Posted by l80r20 on 6/22/2017 1:53:00 PM (view original):
"1. How about WIS applies the effects of potential BEFORE assigning a projected division level to recruits?"
Wasn't it a cornerstone of HD3.0 that skills and potential must be discovered through wise scoutig? Why abandon that for a so-called problem that doesn't exist?
"2. 2. I'd like to see a situation whereby the second session is staggered somehow so that D1 starts/ends 1 day before D2, which starts/ends 1 day before D3"
"3. Sim AI needs to be more aggressive at attacking lower division coaches."
D3 coaches pay just as much to play as D1 coaches -- probably more, in fact. Quit trying to smash D3 coaches for a so-called problem that doesn't exist.
1. I'm not sure you're grasping the essence of what I described. One would still have to scout the players in order to determine rating values and potential levels. Nothing changes in that regard. The sole effect of the change is that when the player is assigned a projection level (i.e.-"Projected D2") on the player card at the moment of recruit generation, the AI would now take into account what the player will develop into when/if maxed in order to make that determination rather than basing scoring only the player's pre-college ratings. A player with strong starting ratings but multiple red potentials in core categories scores as a D1-level recruit under the current system. It would not under my proposal (unless the starting values were REALLY, REALLY good...). And that's a good thing because it now directs the artificial intelligence of all Sim teams to pursue targets in the correct pool of players for their division level. D1 Sims would recruit actual D1-caliber players. That's a good thing. Human coaches would still have to scout players to be able to recruit them. They would still need to scout to higher levels to see exact starting values and potential levels. They would still be rewarded for locating diamonds in the rough, such as the SF who scores mediocre at that position but might evolve into a solid SG...). Nothing changes in that regard. Overall the division is strengthened and players are still available to fall through the cracks to arrive in D2/D3. How is that a bad or undesirable thing?
2 & 3. I realize your strategy dating back to beta has been to close both your eyes and your mind to anything that doesn't satisfy your myopic vision of the game, but you are in the extreme minority, perhaps even a minority of one, when it comes to your ultimate vision of what the game should be. There IS a difference between divisions. That difference IS the reason divisions exist, both within the game and the real world set-up which the game emulates. I know your optimal vision of the game is a world in which a D3 coach can recruit on equal terms with and even assemble a team of equal talent with that of a D1 program, but you have yet to demonstrate why that's remotely a good thing, much less a desirable status target, for the game.
Clearly, when a conversation has been as long-running as this one has, reappears in multiple threads and enjoys multiple voices, it is a little intellectually dishonest to claim it "doesn't exist." Remove your head from the sand, or at least add the qualifier that YOU don't feel it exists. And then preferably back that up with some sort of logical statement and evidence to demonstrate such so that you can at last be a productive part of these discussion threads.
Bringing up the dollar value paid is a red herring. That a D3 coach pays the same price as a D1 coach per season (rewards notwithstanding) does not mean the two players are purchasing the same game. In fact, quite the contrary, the two players are purchasing two separate products. HD is, by design, division and reward structure, 3 games in 1. The $12.95 paid by a D3 coach purchases a team at the D3 level. The obligation of the company, therefore, is to ensure that player's $12.95 buys as equal a chance to win AT THE D3 LEVEL as any other player's $12.95 AT THE D3 LEVEL. The company is NOT obligated to make your D3 team suddenly able to compete on a level playing field with a D2 or a D1 team. Again, 3 games in 1. As long as each team has the same opportunity against counterparts in its division, the game design is fair. If you view either of these proposals as "smashing" D3 coaches, I would invite you to show where it places D3 coaches at a disadvantage against other D3 coaches. If your criticism can't account for that, then the problem is not with the proposals, but with your perception of the game structure and what the company actually is obligated to provide users who purchase seasons with $12.95 at a D3 level vs. $12.95 at a D2 level vs. $12.95 at a D1 level.