A downside on preferences Topic

Wants to Play
Neutral
No Preference
-
No Preference
-
Perimeter Offense
Very Bad
No Preference
-
Zone
Neutral
No Preference
-
Wants Long-time Coach
Very Bad
Late


Mully, this is from a recruit I scouted in Wooden for my Rutgers team. Found him in like 30 seconds. Fact is, you're just not right on this one.

I'll see if I can get it to post a little cleaner.

Just on my first page of searches I count six players that are listed as Very Bad. In fact, the PG I'm trying to sign has that preference listed. So again, they might not be all that common, but those preferences do exist. Plenty of players have it.
9/21/2016 10:48 AM (edited)
Thanks emy
I never had one in BETA. Very odd. (I even went through every recruit I had scouted to double check before posting).

Argghhhhh
9/21/2016 11:00 AM
We're not lying to you, or guessing, mully. You can go negative for a recruit's play style preference. I don't recall if it was always true in beta, but it's definitely true now.
9/21/2016 11:02 AM
Posted by mullycj on 9/21/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):
Thanks emy
I never had one in BETA. Very odd. (I even went through every recruit I had scouted to double check before posting).

Argghhhhh
Just curious, did you just look at home? Because if you were looking at recruits you had flagged, you may have already selected out those "bads". Otherwise, it's possible that your style happens to be so balanced that no recruit will look positively or negatively at the moment. In my quick advanced search of level 2 recruits, for example, I see 20 bads for perimeter offense, 13 goods for paint offense, 3 neutrals for fast tempo, and 19 goods for strong defense.
9/21/2016 11:08 AM
I am pretty sure its because my teams (even in BETA) are relatively balanced.

Oh well. My bad guys.
Sorry
9/21/2016 11:11 AM
Posted by mullycj on 9/21/2016 11:11:00 AM (view original):
I am pretty sure its because my teams (even in BETA) are relatively balanced.

Oh well. My bad guys.
Sorry
Hey, no problem Mully, we're all still learning the nuances of this new system. Just chalk it up to "Something about HD 3.0 I learned today".
9/21/2016 11:16 AM
Yup, we're still learning and figuring about what's going on.

But the other point about them showing up on Day 1, is that true for everyone? Did play style preferences have something different than neutral after just 1 game?
9/21/2016 11:21 AM
Posted by Benis on 9/21/2016 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by possumfiend on 9/21/2016 10:12:00 AM (view original):
@Benis - this is correct, but 23 games into my season in Knight and I am still neutral in both perimeter and paint. I still suspect I'm better in one area than the other though and that I'm getting a slightly positive multiplier for that play style as a result.

Theoretically, one could be "neutral" in say perimeter but on the very high end of the neutral. If that's the case the multiplier is going to be close to someone listed as VG in perimeter but who is on the low end of VG.
You're shooting just about 31% of your shots from 3. So if our educated guess of 30-35% equaling neutral is correct, then I'd say you're right on the border of being a Bad preference there.

I'm still not sure about the paint offense. Is it just non 3s or is it really points in the paint? If it's PIP then there's really no easy way to get that info. Would have to go through every box score, right?
If its 31% and still neutral that seems WAY too high. I am not sure many humans even have a 3pt% that high.
Anyone have a good preference on perimeter?? What % does it take?
9/25/2016 10:13 AM
This is why this is my least favorite part about 3.0. It doesn't make any sense to want coaches to try to game their game plans to give themselves recruiting advantages.
9/25/2016 10:38 AM
Posted by pkoopman on 9/25/2016 10:38:00 AM (view original):
This is why this is my least favorite part about 3.0. It doesn't make any sense to want coaches to try to game their game plans to give themselves recruiting advantages.
+1

But you know there will always be someone trying to game the game. I kind of like it that some of the obvious ways, like the one mentioned in this thread, don't work.
9/25/2016 10:44 AM
Posted by pkoopman on 9/25/2016 10:38:00 AM (view original):
This is why this is my least favorite part about 3.0. It doesn't make any sense to want coaches to try to game their game plans to give themselves recruiting advantages.
This is why, in my opinion, they need to re-beef up the prestige multiplier. Otherwise rebuilding teams will have advantages by gaming the system. If I'm rebuilding and see a couple of local kids I love that want "uptempo" and "paint offense," then you better believe coaches will sacrifice a few games to alter their gameplans to help land those kids.
9/25/2016 10:52 AM
Posted by darnoc29099 on 9/25/2016 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 9/25/2016 10:38:00 AM (view original):
This is why this is my least favorite part about 3.0. It doesn't make any sense to want coaches to try to game their game plans to give themselves recruiting advantages.
This is why, in my opinion, they need to re-beef up the prestige multiplier. Otherwise rebuilding teams will have advantages by gaming the system. If I'm rebuilding and see a couple of local kids I love that want "uptempo" and "paint offense," then you better believe coaches will sacrifice a few games to alter their gameplans to help land those kids.
I'm trying to do that right now with new mexico state. Its a little harder than it sounds but you do have flexibility.
9/25/2016 11:30 AM
So if that's how it works admin should put a negative effect on the WE ratings of the players already on the roster if the style of play changes from what they preferred when originally recruited, they'd probably have to make it severe enough to make the player transfer to prevent "gaming the game"
9/25/2016 11:35 AM
"... sacrifice a few games to alter their gameplans ..."

For a slight nudge on one or two preferences? At the expense of wins? And at the expense of a slight lowering of preference for success? And for a slight lowering of team prestige? Sounds penny wise and pound foolish to me. And some of the "cures" presented in this thread, making things worse overall while attempting to cure a problem that may or may not exist ... I don't think Seble is going to go for any of that.
9/25/2016 11:44 AM (edited)
Posted by CoachSpud on 9/25/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):
"... sacrifice a few games to alter their gameplans ..."

For a slight nudge on one or two preferences? At the expense of wins? And at the expense of a slight lowering of preference for success? And for a slight lowering of team prestige? Sounds penny wise and pound foolish to me. And some of the "cures" presented in this thread, making things worse overall while attempting to cure a problem that may or may not exist ... I don't think Seble is going to go for any of that.
It's already been shown in Knight and Wooden teams with mediocre/bad prestiges that match up well in preferences have a definite advantage over much higher prestige teams with meh preferences. Given you can do most of your scouting by the third or fourth game of the season, it's very easy to get your top targets and gameplan in such a way to give you the best match ups with preferences for your top recruits. Again, prestige means much less in 3.0 especially compared to preferences. I'm not saying you do this year in and year out, but if your taking over a brand new team, this is absolutely how you would turn your team around quickly. Remember, prestige in a full rebuild isn't going to go up much (if at all) in the first couple of seasons while you weed out the awful sim recruits. A few extra wins in year 1 won't mean anything 3 and 4 seasons down the road.
9/25/2016 12:09 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
A downside on preferences Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.