On the "player game page" I think it would be nice to have some more stats.

for example, I like to know 2pt FG% (which isn't available right now) when considering distribution.

I would also like to see FT FG% on that page (which is available).

I imagine there are some other stats that could be made too... perhaps effective FG%, True shooting %? PER (player efficiency rating)?

If several more stats were added (hopefully with not too much extra work - but just using the raw data we already collect and creating an "advance stats" button under the same page perhaps?

Seble, just wanted to let you know that I'm enjoying myself so far and that I think the changes are great. I plan on continuing to play when the update is rolled out. Thanks for all your hard work to make a better game.

I like where the beta is headed...still would like to see a lot of these cosmetic changes implemented before the product is rolled out:

• Drag and Drop Targets Page
• Exclude walk-on ratings from team total rating and average ratings
• Be able to compare recruits from your target list
• Be able to change AP’s easier, similar to practice plan
• Reminder email to schedule non-conference games if you haven’t filled all spots
• On the recruiting page under roster only show the players on your team that are projected to return for next season Ex: “Ohio St. Projected Roster”
• If you offer an ineligible player start/minutes it should carryover to their first eligible season. This should also weigh in their decision to come to your school rather than go JUCO
• If keeping "Play Style" as a preference then "Slow-Tempo" as a player preference needs to be added to counter balance "Fast Tempo"

Reminder email about scheduling is a great one

Posted by brianxavier on 8/3/2016 9:19:00 AM (view original):
On the "player game page" I think it would be nice to have some more stats.

for example, I like to know 2pt FG% (which isn't available right now) when considering distribution.

I would also like to see FT FG% on that page (which is available).

I imagine there are some other stats that could be made too... perhaps effective FG%, True shooting %? PER (player efficiency rating)?

If several more stats were added (hopefully with not too much extra work - but just using the raw data we already collect and creating an "advance stats" button under the same page perhaps?

FTA is an interesting and useful stat that I have long wished appeared on the conference stat summaries - by player and by team. Tells you something about team tendencies

It has probably been mentioned, but it would be nice to have search parameters (letter grades) for Recruiting Level 1,2 & 3 player ratings like we have for level 4's numerical search categories.
i.e. - Athleticism 50 to 100 is a great tool if you have lots of level 4 scouted players.
Search for "Physical B to A" or Defense "A" would make it easier to find the players you want to spend Level 4 scouting money on.
Searching for recruits is tedious when trying to sift out a player who fits your system (in terms of ratings) when you can't isolate sub level 4 attributes.

I know this is nothing new but I want to state this in the clearest possible terms. The "wants rebuild" preference should NEVER be applied to a five star recruit. It is absolute crap that a historically badly run team with a C prestige can land a 5 star recruit when they are battling an A+ school. That is so ridiculous that discussion is not necessary. I am not the only paying customer who will not continue to pay to play a game which operates with this kind of "logic". I urge you to adjust the preferences feature SIGNIFICANTLY especially the "wants rebuild" preference. I cannot see many people paying good money to play a game that is so largely determined by sheer luck. There needs to be something written into the logic whereby no 5 stars (and very very few 4 stars) prefer programs which are rebuilding. That is the only way to prevent a mass exodus from HD.

Posted by kobo on 8/6/2016 12:10:00 AM (view original):
I know this is nothing new but I want to state this in the clearest possible terms. The "wants rebuild" preference should NEVER be applied to a five star recruit. It is absolute crap that a historically badly run team with a C prestige can land a 5 star recruit when they are battling an A+ school. That is so ridiculous that discussion is not necessary. I am not the only paying customer who will not continue to pay to play a game which operates with this kind of "logic". I urge you to adjust the preferences feature SIGNIFICANTLY especially the "wants rebuild" preference. I cannot see many people paying good money to play a game that is so largely determined by sheer luck. There needs to be something written into the logic whereby no 5 stars (and very very few 4 stars) prefer programs which are rebuilding. That is the only way to prevent a mass exodus from HD.

Agree. Doesn't make much sense to me either. Most recruits should want to be at a successful program. Duh. The wants rebuild preference should make up a very small minority and shouldn't be any of the top guys.

Just noting that i started a thread that recommends quick minor adjustments to school names (in Div-1 for starters).

Posted by Benis on 8/6/2016 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kobo on 8/6/2016 12:10:00 AM (view original):
I know this is nothing new but I want to state this in the clearest possible terms. The "wants rebuild" preference should NEVER be applied to a five star recruit. It is absolute crap that a historically badly run team with a C prestige can land a 5 star recruit when they are battling an A+ school. That is so ridiculous that discussion is not necessary. I am not the only paying customer who will not continue to pay to play a game which operates with this kind of "logic". I urge you to adjust the preferences feature SIGNIFICANTLY especially the "wants rebuild" preference. I cannot see many people paying good money to play a game that is so largely determined by sheer luck. There needs to be something written into the logic whereby no 5 stars (and very very few 4 stars) prefer programs which are rebuilding. That is the only way to prevent a mass exodus from HD.

Agree. Doesn't make much sense to me either. Most recruits should want to be at a successful program. Duh. The wants rebuild preference should make up a very small minority and shouldn't be any of the top guys.

Agree 100%. That and the strong conference preference need to be tweaked. Very few 4 and 5 star recruits want to play in a minor conference that has few (if any) nationally televised games.

Posted by grecianfox on 8/6/2016 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/6/2016 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kobo on 8/6/2016 12:10:00 AM (view original):
I know this is nothing new but I want to state this in the clearest possible terms. The "wants rebuild" preference should NEVER be applied to a five star recruit. It is absolute crap that a historically badly run team with a C prestige can land a 5 star recruit when they are battling an A+ school. That is so ridiculous that discussion is not necessary. I am not the only paying customer who will not continue to pay to play a game which operates with this kind of "logic". I urge you to adjust the preferences feature SIGNIFICANTLY especially the "wants rebuild" preference. I cannot see many people paying good money to play a game that is so largely determined by sheer luck. There needs to be something written into the logic whereby no 5 stars (and very very few 4 stars) prefer programs which are rebuilding. That is the only way to prevent a mass exodus from HD.

Agree. Doesn't make much sense to me either. Most recruits should want to be at a successful program. Duh. The wants rebuild preference should make up a very small minority and shouldn't be any of the top guys.

Agree 100%. That and the strong conference preference need to be tweaked. Very few 4 and 5 star recruits want to play in a minor conference that has few (if any) nationally televised games.

Agree with both of these. This isn't a threat. It's just the way it is. I personally believe that a C level, and even a B or B- team, should not be able to compete with an A+ team on equal footing. The premise that it's ok to allow that to happen is where I have a problem with this beta going off the rails.nPart of the fun with the current HD is the challenge of taking a mediocre team and building a winner, through finding overlooked players and having a good handle on game-play. You have to EARN the ability to recruit top level players. Under the beta, there is virtually no difference between an A+' and a C. And to top it off, even when you beat your opponent by getting to very high vs high, you still can lose. To me, if you beat someone, you should win. That is not the case in the beta. I've won one time when I was high vs very high, and I'm now 0 for 2 with me very high losing to high. I do not want to pay money for what has become, after you take all the window dressings off of it, a glorified coin flip and a socialized everybody is equal game. If this is about to go live, count me out.

"Part of the fun with the current HD is the challenge of taking a mediocre team and building a winner, through finding overlooked players and having a good handle on game-play. You have to EARN the ability to recruit top level players. "

Bingo

Posted by Benis on 8/6/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):
"Part of the fun with the current HD is the challenge of taking a mediocre team and building a winner, through finding overlooked players and having a good handle on game-play. You have to EARN the ability to recruit top level players. "

Bingo

Exactly. There is a learning curve when it comes to the game. Took me many seasons (with lots of wrong turns along the way) to get the hang of things.

Posted by grecianfox on 8/6/2016 6:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/6/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):
"Part of the fun with the current HD is the challenge of taking a mediocre team and building a winner, through finding overlooked players and having a good handle on game-play. You have to EARN the ability to recruit top level players. "

Bingo

Exactly. There is a learning curve when it comes to the game. Took me many seasons (with lots of wrong turns along the way) to get the hang of things.

I don't disagree with this. The problem I have is that many of those who have "earned" that ability come on these message boards and act as if it's their given right to do so in perpetuity and the game in it's present format, more or less, provides for that. Mercy to anyone who suggests that if you've mastered the game you probably don't and/or shouldn't need the obscene advantages the current game gives you.

If people really think part of the fun of HD is the challenge of building a winner then I find it perplexing that so many who have achieved that success want to continue playing a game that, by and large, no longer provides that challenge. Beta seems to be doing a good job of moving the game in a direction where the challenge of sustaining success is no longer a foregone conclusion and needs to be earned every season. That's a positive that will appeal to a larger number of users in the long run.