Posted by mlitney on 4/25/2022 8:22:00 PM (view original):
I just saw a career D3 coach go straight to a B- prestige school in the B10. With enough D3 success and a little hiring luck, you can skip the lower and middle tiers of D1.

We might be reading this differently. To me, B- is middle tier. And B- in the B1G is every bit as hard - maybe harder in some worlds - to step up from than a similar mid-major. I don’t know the specifics of any of ROD’s teams, but the general point is that a coach usually won’t have to wait as long in D3 to take a UMass or Colorado St or Tulane (if only because they’re more likely to be open!) as they would to get a B- level power conference program. And that big conference school is likely to have a tougher field to plow, whether they want to build that program into an A+ team, or step to an A baseline team from there. One of the big goals and successes of 3.0 was to make mid-major programs viable again, and folks shouldn’t look past them.

When I came back after a 10 yr real life hiatus I was able to get almost any d1 job open. I thought it was odd I did not really know how to recruit in the new system and quickly realized I was better off dropping until I was more familiar with that aspect. I do think there should be restrictions on which jobs a person could get even at D2.

Posted by mlitney on 4/25/2022 11:41:00 AM (view original):
What would be easier? Adding more mid-tier recruits to the D1 pool or changing the way potential works? Or even going back to the days when potential didn't exist? It would give coaches more choices through practice planning, and some of those garbage recruits could actually contribute to a winning team. Or would that make WE too overpowered?

Is there some better way to limit rating growths that allows almost all recruits to at least be useful? What if a player has an overall limit on growth (say 50, 100, etc), but the coach could choose (through practice plan) where to place it? So instead of seeing a potential for each rating, you just saw the potential for the recruit.

For example, Guard A has starting ratings of:
Ath: 45
Spd: 75
Def: 60
Per: 60
BH: 55
Pas: 80
Sta: 65

With an overall potential of 50-75. Where would put it? Well if you run fb/fcp, you'd have to assume that stamina will need at least 15. If you need a shooter, then 30 could go to perimeter. Need a pure PG? 50 points in BH/Pass/Spd would help. Probably need a few points in ath. But I think you get the idea. It's all about adding choices while making most recruits at least playable in a role.

Player growth potentials are still color-coded and represent a range.
Green (100+)
Blue (60-99)
Black (40-59)
Yellow (10-39)
Red (0-9)
Or whatever numbers work.

5-stars would need to be capped at Black potential or lower so we don't end up with a bunch of players that are 100 in every rating. Maybe all D+ recruits could be green. They wouldn't be playable until their junior/senior season, but they'd be highly moldable.

New coaches starting D1 with a D- rebuild could at least field a coherent team within a few seasons without having to get extremely lucky on rolls.

I love the Idea of being able to Mold players. Mlitney is onto something here.

If I remember correctly way back when I first started, we could make anyone develop how we wanted based on their initial ratings. I do not remember the specifics, but I think if they started at like 50 in an area and you put 20 practice minutes in that area and there we was above a certain amount they would reach 100 as seniors. This was pre potential or the emails giving hints at potential. Its been to long to remember exactly.

Posted by Nick_Bennett on 4/26/2022 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 4/25/2022 11:41:00 AM (view original):
What would be easier? Adding more mid-tier recruits to the D1 pool or changing the way potential works? Or even going back to the days when potential didn't exist? It would give coaches more choices through practice planning, and some of those garbage recruits could actually contribute to a winning team. Or would that make WE too overpowered?

Is there some better way to limit rating growths that allows almost all recruits to at least be useful? What if a player has an overall limit on growth (say 50, 100, etc), but the coach could choose (through practice plan) where to place it? So instead of seeing a potential for each rating, you just saw the potential for the recruit.

For example, Guard A has starting ratings of:
Ath: 45
Spd: 75
Def: 60
Per: 60
BH: 55
Pas: 80
Sta: 65

With an overall potential of 50-75. Where would put it? Well if you run fb/fcp, you'd have to assume that stamina will need at least 15. If you need a shooter, then 30 could go to perimeter. Need a pure PG? 50 points in BH/Pass/Spd would help. Probably need a few points in ath. But I think you get the idea. It's all about adding choices while making most recruits at least playable in a role.

Player growth potentials are still color-coded and represent a range.
Green (100+)
Blue (60-99)
Black (40-59)
Yellow (10-39)
Red (0-9)
Or whatever numbers work.

5-stars would need to be capped at Black potential or lower so we don't end up with a bunch of players that are 100 in every rating. Maybe all D+ recruits could be green. They wouldn't be playable until their junior/senior season, but they'd be highly moldable.

New coaches starting D1 with a D- rebuild could at least field a coherent team within a few seasons without having to get extremely lucky on rolls.

I love the Idea of being able to Mold players. Mlitney is onto something here.

yeah this was how 1.0 worked back in the day. I personally wasn't around.

Apparently I played 1.0 but that's way too long ago to remember haha. But does overall player potential (with no individual rating limits) make the game too cookie cutter? Like does every team end up with basically the same subset of players?

Or does that free us to build the type of teams that we want without the constant worry of losing EEs, rolls, or the inevitable higher prestige/division team coming for your target at the last minute? You'll always find a role player that can step in within a few seasons.

Maybe its the offenses that are so cookie cutter? I'd love to hear the opinion of others.

First thought was I really liked this idea. I could shape my players exactly as I need/want them.

But then I reflected on it. And I think part of the joy of this game is the puzzle building aspect, getting all these oddly shaped parts to fit together as best you can. Therefore I think players need to have flaws, to not be perfect, to allow for coaches to protect against flaws and to challenge the flaws of others, and therefore I’m afraid this would lead to too many perfect players. Would HD be fun if it’s just perfectly executed scheme vs perfectly executed scheme?

Im curious if something like this could work for walk-ons. Initial idea is that you get walk ons with ratings but no colors and then a general potential total and then when you offer a scholarship, you get to assign potential. I think some balancing would be needed (like maybe make all walk ons similar to the ones generated at D3 and then have the potential total range be greater at higher levels), but at least if you miss out on all your recruits, you get 1-2 players to still build with. Downside is that walkons wouldn’t develop without a scholarship offer but I think that’s something people can live with.

Posted by brip87 on 4/26/2022 2:11:00 PM (view original):
When I came back after a 10 yr real life hiatus I was able to get almost any d1 job open. I thought it was odd I did not really know how to recruit in the new system and quickly realized I was better off dropping until I was more familiar with that aspect. I do think there should be restrictions on which jobs a person could get even at D2.

You did exactly what you should have done though. If you realize you’re out of your depth, you drop back and learn the game a little better first. Or of course hold yourself back to begin with. That’s not an argument for restriction on the game level, though. Once you are an experienced coach, and you love the game and want another team or three in other worlds, those restrictions can be morale killers and keep you from pulling the trigger on more teams.

The kind of proposal gil talked about - letting coaches with x number of seasons in one world skip right to D2 or low level D1 - would be fine if that’s how they had chosen to go, and I suppose they could make that change now too. But this is the system that exists, and I don’t think it’s really doing any harm. The folks who really enjoy the game, but are struggling and having a hard time, they’ll drop back or seek help or both (like you did). A few may get frustrated and quit, but that is always true with a complex strategy game like this, it’s just not for everyone.

Posted by bpielcmc on 4/27/2022 4:53:00 AM (view original):
First thought was I really liked this idea. I could shape my players exactly as I need/want them.

But then I reflected on it. And I think part of the joy of this game is the puzzle building aspect, getting all these oddly shaped parts to fit together as best you can. Therefore I think players need to have flaws, to not be perfect, to allow for coaches to protect against flaws and to challenge the flaws of others, and therefore I’m afraid this would lead to too many perfect players. Would HD be fun if it’s just perfectly executed scheme vs perfectly executed scheme?

Im curious if something like this could work for walk-ons. Initial idea is that you get walk ons with ratings but no colors and then a general potential total and then when you offer a scholarship, you get to assign potential. I think some balancing would be needed (like maybe make all walk ons similar to the ones generated at D3 and then have the potential total range be greater at higher levels), but at least if you miss out on all your recruits, you get 1-2 players to still build with. Downside is that walkons wouldn’t develop without a scholarship offer but I think that’s something people can live with.

The way they implemented potential was *so bad*. Few attributes should have a fixed ceiling, and the ceiling shouldn’t be knowable, especially during scouting. Like these are no-brainers.

When the next version of this game is made, the whole recruit/attribute generation process should be overhauled. Instead of generating recruits with all final attribute numbers, and a ”potential gap” in between their starting and final points shown by the color scheme which can be scouted, recruits should simply be generated with their starting numbers, with potential discoverable but not denoting a ceiling. Instead of having fixed ceilings, attributes should be able to continue to grow, the potential color should just show *potential growth rate*. Recruits should be generated with varied potential growth rates across their attribute field.

Athleticism and speed should usually be generated at red or yellow, in rare cases black, never blue or green. Athletes considering playing collegiate ball should not have a ton of growth left in these areas. Some is reasonable, but it should be expensive.

Rebounding should be commonly black or better for frontcourt players under 50. Should be rare for guards above 30. Same for shotblocking. Ballhandling and passing are reverse.

Defense and FT can be anything.

LP and Per can be anything, but tilted toward position, ie guards slanted toward perimeter, frontcourt toward LP.

Stamina and Durability should be generally black, or average growth available. And the stamina hit players take over the offseason is absurd and should be thrown in the trash.

In all cases, growth should be available, hypothetically all the way to 100, even after a few points of red. Moving to red should just indicate the point where it has become the most expensive to gain more points.

I mostly agree with you, shoe. I don’t want growth to be ANYTHING. Shaq can’t shoot free throws. I don’t want him to get to be good unless he practiced a ton.

I like the idea of no caps on individual ratings, but having those ratings slow down. It represents an opportunity cost for practice minutes.

Would WE become slightly overpowered at that point though? Maybe it would be best to accompany that kind of update with a change in the formula that drives ratings growth. Take a little bit of the weight off of WE, and move it to playing time. Maybe take away WE growth (the ability for individual WE to grow), and make most of the ratings growth based on starts/minutes?

So if the current formula for ratings growth was something like 70% WE and 30% playing time, maybe change it to 30% WE and 70% playing time.

The idea would be to move away from randomly generated numbers and make rating growth more of a decision-based mechanic. For example, I know I'll need shooting for next season because my best 2 shooters are leaving. I have a guard with red 78 perimeter so I know I'll need to give him more minutes to get that perimeter to 85+.

Posted by bpielcmc on 4/27/2022 4:53:00 AM (view original):
First thought was I really liked this idea. I could shape my players exactly as I need/want them.

But then I reflected on it. And I think part of the joy of this game is the puzzle building aspect, getting all these oddly shaped parts to fit together as best you can. Therefore I think players need to have flaws, to not be perfect, to allow for coaches to protect against flaws and to challenge the flaws of others, and therefore I’m afraid this would lead to too many perfect players. Would HD be fun if it’s just perfectly executed scheme vs perfectly executed scheme?

Im curious if something like this could work for walk-ons. Initial idea is that you get walk ons with ratings but no colors and then a general potential total and then when you offer a scholarship, you get to assign potential. I think some balancing would be needed (like maybe make all walk ons similar to the ones generated at D3 and then have the potential total range be greater at higher levels), but at least if you miss out on all your recruits, you get 1-2 players to still build with. Downside is that walkons wouldn’t develop without a scholarship offer but I think that’s something people can live with.

"And I think part of the joy of this game is the puzzle building aspect, getting all these oddly shaped parts to fit together as best you can. Therefore I think players need to have flaws, to not be perfect, to allow for coaches to protect against flaws and to challenge the flaws of others"

I totally agree. I think D3 with 2.0 recruiting did this very well and then 3.0 destroyed it. Now you can get players at d3 that are TOO good. I liked having players with obvious flaws and therefore made more players viable for a title worthy team.

you guys are pretty much getting to where the conversation went a dozen years ago. it was unrealistic, the arbitrary improvement we had available in 1.0. recruit gen was lower then - the initial ratings, players weren't quite as good. so it wasn't really a perfect player problem, and the tradeoffs and decisions you had to make about what to grow, were very interesting. fertile ground for coaches to make a difference through their decision making, and for them to advance various systems and strategies - it was one of the best parts of the game, really.

so then potential, it really just went so far to another extreme. what we asked them to do was to implement more of a soft cap system, where players had a growth rate available in the ratings that slowed down like today, but didn't go to 0 like it does. maybe it slows down to about what a 6 points left yellow rating does. and also ideas like what shoe said were talked about, allowing more growth in something like passing than something like speed. but overall, we thought a middle ground was better, where you got diminishing returns in your practice push in certain ratings, so you didn't sort of have total free form control which was pretty unrealistic, but it wasn't 100% fixed either, the final shape of the player.

this was definitely our #1 complaint about the way the system got left after potential was sort of cleaned up from the unmitigated disaster it started as, to what we have now. but seble never bit.

Posted by johnroberts on 4/27/2022 10:18:00 AM (view original):
I mostly agree with you, shoe. I don’t want growth to be ANYTHING. Shaq can’t shoot free throws. I don’t want him to get to be good unless he practiced a ton.

Well yeah, by anything I mean in FT and defense (and to some degree the scoring attributes) any player can have any level of potential, from very low to very high. It would not limited by position, like rebounding, ball handling, etc would be. Does that make more sense?

I like rate of improvement as the color coded potential, rather than hard caps. Seems like if I want to improve my worst defensive player and he’s a red, but I give him 30 minutes practice time on defense, he should improve. Slowly, but improve.