TazFTW Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Before patch 1.04, the way I would hire coaches would be to set how much I'm willing to allocate for a coach (let's say $475,000) and then look at coaches requesting a salary of $575,000 or below. Let's say I find the coach I want and he requests a salary of $575,000. I would offer the minimum which in this case would be $475,000. If I am the only team offering a contract at the end of the coaching phase he would agree to coach for my team at the minimum I offered. After patch 1.04 this does not happen. If I am the only team offering the coach a contract at his minimum, he does not agree to join my team. Since the coaches do not agree, the AI automatically hires coaches who are usually over my budget. Since I didn't see this mentioned in the patch fixes, is this a bug or a fix (I shouldn't have been able to hire coaches for their minimum)? Also as a small bug report, when you make an offer to a coach, your available scholarships number drops. For example, if that bottom bar says you have 17 scholarships remaining and you make an offer to an OC, a DC, and a ST coach. It will then list 14 scholarships remaining. It will go back to 17 after the coach hiring period ends though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plum Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 moved to tech support so Arlie sees it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyDog Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Blame me for this one. I mentioned it to Arlie as what I believed to be an exploit. Even with a horrid team, you could wait until the final week of coach hiring and get pretty solid coaches for dirt cheap. I considered it an exploit because you could do it [i][u][b]every single time[/b][/u][/i]. Arlie told me that now there is a variable amount below their asking price that they'll accept. Much better this way. At least you're taking a risk when you lowball a good coach in the final week that you might get stuck with a *really* crappy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Kaputnik Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I have to confess that I exploited this a few times when I had crappy teams. I would fire all my coaches and make no effort to hire new ones. I just forwarded to the end of the hiring period. 9 times out of 10 I would get really good & expensive coaches that I could never have landed the normal way. This definitely needed to be fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TazFTW Posted January 12, 2006 Author Share Posted January 12, 2006 [QUOTE=SkyDog]Blame me for this one. I mentioned it to Arlie as what I believed to be an exploit. Even with a horrid team, you could wait until the final week of coach hiring and get pretty solid coaches for dirt cheap. I considered it an exploit because you could do it [i][u][b]every single time[/b][/u][/i]. Arlie told me that now there is a variable amount below their asking price that they'll accept. Much better this way. At least you're taking a risk when you lowball a good coach in the final week that you might get stuck with a *really* crappy one.[/QUOTE] I'll accept that. It just came as a shock when I saw the e-mails from coaches I did not have contact with and they were being paid cosiderably higher than I was willing to spend. The first time I ran the coach hiring process the AI hired coaches that put my team budget's balance at -$370,000. That would have resulted in a whole lot of budget cuts to recruiting/scouting/academics/etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyDog Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 [QUOTE=Roger Kaputnik]I would fire all my coaches and make no effort to hire new ones. I just forwarded to the end of the hiring period. 9 times out of 10 I would get really good & expensive coaches that I could never have landed the normal way..[/QUOTE]Yup. That was exactly my experience. They'd all leave after one year for more money, but then I could just do the same thing the following year and get three new good ones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flanman Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 well ill miss this exploit, hehe. Ill never get a good coach again at my level. (playing a real crappy team) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roll Tide Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Ok fine you closed the ability to get a good coach cheap. I still don't like when after the third week you get stuck with a crappy coach because the coach you wanted took another offer. It's shouldn't close out the phase until you come to terms with a coach you want. Otherwise, allow us the opportunity to get coaches at below market rate. Or allow us to offer to multiple coaches that we like, so at least we get someone we can live with if others take another offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkpeak Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Not so sure the original logic was an exploit. I caught this changes last night before resuming my career save and tested it a few times...here's my problem...each time I offered the same coach $75,000 less than he wanted and not only did he not accept my offer he ended up not being on any team's coaching staff. Think about it for a second...without respect to a coaches ability would he rather have a job making less than what he desired or be unemployed and making nothing. -Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Another Mike D Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I used the exploit, and that's sort of what it was. But you are bordering on the fair market value issue. If nobody wants them and they are asking for more than anyone is willing to give, wouldn't fair market value suggest that your offer is the best? Why stick a team with a coach that will bust the budget. If the coach doesn't want to work for a discount, the least the game could do is slot somebody in who isn't as good and fits your budget. The annoying thing about the "exploit" was that the coaches would leave in a season anyway for greener pastures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyDog Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 As I said earlier, you can still get them to accept less than they were asking, it is just that now it is variable, and no longer an automatic to get him for $100K below asking price. That being said, I agree with the sentiment that three weeks is not enough. For some reason, that seems to be the "standard" number of coach hiring stages in games (OOTP, FOF, BBCF), and it is too short. I greatly prefer the FBCB model: keep doing stages until everyone has a coach that they bid on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockChalk Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I would definitely like to see something done about the lack of ability to pick a coach. I have been left with what the computer picks for me too many times and each and everytime the coach is terrible. Last night I was bidding on a special teams coach with average rates across the board. Lost him on week 3 and the computer hired somebody with poor rates across the board?!?!? I always save the game before coaches hirings just to avoid this issue. I don't mind missing out on my top choice but I'm not going through a season with what the computer finds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toddzilla Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Also, if your offer is too low, the coach needs to IMMEDIATELY tell you "I will not accept an offer that low" - not wait until the next week. If the coach doesn't reject the offer because he's hoping a better one comes in, then he should be obligated to accept it if no other offers come in. The exploit could be reigned in by reducing the ridiculous number of available coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyDog Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 [QUOTE=Toddzilla]The exploit could be reigned in by reducing the ridiculous number of available coaches.[/QUOTE]That was my suggestion in the original comments I made to Arlie. Fine to have a ton of bottom-feeder coaches, but the decent extra coaches should be lessened greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlie Rahn Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I will certainly look at this for 1.1 - maybe have coaches decide earlier. Right now, all coaches with existing offers will decide by the end of week 1 or 2. So, you can take a stab at a top coach in weeks 1-2. If you don't get them by week three, the prudent action would be to offer a remaining coach with no offers close to his asking price. If you try to offer that second option coach a salary 50-100K below what he's asking, you risk him deciding against the offer (or going elsewhere) and being stuck with a coach you wouldn't prefer. But, again, there's no need for this to happen if you offer a coach in week 3 what he is asking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyDog Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Here's a thought: [quote][15:41] Ben Lewis: incorporate a small bonus for having the same coach [15:41] Ben Lewis: with a cap at year 5 [15:42] Ben Lewis: (performance bonus, that is) [15:42] Ben Lewis: that would inhibit the in-and-out coaching changes [15:43] Ben Lewis: 'cause right now, there's no reason NOT to change coordinators every year [15:43] Ben Lewis: but realistically, if your guys have been with the same guy for four years, they're going to be better-prepared to do things his way [15:44] Ben Lewis: but as it stands now, my guys almost always have five coordinators in five seasons [15:44] Ben Lewis: or just reduce the number of coaches available [15:45] Ben Lewis: deciding earlier isn't going to help, though [15:45] Ben Lewis: because now (even with 1.04) i don't bother with making any offers whatosever until the final week of coach hiring [15:47] Ben Lewis: then i just lowball three guys by [i][u]{amount removed}[/u][/i] each in the final week [15:47] Ben Lewis: done it for six seasons in a row, and have only missed out on one coach, i think [15:47] Ben Lewis: they all then leave the next year becuase they're underpaid :p [15:47] Ben Lewis: which is good that they leave, but there need to be consequences to them leaving [15:48] Ben Lewis: and right now, there don't appear to be any, 'cause i can go right back and underpay again [15:48] Ben Lewis: easy way to do it: make it team-wide (x% per year he's been there, with a cap at year five) [15:48] Ben Lewis: harder, more realistic way to do it: make it player-dependent [15:48] Ben Lewis: no bonus for frosh [15:49] Ben Lewis: a red-shirt frosh or true soph playing for his second season under the same coordinator gets (for argument sake) 2% [15:49] Ben Lewis: 4% for 3rd-year player [15:49] Ben Lewis: 6% for 4th year [15:49] Ben Lewis: and 8% for 5th year under same coordinator[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlie Rahn Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 That's a good idea and would provide the incentive to keep coaches at maybe a slightly higher rate than they are asking (so that they don't leave). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjshaw Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 [QUOTE=Arlie Rahn]with no offers close to his asking price.[/QUOTE] How can you tell the amount of a coach's existing offers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlie Rahn Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I don't think you can. You can assume they are close to his asking price, but some of the AI coaches may overpay a little to get a guy they really want. You have to keep that in mind when bidding on someone with other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mh2365 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 [QUOTE=Arlie Rahn]That's a good idea and would provide the incentive to keep coaches at maybe a slightly higher rate than they are asking (so that they don't leave).[/QUOTE] I like the idea of it being tied to the players also, you see this alot IRL guys always play better the second, third, fourth year under the same coordinator, QB coach, system, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I. J. Reilly Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I’ll add a vote for putting in some kind of reward for consistency in coaching, but I think it should affect recruiting as much as on the field performance. A lot of players sign with a school solely to play for a certain coordinator or position coach. If the player doesn’t think that coach will be there all 5 years, it should affect their decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roll Tide Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Then there would be a hugh flood of transferring players, since most guys end up with new coordinators every season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roll Tide Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 [QUOTE=SkyDog]That was my suggestion in the original comments I made to Arlie. Fine to have a ton of bottom-feeder coaches, but the decent extra coaches should be lessened greatly.[/QUOTE] Yeah but most of the OC/DC are marginal (mostly yellows & reds) at best. Where I see a ton of good coordinators (mostly blues & greens) are at the ST position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.