All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Multiple teams in one world
4/17/2013 6:46 PM
Posted by nc2457829305 on 4/17/2013 6:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/17/2013 5:41:00 PM (view original):
I think a very simple way of both deterring sockpuppet accounts and making cheaters more easily identifiable is to disclose recruiting expenditures at the end of each recruiting period. It might be as simple as listing the states purchased in FSS (plus the associated cost) and the amount of money spent to sign each recruit. With this information alone, it would be relatively easy to determine if a coach is engaging in any unsavory recruiting practices. 

I am opposed to this, as it would reveal lots of things about recruiting strategy to rivals. I'd have no problem with this in the case of a complaint... 
If it were possible then some people would be lodging these complaints every time they got poached, and would thus fail to mitigate a large part of the problem. I'm not talking about disclosing each teams itemized  line-by-line recruiting efforts, just the rough numbers I listed above. I'm sure NCAA Division I & II are required to submit detailed accounts of recruiting expenditures, so why not implement that in some limited fashion here if it gets to the heart of issue while causing the least overall change to the game?

It's a win for all three parties: people get to keep their multiple teams, regular users can have the information needed to review recruiting practices, and WIS gets to keep the revenue from users having multiple accounts.

Plus, I don't think it will reveal too many specific insights into a coaches recruiting practices because it won't disclose the money spent of recruits that weren't signed and it won't list how the money on signed recruits was spent (just the total amount).


4/17/2013 8:15 PM
i just read the whole Dshook thread, so i didn't go through anything past pg 1 of this thread.

Has anyone mentioned that during the whole arguement of multiple account teams cheating. WiS might be hesitant to act rigorously fair. due to they want to keep all sides happy. Especially the side paying twice as much money to WiS. food for thought. 

I'm very proud of WiS players. 1 Man ( Dshook) has no Power, but WE collectively do. It wasn't until others stood up for Dshook saying how wrong this was . sending tickets. and even threatening to do a WiS Strike of sorts that action that otherwise would not of been met was taken. Let this be a lesson to us all that when such foul play occurs to you next. You have a union of WiS members ready to stand by you even if that meant a subtle HD strike. Knock on wood this never happenes to anyone again without the victim getting proper compensations
4/17/2013 10:00 PM
Posted by jack_duck on 4/17/2013 4:24:00 PM (view original):
"You clowns it's very simple. With global warning the weather is hotter so the icebergs would be melted and titanic saved." - Jose Canseco

1 team per world seems like a no brainer.  However, I also sympathize with guys who have multiple dynasties in a single world (esp AlBlack, who I consider a friend).  So here's the simple compromise: Those who currently have multiple teams in 1 world are grandfathered in.  They can keep those programs for as long as they wish.  But neither they, nor any other user, can start a new team in a world he/she (let's be honest, he) is already in.

I would think along with this a policy of 1 account per user could be easily implemented.
For the record, I like this idea too.  I really don't get too worked up about guys that have multiple teams in one world, figuring it's just an additional challenge to overcome.  Also, I feel that some coaches are better men than me - I know I would cheat if I had multiple IDs in one world - and I totally believe them when they say they don't use it to their advantage.  Like Jack_Duck, I consider alblack a legend and friend even know I have never met him in person.  I would vote for grandfathering for those guys 'cause I'd hate to lose them.
4/17/2013 10:03 PM
Posted by joeykw18 on 4/17/2013 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by brianxavier on 4/17/2013 2:03:00 PM (view original):
I haven't read all the posts --- but I don't understand how one can not be influenced by having mutiple teams in one world.

Obviously it's all about the scouting.  Even if I have my teams scout the same states, there is still the knowledge gained by knowing which states to NOT scout for the other team in that world.  There is the advantage of seeing more states scouted, and knowing which states to avoid with each school.  

For example:  let's say I have a team in Florida (D3 school) and California (D1 school).  California school scouts the entire western side of the county.  The Florida schools scouts the Southwest.  Florida school sees a 'gem' in West (which he didn't scout).  Decides to scout West state of said 'gem' player.  He says - 'hey it's fair - I scouted that state with both teams!"

The only way I see it working is that each school limits recruiting to a specific area (that don't overlap) and before recruiting starts determine what states will be alloted to each school.  That way the knowledge gained as soon as the "blind is broken" cannot influence the actions of the other school.



After reading the entire thread, these were my main thoughts as well.

No multiple accounts, but allowing a single user to have a team in each division is an OK idea (definitally at least an improvement).  You still run into the same problems with scouting.  Is 10 worlds, thus 10 teams not enough?

Some of the more recent posts talk about the FSS.  I like the FSS, it adds another element of recruiting budget management.  If you just give every state for free, that eliminates a portion of skill/budget management involved with recruiting.  A team in WA state shouldn't get the ratings of the Florida recruits w/o paying for it, especailly at the D3 level.

As for the reason of "I built this team up, I don't want to leave so I created another user name".  A lot of coaches here like to compare this to Real Life.  In RL it's always very hard for a coach to leave a program he build up, but it's one that a coach has to make and live with it.  You can't have both.

To me 10 teams is plenty for one user, but I don't know if this falls in line with WIS's business strategies.  Either way, my vote would be 1 account per user, 1 team per world.

EDIT: Originally I thought I read there were 13 worlds, fixed to say 10.
comparing this to real life makes *absolutely* no sense here. in real life, you basically can be a head coach for what, 30 seasons, maybe 40, and then you retire. should we force coaching to start new user names after that? in real life, there is one world. should we delete the other 9 worlds? in real life coaches can only coach 1 team. should coaches be able to only play 1 team in 1 world, for like 30-40 seasons, and then have to start over?

im all for realism in certain aspects of the game, but this is an area that makes no sense at all.
4/17/2013 10:06 PM
Posted by cbryant31 on 4/17/2013 3:56:00 PM (view original):
FSS seems to be one of the biggest ways coaches with multiple usernames in the same world can "cheat". I wasn't involved with Whatifsports before, when FSS wasn't around. Therefore, I only recruit using FSS, seems like the smartest thing to do anyways unless you have a hunch on someone with high core ratings to begin with. I'm not sure how many coaches out there still recruit without using FSS but one way to allow 1 coach to have multiple teams in the same world and avoid cheating with FSS is to implement a system where you can only offer a scholarship if you scouted that state using FSS.  Granted there will most likely be a ton of opposition to this proposal because I'm sure a lot of coaches scout players that aren't under the states they scouted. Also, I realize that if the coach really wanted to cheat they could scout with one team and if they saw players they liked they would just scout that state with their other team. However, that still eats up a chunk of cash. I might just be completely off with this proposal but felt the need to put it out there since everyone else is offering ideas. 
International and Puerto Rican recruits?  Would they be eliminated from the game since they can't be FSS'ed?
4/17/2013 10:43 PM
Posted by coach_billyg on 4/17/2013 10:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by joeykw18 on 4/17/2013 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by brianxavier on 4/17/2013 2:03:00 PM (view original):
I haven't read all the posts --- but I don't understand how one can not be influenced by having mutiple teams in one world.

Obviously it's all about the scouting.  Even if I have my teams scout the same states, there is still the knowledge gained by knowing which states to NOT scout for the other team in that world.  There is the advantage of seeing more states scouted, and knowing which states to avoid with each school.  

For example:  let's say I have a team in Florida (D3 school) and California (D1 school).  California school scouts the entire western side of the county.  The Florida schools scouts the Southwest.  Florida school sees a 'gem' in West (which he didn't scout).  Decides to scout West state of said 'gem' player.  He says - 'hey it's fair - I scouted that state with both teams!"

The only way I see it working is that each school limits recruiting to a specific area (that don't overlap) and before recruiting starts determine what states will be alloted to each school.  That way the knowledge gained as soon as the "blind is broken" cannot influence the actions of the other school.



After reading the entire thread, these were my main thoughts as well.

No multiple accounts, but allowing a single user to have a team in each division is an OK idea (definitally at least an improvement).  You still run into the same problems with scouting.  Is 10 worlds, thus 10 teams not enough?

Some of the more recent posts talk about the FSS.  I like the FSS, it adds another element of recruiting budget management.  If you just give every state for free, that eliminates a portion of skill/budget management involved with recruiting.  A team in WA state shouldn't get the ratings of the Florida recruits w/o paying for it, especailly at the D3 level.

As for the reason of "I built this team up, I don't want to leave so I created another user name".  A lot of coaches here like to compare this to Real Life.  In RL it's always very hard for a coach to leave a program he build up, but it's one that a coach has to make and live with it.  You can't have both.

To me 10 teams is plenty for one user, but I don't know if this falls in line with WIS's business strategies.  Either way, my vote would be 1 account per user, 1 team per world.

EDIT: Originally I thought I read there were 13 worlds, fixed to say 10.
comparing this to real life makes *absolutely* no sense here. in real life, you basically can be a head coach for what, 30 seasons, maybe 40, and then you retire. should we force coaching to start new user names after that? in real life, there is one world. should we delete the other 9 worlds? in real life coaches can only coach 1 team. should coaches be able to only play 1 team in 1 world, for like 30-40 seasons, and then have to start over?

im all for realism in certain aspects of the game, but this is an area that makes no sense at all.
I disagree, billy. The scenarios you're talking about don't involve tradeoffs - they would simply be trying to mimic real life for its own sake. Obviously we're not going to ask you to stop coaching after 40 seasons because you're running into "retirement age". But having to choose whether to stay with a program you love or move up - that IS an agonizing decision that RL coaches have to face as well. And for that reason I think it's worthwhile to present that same thought process within HD. And frankly, that's why having multiple worlds is so appealing to many coaches - they can make a certain decision in one world about where to play, live with that decision, but make a different one in a diff world.

And by the way, I'm all for grandfathering in people who are already using mult IDs - they're some of the best, most helpful users in this game. But I have no problem with turning off the possibility from this point forward.
4/17/2013 11:28 PM
Rails' insight deserves repeating: "To that end, I was surprised when FSS was rolled out in its current form because of two major red flags imho:  
1)  How can a two-bit scouting service be virtually 99% accurate with 1800 players when college coaches and pro scouts spend millions of dollars and hundreds of hours and miss "potential" on a regular basis.  Undrafted players succeed many times while "can't miss" first rounders miss regularly.
2)  The cost structure by state, not division and in the global world in which we live, the exclusion of PR and international recruits."


These issues are at the core of the problem.   The FSS service provides reliably complete information in a cost structure that is not scaled by division.  Anyone with multiple IDs in the same world gains an advantage over those that don't by simple economy.  I trust that most users will not adjust their strategies to avail themselves of this advantage, but, to some minor extent, they have it anyhow.  

The fix suggests itself: adjust the cost structure to 2 or 3 separate reports that could be purchased by any team on a state by state basis.  That is, make obtaining reports on overall ranked players cost more money, than those that are ranked below #150 (or wherever the effective DII cutoff is intended to be).   There could be regional discounts offered, but not blanket discounts that apply across the whole country.  

Secondly, the FSS reports should be less complete (still as accurate, but incomplete).  This would have the result that scouting of players would still be necessary on an individual basis, but the cost scale for long range scouting would effectively mitigate some of the issues.

With FSS costs scaled by division, only regionally applied discounts available, and informational completeness adjusted, then I don't see why individuals couldn't have multiple teams under different IDs in the same world under the 1000 mile rule.  If FSS remains in its current form, then, IMHO, the rule must be against alias accounts existing in the same world no matter the distance.

4/17/2013 11:45 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 4/17/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pepwaves on 4/17/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jdno on 4/17/2013 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 4/17/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jdno on 4/17/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jkumpulanian on 4/17/2013 11:57:00 AM (view original):
My brother-in-law and I both coach in the same world (same conference even). Could we collude and scout different states and share info?  Of course we could.  Do we? No, we don't.  Call it a gentlemen's agreement. I'm sure that there are people who do share info on recruits, etc. You are never going to stop this.  But why allow people to make multiple IDs in the same world to make this sort of "collusion" easier?
I propose we don't let family members compete in the same world.  Family members talk together, why should we make it "easier" for them to share recruiting information?  One family member, one world!!
Lofl, this is a joke, right?  This is beyond policeable, and the premise is ridiculous.  Some/many of you are going off the deep end in reaction to what happened.
et tu colonels?
I got the sarcasm jd!!
It doesn't come off as very sarcastic, just saying.
Yes, it does. Just saying.
4/17/2013 11:48 PM
This ban would has much more downside than upside.

Upside is that you can maybe stop some people from cheating...maybe, but the basically the status quo is maintained.

Downside is that a number of long-term, experienced vets with multiple teams quit...and that's not a maybe.

Seems like an easy choice to me.
4/17/2013 11:55 PM
or WIS could actually spend some time working on the recruiting part of the game.  Build in piplelines, the ability to recruit have of the big states at half the price, etc..  It would be pretty easy to not allow a D1 school to see any recruits at a D3 level.  Honestly, why would any D1 coach want to see the future prospects of a D3 player?  I realize it won't fix all the problems because there are pull downs, but D3 isn't pulling down a D1 player and D1 isn't pulling up a D2 player. 
4/18/2013 12:33 AM
I don't think its ever needed to have multiple teams in a world. And when fss came out, it became more clear it'd be a problem. Remove it, butallow the coach to use his resume in any other world. For example if somone had 2 a prestige div 1 teams they could pick up texas in tark if it was open, or wait until seasons roll over and apply like everyone else. Not sure how easy that would be to apply, but if a coach said he wanted to move from iba to knight I don't see why you can't just move his resume so he doesn't completely start fresh.
4/18/2013 1:19 AM
How many of the Vets have more than 10 teams spread over all their accounts?  Maybe WIS can shed some light on that?
4/18/2013 1:23 AM
Posted by uwrjl93 on 4/17/2013 11:55:00 PM (view original):
or WIS could actually spend some time working on the recruiting part of the game.  Build in piplelines, the ability to recruit have of the big states at half the price, etc..  It would be pretty easy to not allow a D1 school to see any recruits at a D3 level.  Honestly, why would any D1 coach want to see the future prospects of a D3 player?  I realize it won't fix all the problems because there are pull downs, but D3 isn't pulling down a D1 player and D1 isn't pulling up a D2 player. 
I agree with what you said, in context, but it is not strictly 100% true. I have pulled down D1 players to D3 schools. Many other people have done this as well. If he's within 70 miles AND tells you you are a back up, then it can be done. That's something that's been in the game for as long as I can remember.

Also, like it or not, D1 schools will occasionally troll the dregs of D2 for a 1 year player in order to fill all spots so they can keep their rollover money, rather than sign a 4 year scrub. D2 teams will sometimes do likewise with a 1 year D3 scrub.
4/18/2013 1:59 AM
Paragraph 1, if true, is extremely rare.

Paragraph 2 has no bearing since FSS doesn't cover transfers.
4/18/2013 2:21 AM
There is absolutely NO reason to have more than one team in any world.  FSS provides inherent advantages in that situation.

There are 10 worlds, and unless a player already has a team in every world, then I do not think they should have a 2nd team in any world.
of 14
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Multiple teams in one world

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.