Online Virtual Coach Simulation

Also, just looking at how the CPU has my team set up, I think we can throw the thought out the window that it automatically sets it up in an optimum setting for you to start with. It's not even close on mine. Has my worst player starting at PG (not good hands or INT), my 6'3 back up PG starting at C (he's a POOR rebounder), and all my size at SF and SG. Super strange. Will do some tinkering to start the season i'm sure. I'll let people know if I put scrimmages up etc.

Pre-season the cpu sets up your team alphabetically by first name. For the first game, if you do not set a lineup, it will set one up for you. I usually do not set a lineup just to see what the cpu does in exhibition 1. Then I set mine from there - or later revert back to cpu line-up - if team is struggling. Personally, I don't think the cpu lineup is always something special. Some have anecdotes of doing well with it, but I suspect those are special/lucky circumstances for the cpu and team.

The lineup you see before Monday isn’t the lineup that actually plays.

Well poop

Dang, wish I had of known that - oh wells, its not like I have that many good options anyway. Preseason #145 sounds about right.

Durham's preseason rank is #10??!! :bowrofl::laugh::rimshot:

Not sure what to make of the first game - played a team ranked way higher than me, but their recruits aren't that much better. We lost in OT, but were up 12 with 4 minutes to go and 5 with 40 seconds to go before giving up a last second 3. Really not sure if the PBP is created after the sim or is part of it, but whatever. We scored a lot, gave up a lot of points. I guess I hope they are right about Dearborns ranking and I have a shot at top 50 this year.

I used the following lineups today:

Exhibition 1 - CPU lineup
Scrimmage 1 - What I thought was the CPU lineup but what was just the alphabetical lineup
Scrimmage 2 - Freshman starters at PG, SG, and SF

Exhibition 1 vs. #65 Tampa 88-80 Loss
My former bPG had 18 pts, 3 stl, 0 ast at PG. This was a great scoring outing, but he's still not an assist man.
My former PG started at SG and had 6 pts, 6 ast. My former bSF had 6 ast at SF as well.

The CPU was fine starting my stud frontcourt of Billings and Labar. They did the usual.

The CPU kept my bSG at bSG which was a surprise. He obviously didn't like it because he only took one shot in 10 min. My top two frosh scored well at bSF and bPF which is where they may end up. My former bPF and bC were NA.

OK, so that was fine.

Scrimmage #1 vs. #78 Riverside 84-69 Loss
My top two freshmen shot a lot and scored 13 each at SG and SF. Otherwise it wasn't interesting.

Scrimmage #2 vs. #179 Las Vegas (#46 last year and NTT #28) 75-73 Win
Using alphabetical order, my 6-2 Sr likely SG had 18 pts, 13 reb, 2 blk at C.

F this game.

Edit: I should mention that 6-2 Sr is GGGEFG. Obviously those are great ratings for a C, but 6-2?

PhDeac said:

I used the following lineups today:

Exhibition 1 - CPU lineup
Scrimmage 1 - What I thought was the CPU lineup but what was just the alphabetical lineup
Scrimmage 2 - Freshman starters at PG, SG, and SF

Exhibition 1 vs. #65 Tampa 88-80 Loss
My former bPG had 18 pts, 3 stl, 0 ast at PG. This was a great scoring outing, but he's still not an assist man.
My former PG started at SG and had 6 pts, 6 ast. My former bSF had 6 ast at SF as well.

The CPU was fine starting my stud frontcourt of Billings and Labar. They did the usual.

The CPU kept my bSG at bSG which was a surprise. He obviously didn't like it because he only took one shot in 10 min. My top two frosh scored well at bSF and bPF which is where they may end up. My former bPF and bC were NA.

OK, so that was fine.

Scrimmage #1 vs. #78 Riverside 84-69 Loss
My top two freshmen shot a lot and scored 13 each at SG and SF. Otherwise it wasn't interesting.

Scrimmage #2 vs. #179 Las Vegas (#46 last year and NTT #28) 75-73 Win
Using alphabetical order, my 6-2 Sr likely SG had 18 pts, 13 reb, 2 blk at C.

F this game.

Edit: I should mention that 6-2 Sr is GGGEFG. Obviously those are great ratings for a C, but 6-2?

Click to expand...

Think most of us can get on board with that haha.

I've got one of the most frustrating players I've ever coached right now. 6'6 SG/SF with perfect attributes and HS stat lines and he's just a dud on the court and makes us worse. Had hoped it was just a freshman adjustment period but he still sort of sucks this season. He's +7/-2 with the -2 being a NONE for rebounding. Just infuriating. Still searching to figure out his best position and how to deploy him.

I've got a 6'6 FEGEFG that can't defend and can't rebound - its a lot of fun.

DaDeacs said:

I've got a 6'6 FEGEFG that can't defend and can't rebound - its a lot of fun.

Click to expand...

:rulz:

I get that feeling now. Very frustrating.

Just put a few open scrimmages up if anyone can get to them before someone else grabs them.

Does anybody else have trouble logging in from their phone? It never works for me even if I get a new password.

as a certain OGBoards parasite would say....OOOOOOPPPPPPPPSSSSS


well, i totally forgot about the end of the season in DTL. doesn't say a lot about my interest level.

San Antonio finished the season 15-9 #43 NTT #12 (we were pleased to make it to the sweet 16)

we were not very encouraged at our chances in recruiting but ended up getting a 61/87 class of big men and lost 1 CL and 2 WO

Angel Davis - 6'10" +4 - he was a tie, but i can't remember how many (3/3 i think)
51% FG, 58% FT- 5.3ppg, 11.8r, 4.9/2 ast/to, 1s, 3.7b

Ryan Washington 6'10" +2/-1 - CL
49% FG, 40% 3pt, 81% FT - 13.4ppg, 9.6r, 2.1/0.7 ast/to, 0.7s, 1.4b

Trey Amato 6'8" +4/-2 - tie, i think 1/1
50% FG, 48% 3pt, 65% FT - 12.5ppg, 9.4r, 0.8/1.1 ast/to, 1s, 1.4b

really nice class as i was desperate for big men. this makes 3 classes w/o a WO, which is exciting for me but the classes are not top 50...so where does that put us? prob right at #58, where they rate us.

i expect to compete again for NTT and finish with 14-17 wins.

This game must love big men, I was +15/-4 and got the 90/92 class. You get a +10/-3 class and its 61/87....

CPU line-up
Name............Pos
Aaron Gamble....PG...GFFGEG +5
Zachary Compton SG...GFGGFF +3
Terrell Mixon...SF...GGGFEF +5
Casey Murdoch...PF...FGGEFE +6
Andrew Lujan.....C...FGEPGE +5

Brandon Craft...bPG..GFGEPG +4
Nicholas Scott..bSG..GGPGFG +3
Tanner Stall....bSF..FGGEGG +6
Joshua Strozier bPF..GFPGFE +3
Andrea Hatfield bC...FGPGGF +2

Christopher Green NA.FFFEGE +5
George Bell.....NA...EEGFGP +5


My line-up
Terrell Mixon...PG...GGGFEF +5
George Bell.....SG...EEGFGP +5
Casey Murdoch...SF...FGGEFE +6
Tanner Stall....PF...FGGEGG +6
Andrew Lujan.....C...FGEPGE +5

Zachary Compton bPG..GFGGFF +3
Aaron Gamble....bSG..GFFGEG +5
Brandon Craft...bSF..GFGEPG +4
Joshua Strozier bPF..GFPGFE +3
Christopher Green bC.FFFEGE +5

Nicholas Scott..NA...GGPGFG +3 will battle Brandon Craft for bSF
Andrea Hatfield NA...FGPGGF +2

Some agreement; a lot of disagreement. Of course, I can't see hidden attributes. Can the cpu?

Small sample size, but cpu lineup beat #253 Cleveland 67-58. My lineup beat #80 Louisville 94-89.

The CPU lineup beat #58 Montgomery 79-66.

Not sure what to think.

The CPU has the following:

PG 6-2 Jr GEGFFF former bPG
SG 6-4 Jr GGGGFG former PG
bPG 6-1 Fr GGGGPF at bPG
bSG 6-2 Sr GGGEFG former bSG

I was planning to put the PG at bPG, the SG at PG, and the bSG at SG.

The CPU doesn't like size. My two biggest players are NA in favor of moving my disappointing Jr 6-7/222 former SF to bC.

I may roll with that and see if he ends up being a point C.

I've posted quite a few scrimmages trying to figure out this Flagstaff squad. Did not go well early on including the trouncing we took against Seattle but I seem to have found 2 lineups that seam to be working finally. Just had to figure out the pace, shot settings, and defense it appears. Nothing too difficult.....

I lost 93-92 to Chicago on a last second buzzer beater where I was up 4 with a min left, threw it out of bounds after a defensive rebound and then had my senior PG miss the front end of 2 one and ones in a row. How it goes sometimes.

On the flip side I did beat Frankfort 96-92 with a slightly altered lineup. Had a 5 point lead with a min left in that one and was able to close it out. Good to know that I have two that work and give me a little flexibility.

Next up should be a good test against Shawnee and then G1 of the regular season is the tilt against Durham. At least i'll get my SOS up with this OOC schedule. Hope everyone is finally piecing it all toegether (if recruiting has cooperated...)

I think my team is going to be the same as last year, completely unpredictable. We lead the #38 team by 12 with 4 minutes to go, lose in OT. We hit a last second shot to force OT and win in OT against #228. Who knows.

Long, lively thread on the impact of Impact on recruiting
http://forum.drivethelane.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1213

14 pages as of now, more than I can catch up to. Can anyone summarize?

ETA: tons of opinion, but this is the last post by kmoney regarding how a player's self eval helps bad teams

http://forum.drivethelane.com/viewto...1213&start=100

Re: Impact preference odds
Postby kmoney » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:08 pm

Some great posts, thanks everyone.

I think we're in a pretty good place. Just a matter of degree, not kind. The teams you would expect to have an edge in impact do, but it's too small of an effect.

Of course I don't want to discourage new players and coaches of bad teams. But I agree very much with the idea some have posted that if you are coaching a bad team, it is quite unrealistic (ie in real life) to expect blue chip prospects to want to play for you. Alabama A&M and Northern Arizona have virtually zero chance at top players. The game already helps out here much more than in real life just by the possibility of finding a clear lead (unlikely) or a small tie (somewhat likely). And you can target the +3 types and build your way up.

My initial reaction to the player perception thing was to kind of get rid of it. But unless I'm thinking about it wrong, some mystery of self-perception actually helps bad teams, right? Super rough chart:

Ability...Perception...Good Team...Bad Team
Good .....Good ........Good .......Exc
Good .....Poor ........Poor .......Exc
Poor .....Good ........Fair- ......Fair+
Poor .....Poor ........None .......Poor
So a good team takes an extra risk recruiting a good player that prefers to make an impact. If all good players knew they were good, any self-evaluation factor would hurt bad teams. Totally ignoring good players making an impact on good teams strikes me as too unrealistic.

I'll run it with some actual numbers though and see how everything looks. Once I have things where I like them a bit more, I'll make any necessary updates to the instructions, and we can all review. We can continue the discussion here in the meantime of course.