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.