Posted by ggallagh on 9/14/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/14/2015 3:11:00 PM (view original):
I really like the proposed changes, especially with the amendment that job changes happen before recruiting period #2 (which I guess is no major surprise given my comments in the other thread). 

One thing I would like to request/emphasize: in order to make this work well, I think it needs to be harder to get recruits to sign in recruiting period #1 than it normally is to get them to sign. Players would not sign with you in the first recruiting period unless they feel you're the best they can do (for instance, if you're a D3 coach, they're in the middle of your D3 list and aren't a D2 pulldown or something) or you make them feel like the most important recruit in the world (that is, you spend a lot of effort on them). On this model, not all recruits who commit during period #1 sign during period #1. Some players are committed during period #1 but wait to sign until period #2, basically waiting on the off chance that someone else wants to offer them. 

I think this does two things: (1) it ensures that there are good players left for recruiting period #2, and (2) it adds another dimension to the strategy of the game. Do I spend the extra effort to lock down that player, or do I allocate it elsewhere and hope nobody tries to fight me in the late signing period. 

On new coaches being screwed by the previous coach's poor recruiting: (1) it's realistic, and (2) this actually fits with one of the original desiderata of not putting too much pressure on the new coach immediately. The new coach could either be helped or hurt by the previous coach's effort, but it's not all on them immediately. This is helpful for new coaches. But there is something for them to do immediately, so an old coach is not stuck doing nothing in year one. Presumably, sim recruiting will be designed so that it doesn't screw all new coaches. 

I like the thoughts on two signing periods.  On recruits that wait to sign; this would certainly add another dimension to recruiting.

A hope would be that recruits would be up front with periodic and fairly clear messages during recruiting. Messages along the lines of " I like your school but I am going to be waiting on a bigger school for *a while* since I think I can play D2" or "I'm getting really close to signing. I'm going to give schools another 'x' amount of days/hours to show me some love and then I plan to commit" would be really helpful.

If coaches have no idea of when recruits are going to sign, I could foresee some coaches getting really t.o.'d if a D2 school "poaches" a recruit that had been considering a D3 school for 14 days throughout period #1 and into period #2. 

Obviously this happens in RL; a recruit commits to a lower level D1 Big 6 school and then Calipari promises that he will turn said player into a 1st round draft pick...however, it could be really frustrating if you are trying to build up a low prestige program at any level and recruits wait days and days to sign giving other teams chances to jump in late. 

This is my biggest fear. A recruit you've put alot of money into getting "poached" because he is waiting and waiting to sign. It benefits some, but not those with low prestige who might be over reaching to get a good player.

I would hope tjhat from the messages you get from a player that you would be able to figure out if they probably are not going to sign in the first period. I don't think there would be anything wrong with a small percentage of players stating in messages something like: "Sorry coach but I am going to wait for the final signing period to make my decision. If nothing changes between now and then I will be attending your school". I would not like it as a mid major and I dump a bunch of my money into a recruit who leads me on and on and then doesn't sign in the first period and then some power 6 team gets extra money for an EE and swoops down in the 2nd signing period and takes him. It would just be nice to know what the recruits intentions are so I don't go crazy spending on an un-signable recruit. Notice I didn't say all of the recruits who won't sign in the first giving you the definitive won't sign message. Another group with a "Sorry coach but I am leaning strongly towards waiting for the last signing period but could be swayed to sign early if you show me enough interest" message would be fine. Just something so you have some sort of idea in what direction you should be spending your money.

Also, I still think seble you are going to see a fairly significant backlash if  a team cannot sign at least some of its own recruits for the first season. It is THE biggest problem I see so far with the changes. While you have addressed some of the other issues--you have not addressed this one and it has been mentioned by numerous coaches on here and with discussions I have had with other coaches outside of here.

Maybe I am not understanding this correctly seble.

If I am currently at Team A and during the job change period (which will now be before the 2nd signing period) I take a job with Team B. Since the season will not roll over until after the second signing period--during that second signing period before the season rolls over---would I be recruiting\signing  for Team A or Team B?

I'm not sure bifurcating the recruiting cycles will improve the situation for new coaches or new job applicants.  Let me understand this:

1. Scouting now includes "discovering" players.  So, like Hardball Dynasty, your recruiting budget determines whether you even "see" a player at all.
2. A good portion of your budget will be spent "discovering" players and then choosing how much "potential" information (or the quality thereof) you need.
3. Then you recruit in Cycle 1 and he either signs or doesn't (and then sits after that "signing day" until at least the start of the 2nd signings cycle (after the championship game & jobs).   Then, if you have not spent all of your budget already and had no x'fers or EEs, you will be able to spend more money to get him to sign.
4. New coaches will enter prior to that 2nd cycle.

At the point of entry, my question is: how much damage will SimAI or the prior coach have done to your recruiting budget?  I suppose that either or both will have gotten some recruits considering and may even have had them sign a commitment.  I would think that new head coaches ought to be able to "clear the slate" and revoke offers made to signed players by the previous staff.  If you can recover a portion of the budget spent for each "opening" at that point, then that would help.

On a side note, again comparing with Hardball's IFA market, the idea of high quality recruits not being "seen" is awful.  When the ideal IFA pitcher signs with another team, but never even showed up on my list, I feel cheated.  The way HD works, I could imagine only "seeing" a blank player card that needs to be filled in later by scouting (and there being several tiers of more or less accurate scouting), but I despise the idea of not even knowing that a player exists.  

Posted by kevodaphenom on 9/14/2015 3:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ggallagh on 9/14/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/14/2015 3:11:00 PM (view original):
I really like the proposed changes, especially with the amendment that job changes happen before recruiting period #2 (which I guess is no major surprise given my comments in the other thread). 

One thing I would like to request/emphasize: in order to make this work well, I think it needs to be harder to get recruits to sign in recruiting period #1 than it normally is to get them to sign. Players would not sign with you in the first recruiting period unless they feel you're the best they can do (for instance, if you're a D3 coach, they're in the middle of your D3 list and aren't a D2 pulldown or something) or you make them feel like the most important recruit in the world (that is, you spend a lot of effort on them). On this model, not all recruits who commit during period #1 sign during period #1. Some players are committed during period #1 but wait to sign until period #2, basically waiting on the off chance that someone else wants to offer them. 

I think this does two things: (1) it ensures that there are good players left for recruiting period #2, and (2) it adds another dimension to the strategy of the game. Do I spend the extra effort to lock down that player, or do I allocate it elsewhere and hope nobody tries to fight me in the late signing period. 

On new coaches being screwed by the previous coach's poor recruiting: (1) it's realistic, and (2) this actually fits with one of the original desiderata of not putting too much pressure on the new coach immediately. The new coach could either be helped or hurt by the previous coach's effort, but it's not all on them immediately. This is helpful for new coaches. But there is something for them to do immediately, so an old coach is not stuck doing nothing in year one. Presumably, sim recruiting will be designed so that it doesn't screw all new coaches. 

I like the thoughts on two signing periods.  On recruits that wait to sign; this would certainly add another dimension to recruiting.

A hope would be that recruits would be up front with periodic and fairly clear messages during recruiting. Messages along the lines of " I like your school but I am going to be waiting on a bigger school for *a while* since I think I can play D2" or "I'm getting really close to signing. I'm going to give schools another 'x' amount of days/hours to show me some love and then I plan to commit" would be really helpful.

If coaches have no idea of when recruits are going to sign, I could foresee some coaches getting really t.o.'d if a D2 school "poaches" a recruit that had been considering a D3 school for 14 days throughout period #1 and into period #2. 

Obviously this happens in RL; a recruit commits to a lower level D1 Big 6 school and then Calipari promises that he will turn said player into a 1st round draft pick...however, it could be really frustrating if you are trying to build up a low prestige program at any level and recruits wait days and days to sign giving other teams chances to jump in late. 

This is my biggest fear. A recruit you've put alot of money into getting "poached" because he is waiting and waiting to sign. It benefits some, but not those with low prestige who might be over reaching to get a good player.

I would say it needs to be predictable to some degree. The more effort in the early signing period, the more chance he signs in the early signing period. The way I'm envisioning it, if you're (to take a random example) coaching a B- prestige D1 team and you're going after a guy with a 495 overall rating, it should take very little to sign him in the early signing period. If you're after a four-star, he may not sign unless you throw 40 grand at him (or whatever is equivalent however the new system shakes out), even if no one else is fighting for him. Similarly at D3. If you're after a guy rated 395, he'll sign for cheap. If you're after a D2 pulldown, you're going to have to invest in him early or wait and pray. 

That's just my idea. I think it would add dimension to the strategy but not make it so random that it seems capricious and unfair. 

I've skimmed through the discussions but I dont think i saw anything mentioned about..

1.) promised starts - will they carry more weight?  eg.  A mid-major offers a guaranteed start and the recruit is also considering a big6 school.  It would be nice if those guaranteed starts would carry some weight.  Additionally, if you don't follow through with the promised start then make the punishment severe enough to where you won't even be tempted to try and cheat the system.  Be a starter at Marshall or go ride the pine at pittsburgh for 2 years?  marshall please!!

2.)  Childhood favorite - Joe Dirt grew up being a UK fan.  Maybe UK would sign him earlier with effort than another school. 

Posted by seble on 9/14/2015 1:24:00 PM (view original):
It's possible to move the 2nd recruiting period to after the job period, but you'd still be at the mercy of the previous coach as to whether any spots would be open.

except when deciding whether to take the job you could see if the previous coach had filled all of the slots or not, and decide whether to take the job accordingly.

Posted by arssanguinus on 9/14/2015 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 9/14/2015 1:24:00 PM (view original):
It's possible to move the 2nd recruiting period to after the job period, but you'd still be at the mercy of the previous coach as to whether any spots would be open.

except when deciding whether to take the job you could see if the previous coach had filled all of the slots or not, and decide whether to take the job accordingly.

good point

Posted by p6453 on 9/14/2015 5:14:00 PM (view original):
I've read everything I could on this, and please let me know when it's implemented. So I can leave. It sounds like a totally different game and one where it will take up too much time with too many ways to waste my recruiting budget. Others have expressed their fondness for the new system and I hope it works well. I think recruiting at D3 is fine as is. D1 is where things need to be tweaked.

Thanks Seble for the continued communication with the HD community. It's great to see you working on things.

+1

Posted by p6453 on 9/14/2015 5:14:00 PM (view original):
I've read everything I could on this, and please let me know when it's implemented. So I can leave. It sounds like a totally different game and one where it will take up too much time with too many ways to waste my recruiting budget. Others have expressed their fondness for the new system and I hope it works well. I think recruiting at D3 is fine as is. D1 is where things need to be tweaked.

Thanks Seble for the continued communication with the HD community. It's great to see you working on things.

The more I think about it the more I'm feeling this way.

keep in mind, seble has said that the scouting budget is different than the recruiting budget…  so there is some built in protection against coaches acting irresponsibly and spending all their cash on scouting.  

i am keeping an open mind.  I still argue that camps, etc. are not that much different than the way it is now to some degree.  For instance, at D3 and D2 you usually recruit most players from your geographical area - the same would happen in this case.

If you wanted to scout a camp outside your area - you still can - just like you can scout Alaska, etc.  It's just a different, and really more realistic feel and logical way to arranging the data we see when scouting.

In sum, just like now you choose how to spend your cash to see FSS information, you can do the same in the future with camps.  At least that's the way I am thinking about it.  If anything, you might get more info, since it will be more targeting to your prestige and division range (whereas now you get stuck with a bunch of useless information on players outside your target division).

My biggest "fear" is that I won't be able to see as many recruits. I don't want to feel too limited.  To date, I haven't really checked on how many players (that I can realistically sign) that I scout.  It seems like a few hundred (150-250 I would guess, at most) by the time I am done at D3.  At D1 it can be more since the budget is greater…. 

I know someone mentioned Hardball dynasty and not seeing some international players.  I agree that would be frustrating… I'm not sure the balance.  It would be nice to know how many players you AREN"T seeing too, I guess.  I'm not sure if that's the way it works in Hardball Dynasty though….

^^^^ and that was way off the topic of schedule so I'll probably move it to the other thread.

I think this schedule discussion illustrates the ripples of effects of the planned scouting changes - most of which can be filed under "fixing what isnt broken"

in my opinion, the scouting aspect of the game is pretty good - a small number of improvements could make it better - like programming evals to avoid repetitous results.  Scouting isnt what needs fixing.

Posted by metsmax on 9/14/2015 9:32:00 PM (view original):
I think this schedule discussion illustrates the ripples of effects of the planned scouting changes - most of which can be filed under "fixing what isnt broken"

in my opinion, the scouting aspect of the game is pretty good - a small number of improvements could make it better - like programming evals to avoid repetitous results.  Scouting isnt what needs fixing.

Exactly while it does sound really neat to an extent, I'm pretty sure the scouting and timelines changes weren't the foremost of everyone's complaints.  And won't do as much to fix the problem's people want fixed.

The fact that the recruit generation is not planned on being fixed is a joke.