Most Recent Changes Topic

gomiami1972
Posts: 3751 (1)
Hall of Famer
10 1 1 550 49 118
Pro
Posted by poncho0091 on 10/29/2016 11:22:00 PM (view original):
I wish people would stop trying to say "this would not happen in real life" because guess what, this is not real life. It's a game based on numbers, not feelings and emotions.
Amen to that.
10/29/2016 11:34 PM
CoachSpud
Posts: 1646 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 40
Prospect
"this also is a change that affects the dynamic balance of the game in a way that wasnt explored or tested in the beta - big change - rife with prospects of unforeseen consequences. Would have been great to try in the BETA to see what it does to all sorts of stuff...."

That's a fair point, but beta appears to be shut down and I suspect there was some sort of timetable WIS needed to meet.
Nothing to quit over, though. It seems on the face of it to be a minor change, and if it doesn't work WIS can change it back.
10/29/2016 11:55 PM
CoachSpud
Posts: 1646 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 40
Prospect
Posted by mullycj on 10/29/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jcfreder on 10/29/2016 7:20:00 PM (view original):
If # of AP per cycle is restricted, it only exacerbates the problem that it takes too much effort to unlock schollys/other actions. This will hurt teams playing catch up. The threshold to unlock schollys is way too high and is one of the biggest sources of un-realism in the recruiting process.
Start unlocking sooner. Tons of D1 players unlock scholarships in the 50-60 AP range. Even if you don't have any scholarships to start with, you can generally unlock scholarships for 4-5 guys in the first session, with no problem.
Smith - 2 EEs . Went after a late recruit who was only considering a SIM. He signed with SIM 1st cycle 2nd session. How am I supposed to compete with that?
"I had 2 EE's and I didn't prepare one bit in the first period. Think maybe I should have been better prepared?"
10/29/2016 11:58 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
pkoopman
Posts: 868 (0)
Hall of Famer
88 6 20
Rookie
Posted by gomiami1972 on 10/29/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 10/29/2016 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 8:26:00 PM (view original):
If I have 3 open spots and you have 6, the only advantage you should have is flexibility to promise a start and minutes. If I promise a start and minutes, then your extra open scholarships should have absolutely no bearing on his decision. The fact that it always has was probably the most asinine part of 2.0, and I couldn't be more happy that it is (almost) dead.
None of this is personal, pkoopman.

If I have 6 and you have 3, then I should have every advantage possible. 6 > 3. Next season, you will have 3 and I will have 0. Now the advantage lies with you. My main issue with this change is that WIS stated the reason for the change is that it was "unfair." Class distribution is a choice we all get to make. The only way it would be "unfair" is if some teams were allowed to have max openings and other teams were not. However, we ALL can choose to have 0-6 openings in any given season. That decision comes with positives and negatives but it is a choice. Anything that limits choice and strategic richness is bad for the game.
I agree it's not personal. My use of the term asinine is simply a reflection of my distaste for the system that used to exist, not for the people who enjoyed it. :)

If you have 6 and I have 3 in real life, the only advantage you would have is feeling less conflicted about offering more promises. That's exactly how this system should work. Recruits should make decisions based on preferences, promises, and prestige. That's all. Nobody chooses Duke over Kansas because Duke has fewer scholarship players that season.

Regarding strategy, not every strategy needs to be rewarded. Rewarding class structure choices doesn't make any intuitive sense. Reward good, efficient scouting, reward recruiting prioritization, reward finding under-appreciated value, reward game planning and reward team structure. There's no reason to reward being able to lump 6 scholarships into two classes. It's not rewarded in real life, it doesn't make the game better, it's not a better simulation of basketball, nor does it tell us who plays the game with the most skill. Let that strategy die with 2.0.
OK, we'll just disagree on this one because I do believe that every strategy should be rewarded or punished based on its inherent strength or weakness. You want to have a 3-3-3-3 class structure, good for you. I want to have a 6-0-6-0 class structure. One should not be punished over the other. If WIS thinks 6 openings is "unfair" then re-write the damn program to prevent it from being possible. 4 openings being the max or whatever. Allowing a choice to be on the table and then punishing someone for selecting that choice is, to use your word, what is asinine. :)
It's not punishing that class structure, it's just removing the unnecessary and unrealistic advantage it used to grant. Declining to reward it isn't the same as punishing.
10/30/2016 12:19 AM
CoachSpud
Posts: 1646 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 40
Prospect
Posted by mullycj on 10/30/2016 12:06:00 AM (view original):
"I had 2 EE's and I didn't prepare one bit in the first period. Think maybe I should have been better prepared?"

Like I've said before. maybe you should just STFU until you have a clue what you are talking about Spudhole. We could try to explain it to you AGAIN, but you are obviously too fking stupid to get it so why waste our time. Come back when you actually have an EE. Until then you are just talking out your azz.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
10/30/2016 12:30 AM (edited)
pkoopman
Posts: 868 (0)
Hall of Famer
88 6 20
Rookie
Posted by mullycj on 10/29/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 9:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 10/29/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 7:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jcfreder on 10/29/2016 7:20:00 PM (view original):
If # of AP per cycle is restricted, it only exacerbates the problem that it takes too much effort to unlock schollys/other actions. This will hurt teams playing catch up. The threshold to unlock schollys is way too high and is one of the biggest sources of un-realism in the recruiting process.
Start unlocking sooner. Tons of D1 players unlock scholarships in the 50-60 AP range. Even if you don't have any scholarships to start with, you can generally unlock scholarships for 4-5 guys in the first session, with no problem.
Smith - 2 EEs . Went after a late recruit who was only considering a SIM. He signed with SIM 1st cycle 2nd session. How am I supposed to compete with that?
Had you offered a scholarship? Unlocked visits for the first cycle? The idea is to be able to extend your effort and have it considered before he signs. If you had unlocked visits for the start of the second session, then I agree with you, it's a problem if they sign without considering your effort. That's why there should be a signing-free cycle at the start of the second period.

But if you didn't get the visits unlocked before the late session, then you didn't play your best game.
uhhmmm no, nothing was unlocked. Started spending 1st cycle 2nd session.

And how am I supposed to spare the extra APs when I am fighting for players with my "pre-EE" allocations in session 1?

I know you just LOVE 3.0 but show some common sense. If you don't have the APs to spend until AFTER the 1st session then I cant really unlock anything can I? Do you think since were entitled to our EEs that we should be able to win battles with less AP/budget money than everyone else?
With 60 APs to spend every cycle for the first 22 cycles, with 2 scholarships, you have a total of 1320 APs to spend on guys. You can easily unlock 10 players with that many APs. You aren't obligated to spend them all on the same 2 players, and if you have possible EEs, you really shouldn't. That's common sense, mully. That's playing the game that exists, not the game that you think ought to exist. I know the difference, I had to do the same in the previous version. :)

Keep in mind, this change makes it much *less* advantageous for teams with more scholarships and no EEs when competing against you for those late prospects. It definitely helps you in the situation described above, for them to be capped for the first 22 cycles. You being capped as well for the last 10 isn't the handicap you imagine, big picture.
10/30/2016 12:31 AM
rednu
Posts: 2673 (0)
Hall of Famer
185 2 5
Pro
Again, if the concern is the affect of large classes vs. smaller ones, the solution is to stop basing resource allocation on the number of damn openings each school has! Problem solved.

Just give each program a set about based on division and let each coach decide how to allocate it. Problem solved and coaches can decide the best use of those resources as they see fit regardless of class structure and size.

To complain that the resources available to high opening classes gives them an unfair advantage that requires a cap, while at the same time preserving the allocation structure that created that problem is pointless. Are we putting together a quality computer simulation or a Rube Goldberg machine here? It seems the producers have completely forgotten the KISS principle (again) and have found a complicated solution that addresses the symptom rather than the root of the problem they defined.
10/30/2016 1:25 AM
metsmax
Posts: 1591 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 808 2
Pro
i dont get the unlock 10 payers idea

you can unlock them, but also be waay behind others for them - even if they are medicore DI players

then in second cycle you get your EEs and have your choice of which uphill battles to lose
10/30/2016 6:50 AM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
koop -

Plain and simple - if you have 2 openings and expect EEs (2) then you are fighting for 4 players with the resources for 2. You cant really spare to throw around APs to other players when other teams are going all out for them.

Also, as OTHERS have said, if you have 3 players on the fence at different positions, what position do you try and fill? You have no idea.
I had 2 EEs, so I recruited 5 players with 4 players worth of resources. One EE was probably and the other was "probably staying". I cannot fill the "probably staying" player because I cant unlock anything before they sign with others. Sure I can try to unlock 100 players if I want, but then I probably lose battles to coaches who don't have to spread APs around for new EE players.

I understand what you are saying. I am saying you can't do that in the top (Elite) DI landscape. But maybe that's the whole reason. To make sure the elite don't stay elite.
10/30/2016 8:14 AM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
I'd honestly want to hear someone at an elite program in a word come on here and agree with you. No offense, but you have struggled in DI so I am not sure you understand the EE implications as the elite programs.

In the end I will have 2 walkons this season. I don't have any roster gaps. But there is no way I could have filled another spot with the way this game is set up.
10/30/2016 8:17 AM
pkoopman
Posts: 868 (0)
Hall of Famer
88 6 20
Rookie
Posted by mullycj on 10/30/2016 8:14:00 AM (view original):
koop -

Plain and simple - if you have 2 openings and expect EEs (2) then you are fighting for 4 players with the resources for 2. You cant really spare to throw around APs to other players when other teams are going all out for them.

Also, as OTHERS have said, if you have 3 players on the fence at different positions, what position do you try and fill? You have no idea.
I had 2 EEs, so I recruited 5 players with 4 players worth of resources. One EE was probably and the other was "probably staying". I cannot fill the "probably staying" player because I cant unlock anything before they sign with others. Sure I can try to unlock 100 players if I want, but then I probably lose battles to coaches who don't have to spread APs around for new EE players.

I understand what you are saying. I am saying you can't do that in the top (Elite) DI landscape. But maybe that's the whole reason. To make sure the elite don't stay elite.
You CAN spare the APs, especially when your opponents get capped. Their handicap in this situation is much tougher than yours. In case you have forgotten what discussion you're in here, this is specific to the change made to cap the number of APs teams can allocate to a recruit each cycle at 80. In the situation you brought up, you wouldn't have been capped until the late session (10 cycles) and would only have lost 200 total attention points (that's assuming you never signed anyone in the first period; if you had signed someone, the cap wouldn't affect you *at all*). Meanwhile, a team with 6 openings loses 60 APs (for a single-player strategy) for all 22 cycles of the first session. They lose 1320 APs they could have stacked against you in a single battle. And the resources you *gain* for the second period put you in a great position to pick guys off.

In essence, the argument that this change actually further hurts teams with early entries is just ridiculous. Teams that need to plan for early entries are in a much better position with the cap.

Now its a separate question to whether or not elite programs will be able to do what they used to do, which is count on resources from early entries to be able to sign similar quality players that same year. They can't. No secret. So if the problem is simply that you can't guarantee you'll have a class of 4-5 elite players every year, no you can't. That's a feature, not a bug, with 3.0. That issue has been beaten to death, and most of the guys who can't tolerate that loss of advantage have already left. You can still *get lucky* and win all your rolls and come away with a killer class. Guys did that in beta, and I'm sure guys are going to do that in live worlds. I've never player]do by that strategy, though, and you aren't obligated to limit your recruiting to elite players. It's a viable strategy, and it's basically accepting that there will be years when you're taking 2-3 walking, and maybe even sim signed players to get to 9, if you're really unlucky. But you'll have those resources back for both sessions next year, so for players who want to play like that, that's the trade off. You just can't have it both ways in 3.0. You can't go after just elite commodities without having to deal with their volatility,many the consequences of losing the,.
10/30/2016 10:14 AM (edited)
fd343ny
Posts: 2251 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 605 36
Veteran
for months, no one has argued that EE's should be replaceable with similar quality players - thats a red herring

experience in beta and fear is that one wont be able to replace them with DI usable players
10/30/2016 8:58 AM
pkoopman
Posts: 868 (0)
Hall of Famer
88 6 20
Rookie
"I can try to unlock 100 players if I want, but then I probably lose battles to coaches who don't have to spread APs around for new EE players."

This indicates that you're still playing with a 2.0 mindset. Especially considering this change hurts your rivals more than it hurts you, there's no reason to be that risk averse. Their (now decreased) AP advantage is no match for your late resource advantage you will get, as long as they don't sign before they can even consider your effort. That's the key, and I'm not sure those guys are always considering first cycle effort when they sign first cycle; and in any case, it's too easy to miss the first late cycle. That's what I've always been in favor of a signing-free cycle at least for late players, and I'm definitely concerned that with the whenever "fix" there are not a rational number of elite players available to receive effort from teams who lose early entries.
10/30/2016 9:02 AM
pkoopman
Posts: 868 (0)
Hall of Famer
88 6 20
Rookie
Posted by fd343ny on 10/30/2016 8:58:00 AM (view original):
for months, no one has argued that EE's should be replaceable with similar quality players - thats a red herring

experience in beta and fear is that one wont be able to replace them with DI usable players
"I understand what you are saying. I am saying you can't do that in the top (Elite) DI landscape. But maybe that's the whole reason. To make sure the elite don't stay elite."

I wasn't throwing out a red herring. I was responding to something specific mully said. It's simply false that you can't replace them with usable players. I did it in beta, and a live world, replaced an expected EE with a "usable" player, in both cases winning a battle for a player in the late session. The key is that I had prioritized them and invested APs in them to unlock scholarships and promises prior to the late session. It's a question of prioritization.

But again, if your expectation is that you'll be able to replace lots of EEs in a given year, that's a different issue. How many EEs you have to deal with every season is a direct consequence of the recruiting strategy you pursue. This AP cap helps, not hurts teams dealing with EEs, but it still doesn't protect you from the consequences of the strategies you've chosen.
10/30/2016 9:12 AM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...9 Next ▸
Most Recent Changes Topic
△Top△Bottom

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.