Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):
The ability to "adjust" what preferences you have by playing up/normal/slow almost feels like tanking in HBD. With how HD works, you expect to lose until you get "your" players, anything gimmicky to adjust how recruits see you feels wrong. Just flinging up threes when you have no one who can hit 20% of them, is a game flaw. Playing uptempo, when all your players will be gassed with 10 minutes left, is a game flaw.

Or maybe I'm just ****** I didn't think of it 2 seasons ago.

Either way, it is "gaming the system".

And, no, I don't have a solution of any sort.

It's like a light bulb is slowly coming on in my head. I noticed some recruits become Very Good wrt paint offense. However, I needed to take more 3s so I adjusted. Now they're just Good. So, since I don't expect to get any post-season bids this year, it's really stupid of me to keep jacking up 3s. The "smart" thing to do is stop it. The "right" thing to do is to do what's best to win games. There shouldn't be a difference between smart/right.

Agreed Mike...I played in the beta and thought back then some of the preferences were "odd". You can just change how you play to get a certain preference match even if it doesn't benefit your team in the current season. I haven't personally changed how I play but I certainly bet there are people gaming the system to get better preferences with recruits.

Posted by Benis on 2/15/2017 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 2/15/2017 12:06:00 PM (view original):
It should definitely not be so simple as how often you set your tempo to uptempo. If I am the game developer, no way do I want to incentivize coaches to game the system to exploit a simple criteria for recruit's preferences. Recruiting with preferences should be about finding the recruits that are good matches for your system, not gaming a simple system to get the recruits you want.

It is reasonable to say a team shouldn't be penalized by the opponents decisions. A good compromise here would be to tweak the formula, whatever it is, to account for the opponent's tempo. If the baseline for very good is 80 possessions per game, if the formula can be adjusted down to say 70 for when the opponent chooses slowdown, and 85 when the opponent chooses uptempo. So X(.875) for opponent slowdown games, X(1.06) for opponent uptempo games. That keeps the principle in place, that a recruit is looking to play on a team built to go uptempo, as part of its overall team philosophy.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between my suggestion and yours. Or why it shouldn't be simple.

if a preference is perimeter scoring, take a lot of 3s. If the preference is paint scoring, don't take a lot of 3s. If the preference is fast faced, play up tempo.

how are any of these different? There isn't any gaming of the system. Why make it more complicated than it has to be within the system when your own personal actions of what tempo to play are exactly the same.

It shouldn't be simple, because simple can be gamed, and a game that is gameable is not as good as it can be. It's different, because my compromise - which is not rocket science - maintains the original principle behind having recruit preferences in the first place. My idea is better, because this preference being based on possessions, and not on whether or not a coach plays uptempo x number of games, is more intuitive, and less gameable. A recruit that prefers fast tempo should notice the difference between a team that is pushing tempo because that's what it's designed to do, and a team that is pushing tempo in a select number of games - with or without success - in order to reach a threshold to get his interest. If he can't notice that difference, then the design is not very intelligent. I'm all for making all preferences more intelligent.

You are way off base koopman. Uptempo means an offense that plays uptempo. It's very straightforward. If I choose to play uptempo then I should be in a better place to recruit players who want to play uptempo. Is it "gaming" the system to play M2M to get recruits that want to play man to man?

I can normally see your side of arguments koop, but not here.

I have 6 FR/SO guards so I don't think I'm giving away secrets to my division mates. I checked my recruits. I have 17 PF/C marked(some SG/SF/PG in case they fall thru the cracks but they're not important in this exercise).

Success and Rebuild would be a reason to try to win but I've cut that down to 2 of 17 Wants Success.
However, 9 have me as Good in Paint Offense.

Is there a compelling, or any, reason for me to not put all my players at -2 for three pointers? Doing the math, I'm slightly better taking the threes I am right now than not(3FG% vs FG%).

Posted by mullycj on 2/15/2017 1:01:00 PM (view original):
You are way off base koopman. Uptempo means an offense that plays uptempo. It's very straightforward. If I choose to play uptempo then I should be in a better place to recruit players who want to play uptempo. Is it "gaming" the system to play M2M to get recruits that want to play man to man?

I can normally see your side of arguments koop, but not here.

Based on IQ, is your best defense press or zone? If so, yes, it's gaming the system.

And, in an effort to head off a ******* match, I'm not saying it's not the smart thing to do. It is gaming the system but that's the system's fault. If loopholes are created, they will be used.

I'm still not following out your suggestion is less gameable. If I'm trying to get the fast paced preference, I go uptempo every single game. Whether it's measured your way or mine, the user's action is exactly the same, no?

Or in your example, if we're taking the opponent into account, I schedule only FB teams so there's no way they can play slowdown. Am I still gaming the system.

Here's the thing, look at what we're debating here. Gaming the system? It's ONE preference that a recruit may or may not have. And on a player that you may or may not even try to recruit. And I'm genuinely curious here, but please check out the preferences of players in your world right now, how many want uptempo play style? I have one world where it is 4 out of 105 and another where it is 4 out of 230. That is such a low % that if you're bending over backwards to game the system for that little teeny tiny bit of advantage, you're not using your time effectively.

This seems like a WHOLE lot of much ado about nothing.

Edit- "A recruit that wants fast tempo should want to play for a team that runs uptempo well, not a crappy team that is basically tanking to get the attention of a certain recruit or two."

If you're tanking an entire season of HD to get a Good or VG on this one preference then you need some mentoring.

Posted by mullycj on 2/15/2017 1:01:00 PM (view original):
You are way off base koopman. Uptempo means an offense that plays uptempo. It's very straightforward. If I choose to play uptempo then I should be in a better place to recruit players who want to play uptempo. Is it "gaming" the system to play M2M to get recruits that want to play man to man?

I can normally see your side of arguments koop, but not here.

Keeping it based on possessions per game, and then adjusting it to factor opponent's choices means that the recruit gives more credit for a team that plays uptempo well. In my proposal, your excellent Wisconsin team will be duly rewarded by recruits wanting uptempo, because it would factor all the teams trying to slow down to avoid getting blown out. A simple change to an average of tempo is going to allow a team like last seasons Cal State Northridge to get that same advantage on a player that you would have, even though it has no business running uptempo against anyone.

A recruit that wants fast tempo should want to play for a team that runs uptempo well, not a crappy team that is basically tanking to get the attention of a certain recruit or two.

Posted by Benis on 2/15/2017 1:16:00 PM (view original):
I'm still not following out your suggestion is less gameable. If I'm trying to get the fast paced preference, I go uptempo every single game. Whether it's measured your way or mine, the user's action is exactly the same, no?

Or in your example, if we're taking the opponent into account, I schedule only FB teams so there's no way they can play slowdown. Am I still gaming the system.

Here's the thing, look at what we're debating here. Gaming the system? It's ONE preference that a recruit may or may not have. And on a player that you may or may not even try to recruit. And I'm genuinely curious here, but please check out the preferences of players in your world right now, how many want uptempo play style? I have one world where it is 4 out of 105 and another where it is 4 out of 230. That is such a low % that if you're bending over backwards to game the system for that little teeny tiny bit of advantage, you're not using your time effectively.

This seems like a WHOLE lot of much ado about nothing.

Edit- "A recruit that wants fast tempo should want to play for a team that runs uptempo well, not a crappy team that is basically tanking to get the attention of a certain recruit or two."

If you're tanking an entire season of HD to get a Good or VG on this one preference then you need some mentoring.

I agree it's not a big proportion of recruits. So indeed, why make a fuss about it?

If we're going to have a system based on preferences, the preferences should be related to team philosophy, and not subject to user gaming. Having all your guys jack up 3s to get to VG on perimeter is gaming. Whether or not it makes sense for a coach to do it is not the question. It's a loophole that can be easily closed to make the game more intelligent, and I applaud the developers efforts to do that. So why go in reverse on another preference, and make it less intelligent? The preference based on possessions makes perfect sense, and is not open to that kind of mindless gaming, so why create that loophole? You can account for the opponent's choices by tweaking the formula, there is no need to incentivize someone who has a bad team, like CSUN last year, to go 0-27 instead of 5-22 in order to get a couple novel advantages for a couple recruits.

"the preferences should be related to team philosophy, and not subject to user gaming"

We will agree to disagree. Anyone can choose to run uptempo, shoot 3s, play zone defense, etc. Recruits have preferences based on those choices. It's up to the user to come up with whatever game plane they want and face the consequences. But making preferences convoluted because you think that's gaming the system just makes preferences unnecessarily complicated.

What's keeping you from running uptempo yourself koop to get those recruits?
I think they real issue here is you don't want to run an tempo that is not suited to your teams, because you are free to "game" the system just like anyone else.

"If you're tanking an entire season of HD to get a Good or VG on this one preference then you need some mentoring."

This. I expect the kind of coach who is going to monkey with his team just to get a small preference boost is the kind of coach who isn't winning many games.

What happens if once the recruit signs you stop playing to their preference? Should that be considered a broken promise?

By that same token should we be allowed to make promises based on preferences. "We aren't a low post team this year, but if you come play for us we will be."

Posted by johnsensing on 2/15/2017 1:52:00 PM (view original):
"If you're tanking an entire season of HD to get a Good or VG on this one preference then you need some mentoring."

This. I expect the kind of coach who is going to monkey with his team just to get a small preference boost is the kind of coach who isn't winning many games.

That's probably two different arguments. Is it a good idea? Should it be possible?

FWIW, when I took my team, several vets said "It's terrible. Expect to lose 3-4 years until you get better players as upperclassmen." I doubt it would have mattered but I'd have definitely played with my settings to get preferences to the detriment of my current team. After all, I expected to lose for 3-4 seasons.

So I have no doubt that users do it. So, really, should it be possible?

Posted by mullycj on 2/15/2017 1:46:00 PM (view original):
"the preferences should be related to team philosophy, and not subject to user gaming"

We will agree to disagree. Anyone can choose to run uptempo, shoot 3s, play zone defense, etc. Recruits have preferences based on those choices. It's up to the user to come up with whatever game plane they want and face the consequences. But making preferences convoluted because you think that's gaming the system just makes preferences unnecessarily complicated.

What's keeping you from running uptempo yourself koop to get those recruits?
I think they real issue here is you don't want to run an tempo that is not suited to your teams, because you are free to "game" the system just like anyone else.

To clarify then, you are opposed to the developers making paint and perimeter preferences more intelligent? That would be the consistent approach, but then yeah, we will definitely disagree.

What keeps me from gaming the system is that I don't like gaming the system. I play simulations because I want them to feel like a reasonable (playable) facsimile of the real thing. I don't like exploiting loopholes, because that makes the game less fun. Neither do I like competing against people who don't mind the loopholes. To that end, I would prefer there be no loopholes.

And I do run uptempo frequently, with my fastbreak team that has been built to excel at uptempo. As you say, that's the game plan, and I fully accept the consequences (one of which being that it's hard for ACU to get to very good on strong defense, despite consistently having the highest team rated defense in the division). If I was in a battle for a specific recruit who wanted to play fast tempo, it would annoy me if another team could get the same advantage I have by simply choosing uptempo x number of games, regardless of results.