Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):
The premise by the original designers was in DI you succeeded then built your resume up to the point where you could get into a Big 6 conference. That's why DI was the only conference with baseline prestige. Getting into a big 6 school was "prestigious".

The idea wasn't to give you the ability to win the NC at Alcorn St.

Right, but is this a good premise? I know in real life Alcorn St isnt doing much, but would it be a bad thing if they could here? I mean, if a legit human coach took them and built them up...and wanted to stay to take his Alma Mater to the next level...why should there be a cap on what he can reach?

I believe it is a bad thing. I want a basketball universe to look something like reality. I would not enjoy this game as much if Alcorn State and Duke traded places.

I am guessing he is referring to baseline prestige

By the way there was a time when any team could win it in DI. Everything was the same now except for recruit generation. Some feel that was all that needed to be tweaked. Here are smith national Champions in that period. 33% from small conferences.

35	Army	31-4	Lizak	Maryland
34	Marquette	34-1	jsreilly	Hawaii
33	Kentucky	33-2	petec	Georgia
32	Miami (FL)	29-4	cpkung	Iowa
31	Kansas	30-5	goosegoslin	Alabama
30	Rutgers	24-11	liamsar	Kentucky
29	Kentucky	29-6	petec	Minnesota
28	Wisconsin	28-7	oldresorter	Rutgers
27	Hawaii	24-9	goosegoslin	Buffalo
26	VCU	28-7	ace_windsor	Rutgers
25	N. Illinois	33-2	robinhood410	Cal
24	Maryland	25-10	davis	Louisiana St.
23	Boston College	32-3	infinitebob	Alabama
22	Clemson	29-6	ajcrawford69	La Salle
21	E. Illinois	34-1	mullycj	Cincinnati

Posted by noleaniml on 10/12/2016 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):
The premise by the original designers was in DI you succeeded then built your resume up to the point where you could get into a Big 6 conference. That's why DI was the only conference with baseline prestige. Getting into a big 6 school was "prestigious".

The idea wasn't to give you the ability to win the NC at Alcorn St.

Right, but is this a good premise? I know in real life Alcorn St isnt doing much, but would it be a bad thing if they could here? I mean, if a legit human coach took them and built them up...and wanted to stay to take his Alma Mater to the next level...why should there be a cap on what he can reach?

I believe it is a bad thing. I want a basketball universe to look something like reality. I would not enjoy this game as much if Alcorn State and Duke traded places.

And so this is kind of what I am getting at and would love to see peoples opinions on. I tend to agree with you, in that I dont want to see the small schools become more powerful than Duke...but there is a small part of me that thinks it would be cool if that happened. Honestly I think TrentonJoe nailed it when he talked about the sweet spot. I do think small schools should have a higher baseline, but not as high as the big schools.

I dunno, I realize this may be a stupid thread

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 2:19:00 PM (view original):
I am guessing he is referring to baseline prestige

Right, baseline...had a brain fart and couldnt remember that it was baseline not a ceiling.

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 2:25:00 PM (view original):
By the way there was a time when any team could win it in DI. Everything was the same now except for recruit generation. Some feel that was all that needed to be tweaked. Here are smith national Champions in that period. 33% from small conferences.

35	Army	31-4	Lizak	Maryland
34	Marquette	34-1	jsreilly	Hawaii
33	Kentucky	33-2	petec	Georgia
32	Miami (FL)	29-4	cpkung	Iowa
31	Kansas	30-5	goosegoslin	Alabama
30	Rutgers	24-11	liamsar	Kentucky
29	Kentucky	29-6	petec	Minnesota
28	Wisconsin	28-7	oldresorter	Rutgers
27	Hawaii	24-9	goosegoslin	Buffalo
26	VCU	28-7	ace_windsor	Rutgers
25	N. Illinois	33-2	robinhood410	Cal
24	Maryland	25-10	davis	Louisiana St.
23	Boston College	32-3	infinitebob	Alabama
22	Clemson	29-6	ajcrawford69	La Salle
21	E. Illinois	34-1	mullycj	Cincinnati

Interesting, those are results I could definitely get behind. Large schools mostly dominated but you still had a shot if you were smaller...

I agree with noleaniml, in that I want to play a game that feels realistic, and the allowances I make on that preference are for instances where increased realism hurts playability.

I like the stratification in general; I like having the Big 6 conference jobs be the most prestigious, and the best platforms from which to compete for championships. I would like for there to be a "mid-major" level, from which a few strong conferences could produce perennial contenders, though at a lower rate than the Big 6. I would like the low levels of D1 to be a reasonable platform from which to ascend to higher levels with conference domination, and/or an occasional sweet 16 run. Mostly, I would like for there to be fluidity *within those levels*, and that's what I think was primarily lacking before. Getting the Duke job shouldn't shield you from having to compete for the best recruits. In the real world, when tarvolon turns Oral Roberts into a championship caliber team, he has big 6 programs competing for him; and sometimes big 6 conferences pulling those mid-majors in. The latter isn't going to happen, because conference re-configuration is probably never workable in a game like this. But the former should be true, and in any case, an Oral Roberts should be able to, after sustained success, achieve those top prestige levels without the conference dragging it down.

Probably the worst and most unrealistic aspect of the previous version of this game was that so many 4-5 star recruits went unbattled for, and so many of them agreed to be bench warmers for loaded-roster teams. In 3.0, you pretty much need to be willing to start all those top players right from the start. The premium is back on long-term roster planning, and day-to-day gameplanning.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/12/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):
I agree with noleaniml, in that I want to play a game that feels realistic, and the allowances I make on that preference are for instances where increased realism hurts playability.

I like the stratification in general; I like having the Big 6 conference jobs be the most prestigious, and the best platforms from which to compete for championships. I would like for there to be a "mid-major" level, from which a few strong conferences could produce perennial contenders, though at a lower rate than the Big 6. I would like the low levels of D1 to be a reasonable platform from which to ascend to higher levels with conference domination, and/or an occasional sweet 16 run. Mostly, I would like for there to be fluidity *within those levels*, and that's what I think was primarily lacking before. Getting the Duke job shouldn't shield you from having to compete for the best recruits. In the real world, when tarvolon turns Oral Roberts into a championship caliber team, he has big 6 programs competing for him; and sometimes big 6 conferences pulling those mid-majors in. The latter isn't going to happen, because conference re-configuration is probably never workable in a game like this. But the former should be true, and in any case, an Oral Roberts should be able to, after sustained success, achieve those top prestige levels without the conference dragging it down.

Probably the worst and most unrealistic aspect of the previous version of this game was that so many 4-5 star recruits went unbattled for, and so many of them agreed to be bench warmers for loaded-roster teams. In 3.0, you pretty much need to be willing to start all those top players right from the start. The premium is back on long-term roster planning, and day-to-day gameplanning.

Great post, and I agree the old version was just crazy with the big schools benches being loaded. Will be interesting to see how 3.0 plays out over a few seasons once the "super classes" are no more.

Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I keep seeing everyone talking about how things that happen here would never happen in real life. So I pose the question to you, HD community, does it really need to follow real life?

I honestly am conflicted on this, I mean on the one hand you need the power conferences and schools to have an "edge" since it makes this game more fun to either coach them or coach against them...but on the other hand it would be cool to think any school, especially your alma mater that is a smaller D1 school, could become a powerhouse.

I mean after all, this is a fantasy based game, so does it need to mirror real life? I honestly do not know, but would love to read thoughts on it.

It is a simulation. A simulation need not "mirror" reality in every detail. The difference -- playability.

Whatever school you can take to the top, you have my congratulations. If you do it without an artificial advantage, you have my respect.

I've said this before but I really dislike the 'in real life' argument. I've used it too, so I'm pretty hypocritical.

But I think it's a combination of realism and playability. The #1 thing, to me, is if it's fun. Is it a fun game or not?

I also go back to this. The simulation engine itself isn't like real life. And that, to me, is a bigger issue for realism than the 'can Alcorn State win it all' question. I think the engine is great, for sure but it's pretty damn flawed. Teams taking 0 threes and making the Final Four. Teams without a single player who can handle the ball or pass winning championships (these are D2/D3 examples at least). Needing to go 11/12 deep, teams averaging 50 FTA a game, etc etc. I'd also argue that the player ratings could be better across the divisions. I've had a player at D3 with 99 ATH.

Anyway, I digress. To sum up, in my opinion, if I'm working towards realism, I'd improve on the engine first since that's the entire basis of the game and it should represent the game we watch on TV or played ourselves when we were in HS/college.

Edit- I'd like to add that I think one area that I've harped on for realism is battling of D3 vs D1. D3 should never beat a D1. I don't care if it's a SIM. I don't care if it's an A+ D3 vs a D- D1. They should have zero chance. This is for obvious realism but also for playability. I don't see how this would be good for the game.

While I see your point, Benis... I would also argue that the game engine provides enough complexity for multiple strategies to work. However, there was pretty much only one way to do recruiting. And, IMO, recruiting is the more important aspect of the game. IOW, mastering the game engine intricacies and finding successful strategies simply could not overcome even mid-level talent advantages. So, IMO, overhauling recruiting to provide more complexity and multiple strategy options was more important than working on the game engine and making it more complex and allowing for more realistic simulation.

Posted by noleaniml on 10/12/2016 6:25:00 PM (view original):
While I see your point, Benis... I would also argue that the game engine provides enough complexity for multiple strategies to work. However, there was pretty much only one way to do recruiting. And, IMO, recruiting is the more important aspect of the game. IOW, mastering the game engine intricacies and finding successful strategies simply could not overcome even mid-level talent advantages. So, IMO, overhauling recruiting to provide more complexity and multiple strategy options was more important than working on the game engine and making it more complex and allowing for more realistic simulation.

Oh I agree totally. I guess what I was trying to say didn't come across correctly. I'm not saying that they should have improved the engine vs recruiting. I was trying to say, if we're trying to make this game totally like real life, it should start with the engine.

I agree for the 'health' and successful longevity of the game, it was more prudent to update recruiting. I'm with you there.

Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 10/12/2016 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):
The premise by the original designers was in DI you succeeded then built your resume up to the point where you could get into a Big 6 conference. That's why DI was the only conference with baseline prestige. Getting into a big 6 school was "prestigious".

The idea wasn't to give you the ability to win the NC at Alcorn St.

Right, but is this a good premise? I know in real life Alcorn St isnt doing much, but would it be a bad thing if they could here? I mean, if a legit human coach took them and built them up...and wanted to stay to take his Alma Mater to the next level...why should there be a cap on what he can reach?

I believe it is a bad thing. I want a basketball universe to look something like reality. I would not enjoy this game as much if Alcorn State and Duke traded places.

And so this is kind of what I am getting at and would love to see peoples opinions on. I tend to agree with you, in that I dont want to see the small schools become more powerful than Duke...but there is a small part of me that thinks it would be cool if that happened. Honestly I think TrentonJoe nailed it when he talked about the sweet spot. I do think small schools should have a higher baseline, but not as high as the big schools.

I dunno, I realize this may be a stupid thread

Crabman, there is nothing stupid about this thread. This is an argument I've made for years. It makes me laugh that a lot of the people saying they want it more like real life are the same ones complaining about coaches entrenching themselves at the elite schools. The problem is when there are elite schools like this, what incentive do I have to go to other schools and build them up? People don't want to disadvantage themselves intentionally, unless they just want that challenge.

Remove baseline prestige, and DI opens up significantly. Prestige should be a dynamic thing. Is Alcorn state, can become a team that is in the S16 or better for 15 out of 25 seasons, then why shouldn't they be considered an elite program. Baseline prestige limits the potential of DI imo.

I'm in the camp of wanting HD to look like real life. I want to recognize the elites and have it make sense to me. I think a slight narrowing of prestige and bump in great or recruits or lowering of great recruits could've done the trick. After they fixed hiring and firing. The new EE issue is still very hard to take. I personally don't want to see a final 4 of liberty, ULM, EWU, and rider. To me that ruins the visual appeal of the game, kinda like before they had the proper colors for each team, visual attributes make it more fun to experience

The original admin literally built the game to mirror real life - questions to him would be with responses from statistics from real life constantly (especially sim engine). That said, no "game" can mimic every aspect of real life. But if it's not based upon real life then what exactly is it based on? Seble basically decided to leave real life as the model and choose his own arbitrary vision for HD to completely dictate the future of HD. Then he left.