Coach Hiring Stage (Need some feedback)

[GoldenCrest Games]

I love idea of coaches with different strengths/weaknesses for sports games, but I hate the coach hiring stage. It's almost like the pool of money you have to hire your coach doesn't matter, and I always just max it out every time.

I'm running into the same wall on Desktop Dynasties. Coaches are pretty important to the game, but I don't want to recreate the same problem with the coach hiring stage. So what if.....

Coaches were counted against the salary cap?

:eek:

To continue down this road, I'd integrate the coach hiring stage into normal free agency. Free agent coaches would be part of the free agent player pool, and would be bid on along with the players.

I'm not married to the idea, so feel free to tear it apart. :)

Thoughts?

[Marc Vaughan]

The route I take with Football Manager Mobile is to give each coach the normal 'ability/skill level' but then also an area of specialisation - so one coach might be good at developing youth players, another might be good with handling the egos of your stars, another might be good at attacking plays, another defensive ones etc.

This makes them slightly different and thus makes the user think about the type of team they want to develop.

As a slight aside I also allow you to promote a retiring player into a coaching role which further gives people a tie to their coaches ... finally you can train up existing coaches.

PS - For actual hiring of them you either do a 'search' (ala player searches in most sims) or you place an advert and get applicants like you would in real-life.

[weegeebored]

I like Marc's idea or some variation of it. Perhaps a coach is rated on X number of specialties/traits, sort of the way that FOF does it. Make it more challenging for the player to decide on the "right" coach for his/her team. You could also have a budget for coaches/staff. This probably requires some kind of team owner in your game who has a greater or lesser degree of tolerance regarding finances. You could still have your FA coaching period with bidding although personally I would have that a separate time from player FA.

Also I would caution you on letting coaches have too much influence on the game. A team has to have good players, and the right kind of players to win. Coaches can only do so much -- Bill Belichick might improve the Browns, but he isn't going to make them a Super Bowl contender the way they are constructed.

[GoldenCrest Games]

The route I take with Football Manager Mobile is to give each coach the normal 'ability/skill level' but then also an area of specialisation - so one coach might be good at developing youth players, another might be good with handling the egos of your stars, another might be good at attacking plays, another defensive ones etc.

This makes them slightly different and thus makes the user think about the type of team they want to develop.

As a slight aside I also allow you to promote a retiring player into a coaching role which further gives people a tie to their coaches ... finally you can train up existing coaches.



I like this so much more than my idea. I was struggling with the idea of having “better” coaches. If the assumption is they are all about equal, but different, the system makes a lot more sense.

You’re good at this! :)

Thanks!

[JonInMiddleGA]

I like this so much more than my idea. I was struggling with the idea of having “better” coaches. If the assumption is they are all about equal, but different, the system makes a lot more sense.
You’re good at this! :)
Thanks!

But just to make life difficult ... can that approach also represent the difference between Belichick and Marty Mornhinweg?

(Not saying it can't, just saying that's a question).

Is the answer (maybe) having the ultimate coach have 6 positive traits and the worst of the worst have outright negative traits (though you have to leave some reason for him to ever be hired)?

[skrath]

Definitely system based. For my basketball sim, hiring a coach that goes against the type of system you want to run will inevitably hurt the team in the long run. Example being hiring Mike D'Antoni to coach the Rockets -- a perfect fit as the team is constructed to take advantage of his strengths. The coaches have tendencies which drive their decision making in the engine. Coaching styles range from Psychologist, Motiviator, Tactician, Instructor, Disciplinarian which dictate how they deal with players. This has all been inspired at some level from Marc's excellent work over the years :)

Example: http://jblfl.com/coaches.php?id=24 (there are more 'invisible' tendencies).

No coach is good at everything so being able to supplement your head coach with other coaches' strength (I guess this is the offensive/defensive coordinator approach in football) is important.

We run the coach hiring stage alongside free agency with a separate coach "cap", the balance of which can be spent on other areas such as scouting.

Not sure how helpful this will be but just some thoughts!

[corbes]

Real coach hiring isn't really about dollars or a pool of money. It's much more like dating: whether the team is desirable to the coach, and whether the coach is desirable to the team, with a healthy dose of fan and media pressure to boot.

[SteveM58]

I think the approach Marc describes is the best baseline approach to it. So you might favor certain traits in a Head Coach and decide to offset those traits in your coordinators (if applicable, but I like at least the coordinators). And a HC with great leadership benefits both offense & defense but the coordinator only benefits their side of the ball.

You could also consider fixed demand contracts for coaches. So, basically the coach's market rate is basically set so there's no reason to negotiate for monopoly money.

To take it further, I think would be awesome to have a system of hidden traits to teams and coaches. These would be metrics that determine "who would ideally prefer who" if money wasn't significantly different.

So something like this for coaches evaluating teams:
1. Last season record
2. Last 5 seasons record
3. Last 15 seasons record
4. Superbowl titles
5. # of times changing Head Coach past 5 seasons (reverse weight this)
6. Market prestige
7. Roster talent metric
8. QB talent metric modified by age (given how critical this position is)
9. Coach affinity to Franchise (has he ever coached there modified by # of seasons)
10. Coach affinity to Market (reverse weight by miles from hometown if you track this)

Then determine proper weight for each of these (you could have some basic weight profiles which prefer certain combinations of traits such as Last 15 seasons and Market prestige, for instance as a simple example).

For AI teams evaluating a coach...hidden coach traits might look something like this:
1. Last season record (including coordinator)
2. Last 5 seasons record (including coordinator)
3. All time record (only HC if ever HC, otherwise coordinator)
4. # of SB appearances (same #3)
5. # of conference championship appearances (same as #3)
6. # of division titles (same as #3)
7. # of playoff appearances (same as #3)
8. Coach rank x team finish (reverse weighted)
9. Coach prestige
10. # of seasons ever coached with team (temp value based on team coach)
11. # of seasons ever coached with Head Coach (for coordinator hires if applicable, temp value based on team evaluating coach)

And you could weight these as appropriate. You could even have "owner profiles" which weight these (along with the viewable traits) with bias to younger coordinators showing promise, good balance in coaching staff, experienced winner, etc.

Just some thoughts. Certainly not exhaustive lists. But I always love the hiring process teams go through for coaches and always wanted to see more depth to that even if a lot of it is under the hood.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You could also consider fixed demand contracts for coaches. So, basically the coach's market rate is basically set so there's no reason to negotiate for monopoly money.

With the possibility of some slight variance (i.e. don't let 5% or 10% -- if teams have an internal spending cap to deal with -- stand in the way of an otherwise good deal) I pretty much agree here.

[SteveM58]

With the possibility of some slight variance (i.e. don't let 5% or 10% -- if teams have an internal spending cap to deal with -- stand in the way of an otherwise good deal) I pretty much agree here.

Yep, good point on team spending cap. You could possibly tie that back to an owner profile trait as well (e.g. big spender, tightwad, etc).

[Young Drachma]

It's important to me that coaches develop like players do, but without the whole "allocate points" thing, but more like....real life where you have assistants who develop into "hot shot" coaches and people want them.

The only reason the money matters is because of performance, so somehow having performance able to turn a good coach into a great one or something. FBCB and other games model this poorly and I certainly don't want a coach to impact the way a game plays out.

Salary cap is okay, but I'm thinking it's less important to know what a coach costs, but why he costs that and more modeling like real-life hiring cycles, and an ability to promote assistants which no game models well at all.

[GoldenCrest Games]

Thanks everyone!

I like a lot of what was brought up here, and I think I'm going to use a bunch of it.

Here's where I'll start, and then adjust as needed:

I'm going to scrap the whole salary cap thing I started with.
I'm going to try having all coaches equal in overall value, but different in style/scheme. Then it becomes more about fit and not as much about getting the best one.
I'll probably make some sort of coach offer period, but it's not about bidding on coaches. The idea is that you make an offer to the coach(es) you like, and they pick the spot they want to go to. Since they are all equal in value, you don't get totally screwed if you can't get the one you want. You just need to adjust the plan.
Coaches are going to use a bunch of open criteria to decide where they go, so you'll have a good feel for your chances of landing anyone. I'll probably start with how the roster matches the coach style, and build out from there.
I'm definitely going to allow you to make offers to retiring players. That's such a cool feature.


I want to start simple, and then build on it as the game develops. There are a lot of cool ideas here I'll have to figure out how to use.

[GrantDawg]

Just some thoughts. Certainly not exhaustive lists. But I always love the hiring process teams go through for coaches and always wanted to see more depth to that even if a lot of it is under the hood.

I love the hiring/firing coaches decisions, too. But I have some real pet-peeves on how most games (especially football sims) handles this. First, I hate the fixed signing periods. Coaches get fired mid-season. Coordinators get fired in-season. Teams can hire coaches at any time unless they already have a job. There are always out of work coaches (and if you play pro-level, college level coaches) available any time you need. Position coaches become coordinators, coordinators become head coaches. Sometimes position coaches become head coaches. Sometimes head coaches become position coaches. :D

I am not even crazy about having an assigned system to coaches. Some coaches are system coaches. They will have specialized in one system and always play that system. But then some will be flexible, and adapt their style to the team they have or a new system that is having success. To me, there should be variety and flexibility in coaching hires. Plenty of choices, with a real gamble if he is the right coach for the job.

How do you create this? Complicatedly, I'm sure. :p But to me, especially in football, you should have full staffs with each coach having visible ratings and invisible ratings that allow growth. Even coaching and player relationships, so that some head coaches automatically bring certain coaches with them and even want to sign certain players if they can. I have just always wanted it to feel more real and way more flexible than games generally have it. By far, Football Manager has the best system, but some elements of it wouldn't work for football. But it still should be the bench mark for almost all sports sims.

[GrantDawg]

dola: Just to add my second pet-peeve. All football sims I have ever played starts the first season during the first week of pre-season, and doesn't allow you to change coaches for the first year. I soooo want the option to start a season before free-agency/draft. I hate that I have to throw away the first season before I can even hire a coach, and then begin building my team to the style I like.

[SteveM58]

I am not even crazy about having an assigned system to coaches. Some coaches are system coaches. They will have specialized in one system and always play that system. But then some will be flexible, and adapt their style to the team they have or a new system that is having success. To me, there should be variety and flexibility in coaching hires. Plenty of choices, with a real gamble if he is the right coach for the job.
I agree some coaches can/should be better at adapting the scheme they came up on and even fully morphing it.

Maybe thats an attribute..."Adaptability" or something. So if they are high in it they get better at using other styles until eventually their own "Style" or "Scheme" becomes "Any" or something.

How do you create this? Complicatedly, I'm sure. :p But to me, especially in football, you should have full staffs with each coach having visible ratings and invisible ratings that allow growth. Even coaching and player relationships, so that some head coaches automatically bring certain coaches with them and even want to sign certain players if they can. I have just always wanted it to feel more real and way more flexible than games generally have it. By far, Football Manager has the best system, but some elements of it wouldn't work for football. But it still should be the bench mark for almost all sports sims.
Bolded part is where I was trying to go with an "Affinity" metric for coaches with teams and other coaches. You could possibly even extend that to players as well so they get an affinity rating based on how well they performed for a certain coach (e.g. you don't want to play for the coach you had your worst 4 seasons with, you want the coach you had your 3 best with).

But small steps first I think. You also wouldn't want to make it into its own minigame with more complexity than the rest of the game so I'll take one step at a time in that direction.

[SteveM58]

Thanks everyone!

I like a lot of what was brought up here, and I think I'm going to use a bunch of it.

Here's where I'll start, and then adjust as needed:

I'm going to scrap the whole salary cap thing I started with.
I'm going to try having all coaches equal in overall value, but different in style/scheme. Then it becomes more about fit and not as much about getting the best one.
I'll probably make some sort of coach offer period, but it's not about bidding on coaches. The idea is that you make an offer to the coach(es) you like, and they pick the spot they want to go to. Since they are all equal in value, you don't get totally screwed if you can't get the one you want. You just need to adjust the plan.
Coaches are going to use a bunch of open criteria to decide where they go, so you'll have a good feel for your chances of landing anyone. I'll probably start with how the roster matches the coach style, and build out from there.
I'm definitely going to allow you to make offers to retiring players. That's such a cool feature.


I want to start simple, and then build on it as the game develops. There are a lot of cool ideas here I'll have to figure out how to use.

Tat sounds like an awesome goal. Not too complex to start with but over time maybe it evolves into more .