Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 4/11/2009I didn't say anyone is an idiot. I didn't say anyone was bad for having their opinion. I didn't even say anyone was WRONG, since we are talking a matter of taste. I just said I like how potential works.

I'm sorry that you don't like that opinion. I can READ from you how it worked before and comparing what I READ to what is HERE. If the forum is read you hear the inner workings of both pre and post potential HD described in absolutely NAUSEATING detail, albeit from a biased point of view, usually biased negatively.

I prefer what is HERE to what I read.

I like having limits that aren't self imposed limits that I expect. From the sound of it, those were not here before. I know people will say 'but my players had weaknesses!"

Yeah. Where you CHOSE for them to have them. Nothing out of your control. Never anywhere unexpected. I like having strengths or weaknesses show up in unexpected places and having to deal with them, and figure out how to make a team work.

From the sound of it, those aspects were not here before. Believe it or not, someone can look at a forum, read allot of posts, and come to have an opinion without ever having played at the upper level, just like someone can have an opinion on politics without being a politician or about sports without having played a single down of football. I can decide I like the forward p*** in football without having watched football without it.

Perhaps every now and then you should at least engage an outsider's point of view rather than navel gazing and preaching to an echo chamber, and rather than instantly giving snide dismissal of anyone who isn't 'on the ins' with you.

And I know some smart alec is going to respond again with "Well you have only played one year! Or something else. TO which. . I don't care. If you use the amount of time someone has been on as an argument all it shows is that you aren't very confident in defending whatever other arguments you have to make.


I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but this condescending 'we're right and anyone who dares disagree with us is an idiot' attitude is grating, extremely.

you are confusing an opinion with an informed opinion.

good point guys. i also really hate it when whatifsports attempts to make one of their "simulations" more realistic. that's so annoying. they really should stop trying to improve their product.

Glad to see more people agreeing with me.

And you seem to confuse, most of the time, your opinion with an immutable fact.

Quote: Originally posted by gomiami1972 on 4/11/2009I wish they would open a world based on the pre-potential engine.  I would enjoy that very much.

I agree that this is an excellent idea! They'd fill that world instantly I am sure. Which is why they won't do it - it would prove they were wrong to add the potential system.

Several people have also mentioned how customer support has gone downhill. I've noticed that in Hardball Dynasty too. Given the economic downturn and how many people are cutting their number of teams in all of the various WiS games, you'd think that WiS would by trying to keep their customers not actually trying to drive them away as they seem to be doing.

Well add me to the list of names that think potential has ruined hoops dynasty. This game was fun before potential it just is not fun anymore.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 4/12/2009And you seem to confuse, most of the time, your opinion with an immutable fact.

At DI, the fact that potential has messed things up is a fact. I can't comment on its effect on DIII and wouldn't attempt to. But at some point, you have to embrace the fact that you shouldn't be commenting on potential's impact on DI.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 4/12/2009And you seem to confuse, most of the time, your opinion with an immutable fact.

i speak truth.

. . .point made. You confuse your opinion and preference with a fact.

I'm perplexed as to why you continue to ignore the point of fact that you have no business commenting on DI. I have yet to make one post on potential's effect at DIII, for the simple reason that I don't know its effect.Yet you continue to argue with lots of people who are talking about potential's effect at DI. It's bizarre.

That was to Vandydave, actually, but FM< you are fast approaching that same status. The problem is people use the fact they are at division one as an argument in and of itself without even bothering trying to address anything with anything other than "I'm right I'm in division one so NYAH!"

Your last post was a joke.Have you read any of my posts on this subject in the last few days? They haven't even remotely approached anything you're talking about.

What many of the newer coaches fail to realize, in their haste to defend the new "potential" system, is the fact that there WAS potential under the old system. Vandydave pointed this out a couple of times, but since it was somewhat of an abstract concept and didn't have the nice green, black, and red labels for the categories, it was apparently not grasped by everyone.I keep hearing the arguments about "self-imposed limits" and "players improving all the time in all aspects of the game", but the fact is, under the old system this just wasn't happening.For example, a player who had a rating between 1-20 or 80-100 would improve VERY slowly, if at all. It was possible for him to improve some, based on Work Ethic and playing time, but the gains would be very minimal (hence, low potential). Players with a rating in a category between 21 and 35-40 or 70-80 could improve, but it wouldn't improve much and a lot of the improvement was based again on Work Ethic and playing time (hence, average potential). Ratings between 40 and 70 could improve much quicker (hence, high potential).So, as you can see, the "self-imposed limits" and the "players improving all the time in all aspects of the game" arguments are simply not true, by any means of the imagination.I'm not necessarily against potential. I think it could be an interesting change to the game. What I think I and most veteran coaches are most upset about is the horrible way that potential was implemented. To most of us, it seems that it was rushed into the game, with little to no testing, and damn the consequences.Posted here also, in case anyone missed it in the other thread.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 4/12/2009. . .point made. You confuse your opinion and preference with a fact.

and you confuse sarcasm and irony with seriousness.

Quote: Originally posted by emy1013 on 4/12/2009What many of the newer coaches fail to realize, in their haste to defend the new "potential" system, is the fact that there WAS potential under the old system.  Vandydave pointed this out a couple of times, but since it was somewhat of an abstract concept and didn't have the nice green, black, and red labels for the categories, it was apparently not grasped by everyone.I keep hearing the arguments about "self-imposed limits" and "players improving all the time in all aspects of the game", but the fact is, under the old system this just wasn't happening.For example, a player who had a rating between 1-20 or 80-100 would improve VERY slowly, if at all.  It was possible for him to improve some, based on Work Ethic and playing time, but the gains would be very minimal (hence, low potential).  Players with a rating in a category between 21 and 35-40 or 70-80 could improve, but it wouldn't improve much and a lot of the improvement was based again on Work Ethic and playing time (hence, average potential).  Ratings between 40 and 70 could improve much quicker (hence, high potential).So, as you can see, the "self-imposed limits" and the "players improving all the time in all aspects of the game" arguments are simply not true, by any means of the imagination.I'm not necessarily against potential.  I think it could be an interesting change to the game.  What I think I and most veteran coaches are most upset about is the horrible way that potential was implemented.  To most of us, it seems that it was rushed into the game, with little to no testing, and damn the consequences.Posted here also, in case anyone missed it in the other thread.<!-- Message body -->

Everything that you say here is true, but the old system didn't seem to have caps. That is the thing that ****es me off more than anything. If I want to put 30 minutes a day on per only to get 4-5 points a year, then I should be able to do that without worrying about my ***istant coaches email telling me he can't improve ANY more, thats the thing to me that makes potential so bad, but thats just my opinion