All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Removing "Promised Starts" from Recruiting
12/12/2013 7:20 PM
I asked a question during the last developer regarding the designation of starters in the current engine.  The response that I got is one that I did not expect and do NOT want to happen.

As you can see below, they are considering REMOVING the promised starts from our recruiting options.

I think that is a BAD idea.  I believe that it is a great tool to help land a recruit.  Then, you have to honor that promise or lose the recruit's work ethic.  That is the positive/negative of using that tool.


The only real value that I see using a "starter" tag is its value in recruiting and making that promise. How will your next update affect that "promise"? (harriswb3 - Hall of Famer - 7:09 PM)

Currently the starter tag is still used for recruiting, the starters are calculated from the plays played and the depth charts. In the 3.1 release we are investigating ways to better improve this. The most probable way to go about this is to get rid of that promise in recruiting. It's value is similar to playing time for the recruit so eliminating it would not impact any decisions of a recruit.


12/12/2013 7:23 PM
Should we keep "Promised Starts" as options to use/offer during recruiting?

Votes: 88
(Last vote received: 5/29/2014 2:15 PM)
12/12/2013 7:44 PM
Absolutely without trepidation the answer is YES!!!
12/12/2013 8:38 PM
If they do. Will at least need to keep.promised % playing time.
Expand it to % playing time up to Jr year.
Offer 30% freshman year.
45% Soph.
50% junior year.
Each year ascending playing time.
Or something like that.
12/12/2013 8:52 PM
This is not at all surprising to me.  One of the underlying philosophies here for a long time has been, "Oh, you don't think game-component X is working properly?  Well, we'll just have simplify things for you then and remove it altogether."
12/12/2013 10:05 PM
I say, just let us designate starters, like it was under 2.0....problem solved.  simple, easy, everyone is happy.
12/12/2013 10:06 PM
Posted by glaity on 12/12/2013 8:38:00 PM (view original):
If they do. Will at least need to keep.promised % playing time.
Expand it to % playing time up to Jr year.
Offer 30% freshman year.
45% Soph.
50% junior year.
Each year ascending playing time.
Or something like that.
glaity, not a bad idea as an alternative.  That could be an interesting twist.
12/12/2013 10:50 PM
outside of QB a "start" means nothing imo. Always have said that always will. The suggestion by glaity is a good one.
12/13/2013 12:05 PM

I have a hard time getting emotionally wrapped up in this one. I would be fine with going back to the 2.0 system. I'd even be fine going back to the 1.0 system. I'm fine with the current system, even. If we're sticking with the 3.0 version, where the player development and everything else really ties to # of snaps rather than some designation of "starter," then it only makes sense to remove the promised starts from recruiting and have coaches use promised playing time instead.

12/13/2013 12:36 PM
Something like glaity suggests might be a good alternative.  My issue is its impact on recruiting....not on player development.

If they just remove the promised starts (fresh or soph), then that really leaves %PT.  Assuming they just REMOVE and not REPLACE, then we are left with little choice to influence recruiting....it really is then just a matter of $$.  The bigger payroll wins.  I realize its mostly that now...but I've used that promised starts to land a prize recruit before..and I suspect others have done so as well.
12/13/2013 12:51 PM
Does anyone actually know the equivalent of what a promised start has been worth compared to a CV?
12/13/2013 1:10 PM
I have not had problems as of yet meeting my promises. Perhaps there is just going to be more cautiousness handing them out, since you can't really game the system and have them in for a play or two, and that's it. So no, it shouldn't be removed. I think their value is now increased because less people will offer them.
12/13/2013 1:16 PM
Posted by harriswb3 on 12/13/2013 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Something like glaity suggests might be a good alternative.  My issue is its impact on recruiting....not on player development.

If they just remove the promised starts (fresh or soph), then that really leaves %PT.  Assuming they just REMOVE and not REPLACE, then we are left with little choice to influence recruiting....it really is then just a matter of $$.  The bigger payroll wins.  I realize its mostly that now...but I've used that promised starts to land a prize recruit before..and I suspect others have done so as well.
I agree with this . I have used both promised start at soph and playing time at Fr together to land someone I really want . Having playbooks for your different teams , IMO is more important than this issue . Playbooks are a mess . Its fine if you have 2 teams , but when you have more than that , when you adjust one it affects the others you play .
Leave the promised starts issue alone ,as it works . And clean up the more important issues .
12/13/2013 2:17 PM
another idea would be to simply increase the recruiting value of the promised playing time %s ie 75% playing time promise is worth what 75% AND freshman start used to be and on down to 25% playing time being worth not so much.  if we can't elect our starters they might as well scrap the recruiting promise.

way down the list of important tweaks imo though
12/13/2013 2:53 PM
HAve an option to offer RBs 50 to 75 carries per game FR year,
of 2
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Removing "Promised Starts" from Recruiting

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.