I sort of looked at it as an attempt at real-life coaching. You're fresh out of college. Maybe you get an assistant job at your alma mater. Maybe you get the head job at your old HS. You don't start as head coach at UNC.

I think I'd prefer a "cap" on how far a D1 can drop. I don't know the numbers yet but maybe 530+ will only drop to D2. Maybe 600+ will just go Juco and never drop to D2. The set-up is kind of funky and can easily be gamed(I think).

RE changes in HBD: "It required adjustments and all the noise has settled down." It'll be delightful when that finally happens here. Imagine these forums without every other thread turning into the same old bitchfest. Wow.

Part of the whining problem works like this: long-time user X gets an idea. Of course, in his head it is a terrific idea and will benefit his team. He posts his idea. A couple of other guys see that it would help their team or make the game easier or whatever floats their boat, and climb on the bandwagon. Now this idea is thought to be the best thing since sliced bread. WIS scrutinizes it from the point of view of what's good for the game overall, and sees that from that point of view it is a bad idea. They don't implement it. They also don't give feedback on bad ideas. If they did, they would be doing nothing but trying to convince people who don't want to hear it that an idea is bad, and that would become a never-ending process. Nothing else would get done. User X and his small bandwagon still think the idea is great and now have TWO whines: WIS never implemented their idea AND they are ignored.

Since the idea becomes permanently lodged in a few heads and thought to be a great idea, I don't think the whining will entirely go away. That's understandable. Two things I do hope will go away are (1) users with a chip on their shoulder trying to trash HD on their way out the door, and (2) out-and-out hate posts, ad hominem attacks that have no place here.

MikeT, welcome to these threads. You bring a perspective that we really need here. Thanks.

Here's an example of such an idea: "Had they simply removed distance as a barrier in recruiting you would have started to see battles." Of course, if they did that then geography would become very nearly meaningless. They might as well discard the map. They might as well discard the names of the schools. But this idea will live on, and on ... with its proponents absolutely certain that the idea is great, and angry that WIS is ignoring them.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/16/2016 11:40:00 AM (view original):
This is how 3.0 promotes battles. Users are still adjusting, and a lot of them are still shying away, but I think (hope) battles for top talent will increase.

It was the lack of battles that really produced a terrible D1 game. The A+ teams would plant their flag on 3 or 4 guys, no one would touch them. Then for their last recruit or two, they could swoop in late and take what they wanted (as long as it was under the 360 mile radius), because they always had a bunch of early entry scholarships. People talk about prestige or conference cash, but the real advantage in that system was scholarship resources.

So at Virginia in the last season of 2.0 recruiting, I gamed the system hard. Like Mike, I had taken over a doormat, and it was a long slog to respectability. I organized my classes 4-4-4-0 (early entry caliber players only started talking to me in the last 2 seasons). So after my 0 class, I had 2 seasons of ACC conference cash plus the 4 scholarships, plus a chunk of rollover change from 2 seasons past. I filled my scholarships, signing 3 4-year guys with ~5k, and spent ~125k on the #9 pg in the country, the best local fit for my team. Staved off WF, but felt real dirty. Glad that system is history.

This is mostly correct and is why I still contend that removing distance in recruiting would have created the battles that everyone was after.

I was at Virginia in Tark for a long time - I specifically knew which schools could touch me in recruiting and if their conference (if they were from outside the ACC) had a down year or they did not have the same openings I did, it was all fait a compli by the second round. I could even have told you which recruits I would have to battle for based on which state they were in. Nobody ever entered Virginia after my first few seasons because I would destroy them. I then extended my reach to Maryland and DC, and that basically ensured I had the best guys.

BUT, had they created a system where I would have had to worry from the outset about the UCLAs, the Stanfords, the Kentuckys, etc, of the world from the outset, you would have had battles. And this would have opened access to very good recruits at mid majors, and then on down because the big schools couldn't have poached (or at least not as easily) because they would have been too afraid to poach and the battles would have been epic.

Had they then coupled this with actually creating a game logic where you could be fired for doing poorly (the amount of users who were sub 500 for as long as they were at big programs was and is insane) it would have even created coach movement at the top, too.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/16/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's an example of such an idea: "Had they simply removed distance as a barrier in recruiting you would have started to see battles." Of course, if they did that then geography would become very nearly meaningless. They might as well discard the map. They might as well discard the names of the schools. But this idea will live on, and on ... with its proponents absolutely certain that the idea is great, and angry that WIS is ignoring them.

Yup. As it is, they opted to make strategy pointless and more reliant on a coin toss.

It will be delightful when Spudhole crawls back to his basement, discovers a new game, and antagonizes the **** out of THOSE players instead.

Posted by sh0wtime99 on 11/16/2016 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/16/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Here's an example of such an idea: "Had they simply removed distance as a barrier in recruiting you would have started to see battles." Of course, if they did that then geography would become very nearly meaningless. They might as well discard the map. They might as well discard the names of the schools. But this idea will live on, and on ... with its proponents absolutely certain that the idea is great, and angry that WIS is ignoring them.

Yup. As it is, they opted to make strategy pointless and more reliant on a coin toss.

At D1 for sure

"Part of the whining problem works like this: long-time user X gets an idea. Of course, in his head it is a terrific idea and will benefit his team. He posts his idea. A couple of other guys see that it would help their team or make the game easier or whatever floats their boat, and climb on the bandwagon. Now this idea is thought to be the best thing since sliced bread. WIS scrutinizes it from the point of view of what's good for the game overall, and sees that from that point of view it is a bad idea. They don't implement it. They also don't give feedback on bad ideas. If they did, they would be doing nothing but trying to convince people who don't want to hear it that an idea is bad, and that would become a never-ending process. Nothing else would get done. User X and his small bandwagon still think the idea is great and now have TWO whines: WIS never implemented their idea AND they are ignored."

Kinda like Spud's Red Light.... oh wait.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/16/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):
RE changes in HBD: "It required adjustments and all the noise has settled down." It'll be delightful when that finally happens here. Imagine these forums without every other thread turning into the same old bitchfest. Wow.

Part of the whining problem works like this: long-time user X gets an idea. Of course, in his head it is a terrific idea and will benefit his team. He posts his idea. A couple of other guys see that it would help their team or make the game easier or whatever floats their boat, and climb on the bandwagon. Now this idea is thought to be the best thing since sliced bread. WIS scrutinizes it from the point of view of what's good for the game overall, and sees that from that point of view it is a bad idea. They don't implement it. They also don't give feedback on bad ideas. If they did, they would be doing nothing but trying to convince people who don't want to hear it that an idea is bad, and that would become a never-ending process. Nothing else would get done. User X and his small bandwagon still think the idea is great and now have TWO whines: WIS never implemented their idea AND they are ignored.

Since the idea becomes permanently lodged in a few heads and thought to be a great idea, I don't think the whining will entirely go away. That's understandable. Two things I do hope will go away are (1) users with a chip on their shoulder trying to trash HD on their way out the door, and (2) out-and-out hate posts, ad hominem attacks that have no place here.

MikeT, welcome to these threads. You bring a perspective that we really need here. Thanks.

At the risk of becoming a pariah, the whole "great idea" thing is spot on.

I noticed, in HBD, that some owners posted "great ideas". On the surface, they weren't bad. However, if you dug deeper, you realized it benefited few, sometimes at the expense of others, sometimes not. When it helps a few and has little effect on others, is it worth programming? IMO, probably not. But no one wants to hear that their well-thought out and reasonable idea isn't so great. And the "Thanks for your input" response is off-putting. But everyone drops a stinker. That said, some of my "great ideas" get recycled from time to time. One is scouting regions in HBD. Someone will bring it up and I'll post my 2007 ticket and the "We're working on some ideas" response. I still think it's a great idea but it might be a ***** to program. Looking back, some of my other great ideas were crap.

That said, I have no idea what was proposed for HD and I'm certainly not qualified to judge even if I did. However, stopping the "planting of a flag" as pkoop put it, is a good idea. If a weighted roll of the dice means you lose a recruit you were leading on, so be it. It evens the playing field. You'll win some of those too. What I'm seeing, and I could be completely wrong, is an overreaction to the first season or two when a user didn't win one.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2016 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/16/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):
RE changes in HBD: "It required adjustments and all the noise has settled down." It'll be delightful when that finally happens here. Imagine these forums without every other thread turning into the same old bitchfest. Wow.

Part of the whining problem works like this: long-time user X gets an idea. Of course, in his head it is a terrific idea and will benefit his team. He posts his idea. A couple of other guys see that it would help their team or make the game easier or whatever floats their boat, and climb on the bandwagon. Now this idea is thought to be the best thing since sliced bread. WIS scrutinizes it from the point of view of what's good for the game overall, and sees that from that point of view it is a bad idea. They don't implement it. They also don't give feedback on bad ideas. If they did, they would be doing nothing but trying to convince people who don't want to hear it that an idea is bad, and that would become a never-ending process. Nothing else would get done. User X and his small bandwagon still think the idea is great and now have TWO whines: WIS never implemented their idea AND they are ignored.

Since the idea becomes permanently lodged in a few heads and thought to be a great idea, I don't think the whining will entirely go away. That's understandable. Two things I do hope will go away are (1) users with a chip on their shoulder trying to trash HD on their way out the door, and (2) out-and-out hate posts, ad hominem attacks that have no place here.

MikeT, welcome to these threads. You bring a perspective that we really need here. Thanks.

At the risk of becoming a pariah, the whole "great idea" thing is spot on.

I noticed, in HBD, that some owners posted "great ideas". On the surface, they weren't bad. However, if you dug deeper, you realized it benefited few, sometimes at the expense of others, sometimes not. When it helps a few and has little effect on others, is it worth programming? IMO, probably not. But no one wants to hear that their well-thought out and reasonable idea isn't so great. And the "Thanks for your input" response is off-putting. But everyone drops a stinker. That said, some of my "great ideas" get recycled from time to time. One is scouting regions in HBD. Someone will bring it up and I'll post my 2007 ticket and the "We're working on some ideas" response. I still think it's a great idea but it might be a ***** to program. Looking back, some of my other great ideas were crap.

That said, I have no idea what was proposed for HD and I'm certainly not qualified to judge even if I did. However, stopping the "planting of a flag" as pkoop put it, is a good idea. If a weighted roll of the dice means you lose a recruit you were leading on, so be it. It evens the playing field. You'll win some of those too. What I'm seeing, and I could be completely wrong, is an overreaction to the first season or two when a user didn't win one.

If it was battles they wanted, then there were easier ways to get them than what happened. What I actually think this new system does is it better monetizes the game. Do you know the last time any of the top coaches actually paid to play? This system of randomness removes that because you won't find elite programs that don't get gutted anymore. So now everyone pays. Am I in love with it? No, not really, but only because I feel like battles could have been accomplished without a huge overhaul to the system. But that requires believing that battles is what they were actually after and not the monetization. What people were asking for were more options in game planning and coaching, but those largely went ignored at the expense of the recruiting overhaul.

"At the risk of becoming a pariah, the whole "great idea" thing is spot on."

Thank you. I don't think you'll become a pariah for expressing that, for two reasons. For one, the people with the "great ideas" are impervious to your input. And secondly, the haters troll the CoachSpud user name like flies mindlessly buzzing around flypaper. Scroll up to 12:56 PM or down to 1:39 PM in this thread and you'll see an example. I play the game peacefully and successfully at all three Divisional levels under different user name(s), and I'll probably leave this user name out there as flypaper.

"If a weighted roll of the dice means you lose a recruit you were leading on, so be it. It evens the playing field. You'll win some of those too. What I'm seeing, and I could be completely wrong, is an overreaction to the first season or two when a user didn't win one."

Correct again. In fact, it is interesting to read posts and see the level of understanding of 3.0 that the poster has. Many understand the game quite well. Most of those enjoy the game (including myself). Others understand nothing more than a roll of the dice or a flip of a coin.

Not qualified to comment on removing distance but, as I mentioned in the other active thread, I chose a team with little research. However, I chose the NE because of the proximity. I figured at D3, you needed players in your backyard.

Either way, this new systems seems to put Duke and NC State on a somewhat level playing field. That may not be real-life but it's better for a sim. The elite owners entrenched at the elite schools getting all the elite players hurts the playability of the game if one's goal is to win a D1 Championship and you're not one of those elite.

Yeah Spud, if I were that much of an intentional douche bagg I'd HIDE behind a 2nd username too.

Posted by sh0wtime99 on 11/16/2016 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/16/2016 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/16/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):
RE changes in HBD: "It required adjustments and all the noise has settled down." It'll be delightful when that finally happens here. Imagine these forums without every other thread turning into the same old bitchfest. Wow.

Part of the whining problem works like this: long-time user X gets an idea. Of course, in his head it is a terrific idea and will benefit his team. He posts his idea. A couple of other guys see that it would help their team or make the game easier or whatever floats their boat, and climb on the bandwagon. Now this idea is thought to be the best thing since sliced bread. WIS scrutinizes it from the point of view of what's good for the game overall, and sees that from that point of view it is a bad idea. They don't implement it. They also don't give feedback on bad ideas. If they did, they would be doing nothing but trying to convince people who don't want to hear it that an idea is bad, and that would become a never-ending process. Nothing else would get done. User X and his small bandwagon still think the idea is great and now have TWO whines: WIS never implemented their idea AND they are ignored.

Since the idea becomes permanently lodged in a few heads and thought to be a great idea, I don't think the whining will entirely go away. That's understandable. Two things I do hope will go away are (1) users with a chip on their shoulder trying to trash HD on their way out the door, and (2) out-and-out hate posts, ad hominem attacks that have no place here.

MikeT, welcome to these threads. You bring a perspective that we really need here. Thanks.

At the risk of becoming a pariah, the whole "great idea" thing is spot on.

I noticed, in HBD, that some owners posted "great ideas". On the surface, they weren't bad. However, if you dug deeper, you realized it benefited few, sometimes at the expense of others, sometimes not. When it helps a few and has little effect on others, is it worth programming? IMO, probably not. But no one wants to hear that their well-thought out and reasonable idea isn't so great. And the "Thanks for your input" response is off-putting. But everyone drops a stinker. That said, some of my "great ideas" get recycled from time to time. One is scouting regions in HBD. Someone will bring it up and I'll post my 2007 ticket and the "We're working on some ideas" response. I still think it's a great idea but it might be a ***** to program. Looking back, some of my other great ideas were crap.

That said, I have no idea what was proposed for HD and I'm certainly not qualified to judge even if I did. However, stopping the "planting of a flag" as pkoop put it, is a good idea. If a weighted roll of the dice means you lose a recruit you were leading on, so be it. It evens the playing field. You'll win some of those too. What I'm seeing, and I could be completely wrong, is an overreaction to the first season or two when a user didn't win one.

If it was battles they wanted, then there were easier ways to get them than what happened. What I actually think this new system does is it better monetizes the game. Do you know the last time any of the top coaches actually paid to play? This system of randomness removes that because you won't find elite programs that don't get gutted anymore. So now everyone pays. Am I in love with it? No, not really, but only because I feel like battles could have been accomplished without a huge overhaul to the system. But that requires believing that battles is what they were actually after and not the monetization. What people were asking for were more options in game planning and coaching, but those largely went ignored at the expense of the recruiting overhaul.

Working backwards...

1) lots of people wanted a recruiting overhaul, especially at D1.
2) the old scouting was horrid. To find potential, you sent your scout who would send back the same notes over and over. You could scout a guard 10 times, and not know his ball-handling potential. This desperately needed an overhaul, it was maybe the most common complaint outside of sniping (commonly misunderstood as "poaching"... but a separate rant).
3) there is literally no way to increase battles in a multi-player commodity game without a) unintended consequences, and b) p!ssing certain people off.
4) so what if they want to "monetize"? Is that supposed to be a negative? Are you aware of any business that sells a good or service that is not primarily interested in "monetizing" its idea? At least they're targeting an under-served market (i.e., game-players interested in sport management simulations). If they really wanted to "monetize", they'd dumb it down to the point of absurd simplicity, release it as an app, charge .50$ per season to play, and feature posterizing dunk cutaways alongside ad panels. They're trying to make the best and most competitive game for the market they're trying to hit. Of course they want to make some money along the way.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/16/2016 1:50:00 PM (view original):
"At the risk of becoming a pariah, the whole "great idea" thing is spot on."

Thank you. I don't think you'll become a pariah for expressing that, for two reasons. For one, the people with the "great ideas" are impervious to your input. And secondly, the haters troll the CoachSpud user name like flies mindlessly buzzing around flypaper. Scroll up to 12:56 PM or down to 1:39 PM in this thread and you'll see an example. I play the game peacefully and successfully at all three Divisional levels under different user name(s), and I'll probably leave this user name out there as flypaper.

"If a weighted roll of the dice means you lose a recruit you were leading on, so be it. It evens the playing field. You'll win some of those too. What I'm seeing, and I could be completely wrong, is an overreaction to the first season or two when a user didn't win one."

Correct again. In fact, it is interesting to read posts and see the level of understanding of 3.0 that the poster has. Many understand the game quite well. Most of those enjoy the game (including myself). Others understand nothing more than a roll of the dice or a flip of a coin.

So you only have the coachspud user name so you can argue with people on the forums? huh? whats the point of that?