Posted by mullycj on 2/15/2017 7:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 2/15/2017 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 2/15/2017 5:13:00 PM (view original):
That's bullshit Koop. I have a good team, a deep team, I run uptempo, and I want to get credit for it. That's not gaming the system. It's calling the system out for not getting credit for a preference that should be a match. Sorry you can't see the difference.

Go back and read my first post, mully. I recommended they keep the possession requirement, and adjust it to account for your opponent's choices, so if all your opponents are playing slowdown, your threshold is lower. I want you to get credit for having a good uptempo team, too. But I want the system to be more intelligent, not less; because if it's less intelligent, your credit won't be worth any more than the bad team that is gaming the system to get that same credit. That goes for all the style preferences. Those equations should be intelligent, they should not be simple targets to hit. The recruit that wants fast tempo should be able to tell the difference between Wisconsin, and some random low D1 team trying to hit simple thresholds.

"Those equations should be intelligent, they should not be simple targets to hit"

I'm actually OK with a bad team running uptempo or shooting 3s to get a preference credit. Since prestige and "wants success" are also part of the recruiting equation, if a coach chooses to sacrifice one area for another so be it.

I hear what you are saying above. Just don't see it feasible to be programmed that way.
Cheers - sorry to come across terse last post.

Shouldn't be that hard. If there's a threshold, just add a modifier for your opponent's tempo. I suggested X(.875) for slowdown, X(1.06) for uptempo. I'm no programmer, but it seems like a pretty simple adjustment, the hard part is getting the modifier where you want it.

No worries, I think we mostly want the same thing. The style preference has been my least favorite aspect of 3.0, I just want them all to be intelligent, if it's going to be part of the game. A recruit should be able to tell the difference between a team that matches his preference, and a team that is trying to look like it's matching his preference.

Posted by Benis on 2/15/2017 6:47:00 PM (view original):
One thing I don't like about your suggestion PK is that it assumes that you're trying to 'game the system' if you're playing uptempo but have no business doing so. Maybe they just want to play uptempo and aren't doing it to gain an edge with preferences.

I had a coach in my conference awhile back who went uptempo every single game. Didn't matter if he was a 30pt underdog to Dickinson, he still did it. He had an average team. A few NT appearances, some PIT appearances but never in top 25 or past 2nd round of NT. So I assume he just set his team up that way because that's what he wanted to do and he thought that it gave him the best chance of winning. So if you're that guy, you play all uptempo, all the time, but for a preference of Wants Fast Paced, you're only neutral. That doesn't make much sense. He did his part and all he could to meet THAT preference (besides, ya know, having a good team).

I don't really care if that guy is trying to game the system or not. As I told mully, I really just want the recruit to be able to tell the difference between a good preference match, and a superficial one. A team that's reaching a possession per game requirement - adjusted for opponent's tempo - is a good preference match. A team reaching a simple threshold target for number of uptempo starts in a season could just be a superficial one.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/15/2017 8:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/15/2017 5:31:00 PM (view original):
"trenton: I don't know how much prestige matters but, if I believe this forum, it's not much. Not every player "wants success". I've found several who "want rebuild", that's me!!!!, and "paint offense", which can be me if I manipulate the system. I'm sure I can find "wants rebuild" and "uptempo" as well."

1, Prestige matters more than people think in D2 and D3.
2. I think "wants success" is as common as "fast tempo" or "post/perimeter offense".

I'll give you both of these for the sake of argument.

But, with all the caterwauling about "dice rolls" in recruiting, is it a good idea to allow a team to do something as simple and pointlessly as fire up 3s to tilt the scale just a tad in their direction?

I don't think it's a big deal.

Mully is ******, mostly cause he's mully, but rightfully so because he is running fast tempo but not getting credit for it.

I think you're the only one who thinks teams jacking up 3's to give a team a 3% advantage 7% of the time when they are likely going to take a similar penalty about a 100% of the time and an additional 3% penalty roughly 50% of the time is a big deal.

I'm not going to call it a big deal. I just think it's easily manipulated. And can be done at the expense of trying to win games. That annoys me.

I'll do my best to explain using a game I understand better. In HBD, we occasionally get a "max money" player. Not often but they happen. Since you can only offer max money, you're likely not the only bidder. So there are "preferences" he uses to decide. Old team, coaches, ballpark and a few others that we've speculated on. You can control everything except ballpark. Except you can. If you know who's going to be a FA next season(and you generally do), you could change ballparks to improve your chances if there's no league rule. Hitters like hitter's parks, pitchers like pitcher's parks. Swap parks between seasons, cross all the other t's, max bid, get player, switch ballparks back the next season. Nothing illegal or rulebreaking. Just a cheesy way of going about your business.

I don't like cheesy.

As for your percentages, I bet a lot of people would like to improve their chances of getting top flight recruits by 3% 7% of the time and will worry about the rest later.

Again, not a big deal. But if it's easily fixed, why not?

Because:

1. It's not easily fixed
2. The 3% bonus is off set nearly 100% of the time.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2017 10:14:00 PM (view original):
1. You're a WifS programmer? Do they pay you well? Anyway, they said they were working on it. In this thread.
2. Yeah, your math makes no sense. I've isolated SEVERAL players who "want rebuild" and "paint offense". Losing games and never shooting threes does not harm me at all. Hence, 100% or even nearly 100% smells like cow excrement.

That's my final comment on the matter. Have a good evening.

1. If they had, that would be neat, but they didn't.
2.I found several as well, 20. Out of 360. So that's about 5.5%.
So you get a "bonus" on 5.5% of the recruits and you're thinking that one of those 20 is a stud. Think the other 340 might be studs? You know what's nearly 100%? 94.5%
And losing games ALWAYS hurts.

Would you be willing to take 94.5% of your paycheck? After all, it's nearly 100%.

Posted by cwisniewski on 2/15/2017 12:13:00 PM (view original):
We are currently testing a change in which the tempo preference will now look at the average tempo that you have set to use throughout the season, similar to how the offense and defense preferences currently work.

We also are changing the Paint offense and Perimeter offense preferences to be much more intelligent.

I'm curious to see what the changes to the paint and perimeter offenses are.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/16/2017 6:26:00 AM (view original):
Would you be willing to take 94.5% of your paycheck? After all, it's nearly 100%.

you win. I quit.

I think these preferences are fun if you can implement a system. But we all play differently depending on the players we have. Sometimes, when you want to go per and fo not have the players, you will play defense and go inside... I think they should not be worth as much as a start, minutes, near home, success, strong conference or even off and def the teams play. Flex should attrack more shooters. Fastbreak, players who likes uptempo... etc

Well, there you go. Benis quoted the post. They are working on it. IOW, making it less easy to game.

I don't think you can game these preferences unless you are an idiot who plans to lose.

Posted by chapelhillne on 2/15/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):

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.

With one team, one year, I did try to get the paint offense preference by driving the ball inside more. I knew I was going to be in a close battle for a player I really wanted that preferred paint offense. I had a good enough team that I knew we would still be good, and had talent that could succeed at that, as opposed to my normally balanced offense. But that was one season out of the 50 or so I have played at 3.0 now. I don't plan on doing that again regularly, but if there was an occasional player that came along that I really wanted, I'd consider it. However, it's probably not a very solid strategy.

Are you calling chapelhilline an idiot? I thought he was one of the most respected users around these parts.


You can game the system and not lose. Or, as I posted, I was told I'd lose for 3-4 seasons when I took my first team. Why would I care if I lose if I can get closer to the player I THINK would help me stop losing?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):
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%).

Or this.

Again, it's not that big of a deal. But, when one can easily manipulate a portion of the game, the game isn't as good as it should be. And, if it can be changed/fixed, it should be.

The thing I simply do not understand is how the vocal posters can change what they value/don't value so easily. Manipulated preferences affects recruiting. Using TJ's made-up 3-5.5%, I think users will take that 3-5.5% all day. Yet, when a favored team loses a battle, the system is completely broken. Has no one else considered that the favored team got to be favored by manipulating preferences? I won't even get into benis' hypocrisy that he displays time and time again.

"I won't even get into benis' hypocrisy that he displays time and time again."

Appreciate it. Thank you.