdown vs slowdown games in a row, since Roderick and Rosas create such a talent diference against weaker teams you can just ride them...and of course you have *serviceable* guys behind them.

Next year you keep everyone other than Roderick and Rosas...hopefully Johnson and Taylor will develop into an elite backcourt by NT next year...they'll have one more year of IQ growth at the least, and they are both growing some. Lafrance will probably need to play the 4 again, which sucks. Maybe if you start Miller every game in the regular season he is decent by NT? His development this year was not optimal, which is a mistake. Madrid will be low ATH, but he should compose a solid trio with Scott and Miller in the frontcourt. Livingston can be a decent defensive backup, or maybe even a starter at the 3. You guys wlll be solid, definitely top 5 as Taylor emerges as a stud guard with (hopefully) decent offseason growth.

I guess I just got to step out of my own way and get out of my own head, that makes sense. I had the depth and all around great players so I figured I should use them all and my bench would be better than their bench so run uptempo and punish them. And because of this I’m not playing my super elite players as much and needed to set Rosas at getting tired because I wanted him to get more minutes, when I just could of ran slowdown and he wouldn’t need to be set at getting tired. I still like lighting up the scoreboard and my best players crushing it, so slowdown still seems a bit boring to me, but winning is a lot more fun than losing.

I couldn't agree more with that last point. It's a bit depressing to spend 20HV, CV, etc. on a 5 star only for them to be a 8 PPG role player as a JR on a slowdown team.

Isn't the game about efficiency? And not the most points? I mean sure, it's awesome to score 120ppg. But if your team isn't designed to do that (whether it's intentional or unintentional), we wanna do the best we can with what we got. I don't see anything wrong with slowdown if you're shooting a high percentage. And your defense is holding opponents to low shooting percentage.

If scoring 100 is your thing, go ahead. But if you want to win, you gotta do what's best for your team.

Posted by gillispie on 1/10/2022 9:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 1/8/2022 11:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/8/2022 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 1/8/2022 10:36:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone mind explaining why slowdown is considered so powerful? And why rowle's Minnesota team should've used it because when I last played HD, I really only remember running slowdown if I was at a semi-big to big disadvantage.

Slowdown isn’t a “cheat code” exactly, but tempo is designed very poorly in this game, and not balanced at all. Slowdown is generally much more powerful than uptempo on a couple levels.

1) There is always very little downside to running slowdown. On the risk/reward question, it’s heavily tilted toward reward. The biggest reward, for most teams, is leaning most heavily on their most talented players. That allows coaches to carry fewer scholarship players with the “normal” sets and focus resources more heavily on their preferred superstar recruits year after year. The only risk is that if you have the better team, running slowdown will hasten the end of the game, which can hurt if you happen to be getting a bad sim - see earlier discussion on Wisconsin’s 3 particularly bad losses; Wisconsin was running uptempo, but their opponents slowed down, leading to…

2) It’s much easier for slowdown to dictate tempo than uptempo. If one team decides to slow down, that’s it, there will be fewer possessions. If the other team decides to go uptempo, they *may* squeeze a few extra possessions out (not always though), but the only real effect that choice has on the game is tiring the uptempo team out. Leading to….

3) Uptempo usually harms the performance of the team running it. Beyond fatigue trouble and the related foul issues, expect more turnovers and worse FG%. Slowdown has no such downside (see 1 above). This makes zero sense tactically from a game design perspective, of course. Run slowdown against a press? Lol. Run slowdown and expect a higher shooting percentage by passing up open shots waiting for the clock to run down? Lolol.

All that said, dogggg is not completely wrong, there are good times to run uptempo, in fact I do it myself quite a bit. But you need to have teams specifically designed to do it. They have to have lots of stamina to withstand the fatigue pressure, lots of ballhandling and speed to mitigate turnovers (otherwise what’s the point of extra possessions?), and yes - you should also have the better team in general, to benefit from the extra possessions. There are still some instances when you can find an otherwise strong team that might have weak stamina, and you can use uptempo to try to trigger the legendary “fatigue cascade” but in general slowdown is so powerful, with most coaches who know how to press that button, that’s not really the goal in most cases.

Thanks for taking the time to write this all up and answer my question, very interesting stuff. I do remember generally staying away from fast-paced as I found with even my best teams at Michigan State I had mixed success with it and at the time found normal tempo to be more predictable.... By the way, has the actual sim engine been touched much over the years?

i think the main line for championship success is still normal tempo, and that its not close. there's absolutely a place for other tempos on high end teams (and even more so on other teams), but as a base scheme, normal tempo is very well represented in the set of top d1 teams. that said, i have a pretty similar view to shoe. the place i'd take exception is #1, that there is always very little downside to running slowdown. for top teams the loss of possessions, and the increased volatility, is definitely meaningful. but i agree there's basically no other slowdown downside, and that the overall design of tempo seems pretty janky.

changes to the actual sim engine? not really. i believe 3.0 sim engine = 2.0 sim engine. you've been around since the last major changes, which were like 1-2 years after potential came out, so about 10 years ago... after tarek departed and seble took over. seble did a lot of changes, so i always feel like there's no clean 1.0 / 2.0 line like there is for 3.0. there was the potential release, but there were massive adjustments to recruit generation and potential over the next couple years to make it... not a disaster.

but then once that was stable, seble re-wrote the sim engine in the 'newer' language, and that's the one period in my 14 years that there's been major sim engine changes (they spanned multiple releases). press was totally reworked to run more off ath/def, ath/def was buffed everywhere, speed's role in fg defense taking a hit. fatigue was buffed, to the point that press was unplayable, then put in the moderate place we have now. bigs got a huge buff and became ridiculously OP on offense for 2 months, and then were moderated to their current state, which is a massive overall improvement. an effect was added to cause team passing/iq to give team mates better open looks, a modest but important change.

i know there were a LOT of changes in the early days, before my time, with shooting splitting to lp/per, fatigue depth chart being added to the game, and so forth. but my understanding is that was all in the first few years, and basically from 2005-now, the only really meaningful sim engine changes came under seble's watch, and mostly, early in his tenure as HD admin (but after he rescued by far the biggest disaster of a release in HD history, the first potential release).

Thanks Gil...It's awesome to see that even though the community has shrunk by a good amount, there still are quite a few familiar names around from over 10 years ago.

I just returned as well (albeit under a different username since I can't remember the email address I used last time I played) and it's definitely nice to see some of the vets still around imparting their wisdom.

Posted by ja_tbfl on 1/11/2022 10:33:00 AM (view original):
I just returned as well (albeit under a different username since I can't remember the email address I used last time I played) and it's definitely nice to see some of the vets still around imparting their wisdom.

Same thing happened to me, if you submit a ticket explaining the situation with the username they should at least tell you the email. Hope that helps!

I just lost the ship to a slowdown team. I was not sure how to counter it or if it was even possible to.

Posted by brip87 on 1/11/2022 5:01:00 PM (view original):
I just lost the ship to a slowdown team. I was not sure how to counter it or if it was even possible to.

OT loss in the title game - tough man, sorry. i'm sure that stings but also, nice job getting back there so fast, and congrats on the awesome season! i didn't think it would take ya very long to get back into the swing of things.

motion/man for them, triangle/man for you... they run a +1 slowdown - really nothing for you to counter there, tempo wise. i don't think uptempo would be bad in this situation (without really digging into the details), but generally in comparable situations, i just run normal, i do my thing, and you just have to be better than them in the first 85% of possessions you would have gotten in a normal game.

you went -5, their slowdown offense shot 42% overall, 1-3 from 3. this is pretty crummy, but about what i'd expect i guess given their junk offensive stats and stuff. they had 12 turnovers in a pretty slow game, pretty reasonable for them. its definitely not like their slowdown offense was OP here. i think your game plan, the -5 and whatever else you did (not looking at details here, just enough to get a feel) to limit them offensively, it basically worked about as well as it should have.

their defense is what won it for them, which isn't far fetched, they have what i assume is still considered excellent ath/def, 72 ath and 74 def team average for their 11 non-walkons? and this is d3? holy ****, that seems out of hand, that's what d3 is now? wow.

anyway, your team went 36% overall and 26% from 2s, and gave up 16 TOs (+4 for them) in that short pace, that is a disaster. more possessions could have well helped there, if that is low compared to expectations (i assume it is), you'd have feedback on your side - which is important - those 15% of possessions you lose, they are pretty meaningful (perhaps more like 10%, but whatever). that 1.5-2 points of FT luck working against you also was enough to decide it, it seems.

so overall, not really anything you could do to counter the slowdown. all you can really do overall vs the slowdown is to have a better team (team here meaning product of everything, recruiting and coaching and everything else), with the m2m you are running. i think press is a nice natural counter to slowdown because the higher pace is a natural counter to the lower possessions, being more susceptible is one of the tradeoffs of man and zone, for sure.

I do feel like if I would have had 10 more possessions I could have pulled it off but I knew they would run slowdown and just had to do what I thought was best. I was hoping to shoot a little better from outside but it did not happen.

Well here we are at the end of the year in Phelan, and Army’s coach did not win National Coach of the Year, nor did they advance in the tournament. And Wisconsin is in the Final Four.

Gosh, who saw that coming?

;)