nothing else? or are all the active folks just so anti-change and botched-release fatigued, that they don't want to discuss the finer points? the release is massive, there is so much more... here are a couple more on my mind.

- the random aspect of the decision of a recruit is interesting. i think when you have a major battle, and on converted to equivalent effort levels, someone is at, say, 80k, and the other guy is at 81k, that it is kind of silly that the 81k guy wins 100% of the time. i support a change there. however, i do think it would be ridiculous in presence of a "significant" margin, to have it anything but 100/0. nobody wants that random crap deciding their fate. but, what is significant? its really a balance question. i think the fundamental premise is sound - what do you guys think? on the balance side, i could see up to 10% easily, having some random factor involved, and *maybe* even up to 20% even though i personally would definitely prefer it not to go up that high. its also a bit hard because of divisions and stuff, 10% difference is nothing in d3, its something in d1. i guess ideally, in the low levels, it would be like 20-25% where its 100% (with 10% maybe being like a 75% advantage), and in d1, like 10, low teens, being 100%, with 5% being like 75% advantage. thoughts?

- verbal commitments before signings: hate it. maybe verbal commitments AT signings, for guys who wont sign there. its already time sensitive enough. lets not make that even more the case. i liked the idea of guys being harder to get considering (i sort of got that vibe, maybe im wrong there, but it sounds like you can't use HVs or CVs in the first cycle - although that scholarship offer - if that "major effort" seble mentions is enough to get considered - then that is extremely retarded. scholarship offers should not get you considered), and for guys being harder to get to sign instantly. today, you can get a guy to consider you for 110, or scholarship + 1-2HV, and he signs instantly. there are different thresholds for considering and signing, although i doubt most coaches even know, because its so damn insignificant of a difference, its hardly even noticeable. i like the idea of not everyone signing at 8pm or whatever on signing day, spicing things up a bit. but verbal commitments? what is that, an anti-poaching tactic? i guess i can maybe see some value there (although, in d1, suck it up, thats the game, we love it because of the competition, its what makes d1 d1). but overall it sounds opposite of the intention of most of the other changes. i guess as long as they were held off until fairly late in recruiting, whatever that means, it could be interesting. but overall, i say, scrap it.

this isn't that long yet and im really tempted to go on to the next one... but i wont!

I'm mainly waiting to see what form the possible changes take in the playtest.  Right now, all we have is so much speculation.

Pull-downs are fun but crazy-unrealistic; glad to see them go. I welcome the introduction of unpredictability; it is far more realistic than counting stacks of poker chips. I like the verbals; again, bringing the game in conformity with college hoops, while adding texture to the game.

Gil - re: poaching. That's a great example of game play versus realism. Signing cycle poachings are stupidly unrealistic. Yet, many enjoy the adrenaline rush that this practice has added to the game. On balance, I favor changes that add realism. If the game is changed to reward coaches that are on a recruit from the beginning, I would favor such a change, even if it means less last day dog fights.

Posted by MyGeneration on 9/22/2015 9:05:00 PM (view original):
Gil - re: poaching. That's a great example of game play versus realism. Signing cycle poachings are stupidly unrealistic. Yet, many enjoy the adrenaline rush that this practice has added to the game. On balance, I favor changes that add realism. If the game is changed to reward coaches that are on a recruit from the beginning, I would favor such a change, even if it means less last day dog fights.

the only problem is that real coaches have a real job and that job is coaching their team. not so much for the rest of us. its very reasonable for someone in HD to not be able to start for 1-2 days into recruiting, and unless recruiting is quite a lengthy process, I think its dangerous to block people out of the system just because real life obligations were the priority for the first 1-2 days of recruiting. i don't disagree, on principle, with anything you said. but in implementation, reality has to be taken into account, too. obviously, coaches are not generally jumping into the game a year later than others, because they got busy with other crap (although late entries into the recruiting process absolutely happen). i am generally for realistic game design in a simulation of a real life experience - however - when one piece of an area of the game is totally unrealistic, its not realistic (pardon the pun) to expect other parts of it to be realistic. you often have to counter act those earlier instances where reality was totally thrown out. its kind of like human intervention in nature. yeah, we probably should try not to get in and royally screw things up. but once we have already gotten in, and royally screwed things up, just walking away and claiming the non-interventional dogma doesn't really fly. its more complicated then, sometimes we have to counter act what we already royally screwed up. 

First off, excited about the update! I've been reading through this for a couple hours so hopefully I don't repeat a question or idea. I will focus on discovery for now;

If I attend a regional camp at a D3 school, am I seeing the same recruits as a D2 school that attended? Or is there going to be specific camps per level?

If I'm a D2 school should I attend a low end D1 camp to look for somebody I want to "drop down"? Or, are the guys I can drop down going to go to the D2 camp?

Once a recruit is discovered, let's say with a regional camp, and I hold my own camp, is it possible to only get 97 recruits discovered because 3 of them I saw at the regional camp? If so, does that mean that those 3 recruits are maybe more interested in my school? Also, do I go from level 1 to level 2 of those recruits? Or am I always going to discover a new 100 guys?

Something else, how many times have you heard a kid or a college coach say, "well we went to go watch recruit A's game but his teammate, recruit B, had a nice game so now he is on our radar." I think it would be a fun little addition to possibly discover a recruit that is a teammate or was an opponent to some game you went to bump a recruits level from 1 to 2.

Again, hopefully I didn't repeat.

no, those are great questions.

- seble is changing scouting, today with FSS, you see all levels. with the camps, at least how hes thinking about it now, you only see your own division. he plans to change dropdowns/pulldowns accordingly, to compensate for that. not sure what his plan is there, except that he is probably going to do away with pulldowns altogether. he hasn't said how he will manage dropdowns being in your division and how (if?) you know they are dropdowns. i asked in a ticket, he said, these are the kinds of details we will figure out as we go.

- the camps - i asked the same thing. if you already discovered some, can those players not attend your camp, or does going to an additional camp or assistant coach discovery thing, just give you the next level of information up from where you are? again, these are the kind of details he will figure out as he goes. so we just don't know, on those 2 fronts, yet.

just to confirm the proposed changes...i'm supposed to use d2 (projected) players on my d2 team?
how will the distance factor affect my international recruiting efforts?
are they going to create more quality d2 players?
any changes to 'recruit generation'?

Posted by crazyivan on 9/24/2015 9:42:00 AM (view original):
just to confirm the proposed changes...i'm supposed to use d2 (projected) players on my d2 team?
how will the distance factor affect my international recruiting efforts?
are they going to create more quality d2 players?
any changes to 'recruit generation'?

it sounds like it... if seble is changing it so a d2 school can only scout d2 players, it seems rather hard to imagine a system where d2 schools can also sign d1 players. but, i think all that is open to change. he hasn't been able to give hardly any insight into how it will work, and hasn't answered one remotely challenging question on the subject. so, i think as he gets into it further, it could go a much different direction than he has suggested so far.

distance factor, as written, is dead. so for internationals, there is none - on effort - but scouting trips supposedly will still follow distance tiers similar to today. however in a ticket a few days ago he responded to a question from a few days before that (that he initially would not answer), and said he decided that there will be some element of distance advantage. what that is or how severe, who knows (well, nobody does, but, you get the idea).

no changes to recruit generation are in this bundle and given the fact that we've been beating seble over the head with a stick about recruit generation for the last 3-4 years, and then solidly for the whole week when the changes were being discussed... i seriously doubt he will change his mind now. however, i wouldn't take that to mean the d2 pool will be identical to the d2 pool a school sees today, i would imagine that d1 dropdowns who usually end in d2 would have to show in d2, or something. i mean, something has to give, right? not really sure what that will be though. i get the impression seble doesn't either, which is fine, but it is a tad bit scary to me that he refers to those things as "details".

I mean as somebody stated earlier, "pulldowns" are just not realistic.  I loved doing it, but it isn't realistic.  No D1 guy is going to move to D2 faster because he sees a D2 school at 10 of his games.  He is going to move down faster when he sees 0 D1 schools at his game.  So that timeline of when a guy drops will be interesting.

Well, $hit..........