Posted by zorzii on 1/4/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.

The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.

Just so you know two teams, a+ and a-, are on a recruit, a legit future D1 player, but a d2 has been going all out to get him and leads now. None of these two teams can spend money ( capped by the way so no real
advantage there) if they want to be able to battle D1 schools on other prospects, so now, witty d2 teams are going on d1 options or developing d1 project. The kid has 87 ath to start.. but needs practice elsewhere.. maths don't add up. We can't battle each others and need to pour at least 50 % of what a d2 has put in to hope to get that team to moderate, which isn't a sure thing. We don't have enough.. and getting us more would destroy the strategy so the real sol is to get d1 as an incentive huge incentive for d1 recruits. A pref. Wants to play D1...

As long as it's an effort-based system, if a D2 is the only one willing to go all out on visits and promises, why shouldn't they be in contention? This is the mindset of 2.0, where people were used to cherry-picking among certain levels of recruits. Gameplay can adjust, but expectations have to adjust along with it.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/4/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.

The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.

Just so you know two teams, a+ and a-, are on a recruit, a legit future D1 player, but a d2 has been going all out to get him and leads now. None of these two teams can spend money ( capped by the way so no real
advantage there) if they want to be able to battle D1 schools on other prospects, so now, witty d2 teams are going on d1 options or developing d1 project. The kid has 87 ath to start.. but needs practice elsewhere.. maths don't add up. We can't battle each others and need to pour at least 50 % of what a d2 has put in to hope to get that team to moderate, which isn't a sure thing. We don't have enough.. and getting us more would destroy the strategy so the real sol is to get d1 as an incentive huge incentive for d1 recruits. A pref. Wants to play D1...

As long as it's an effort-based system, if a D2 is the only one willing to go all out on visits and promises, why shouldn't they be in contention? This is the mindset of 2.0, where people were used to cherry-picking among certain levels of recruits. Gameplay can adjust, but expectations have to adjust along with it.

Here's how I see it.

Seble stated that it was one his goals was to encourage battling among top recruits. He said too often that the team on a recruit first gets him. I think we can all agree on this - yes?

I think what happens here is that you are discouraging battling and making coaches as risk averse as before.

If I'm D1, I'm encouraged to battle other D1 teams, right? If I'm at NC State I shouldn't just let UNC or Duke just have a recruit for no effort. That was the whole point of a lot of the changes. However, what if I lose that battle? Well I move on to a backup plan. Well let's see, this backup guy who maybe I've invested 10 APs on every cycle has a D2 team on him. I unlock all actions and a scholly offer but I'm still behind. I send in 5-10 HVs but I'm still behind. I can't send in 20 HVs because I already spent most of my money battling Duke (which the new system is encouraging me to do, right?).

So now here you are, back where you started. Teams don't want to battle anymore because losing is too risky. I have to worry about some fiddle fart D2 team who happened to pump 100 APs into a recruit for 10 cycles and built a huge lead.

This does not accomplish one of their goals of encouraging battling for top recruits.

WHY? Seriously, why does it have to be this way. Let D1 have their game. Let D2 have their game. Let D3 have their game. This is just stupid to have the system designed this way.

Posted by Benis on 1/4/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/4/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.

The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.

Just so you know two teams, a+ and a-, are on a recruit, a legit future D1 player, but a d2 has been going all out to get him and leads now. None of these two teams can spend money ( capped by the way so no real
advantage there) if they want to be able to battle D1 schools on other prospects, so now, witty d2 teams are going on d1 options or developing d1 project. The kid has 87 ath to start.. but needs practice elsewhere.. maths don't add up. We can't battle each others and need to pour at least 50 % of what a d2 has put in to hope to get that team to moderate, which isn't a sure thing. We don't have enough.. and getting us more would destroy the strategy so the real sol is to get d1 as an incentive huge incentive for d1 recruits. A pref. Wants to play D1...

As long as it's an effort-based system, if a D2 is the only one willing to go all out on visits and promises, why shouldn't they be in contention? This is the mindset of 2.0, where people were used to cherry-picking among certain levels of recruits. Gameplay can adjust, but expectations have to adjust along with it.

Here's how I see it.

Seble stated that it was one his goals was to encourage battling among top recruits. He said too often that the team on a recruit first gets him. I think we can all agree on this - yes?

I think what happens here is that you are discouraging battling and making coaches as risk averse as before.

If I'm D1, I'm encouraged to battle other D1 teams, right? If I'm at NC State I shouldn't just let UNC or Duke just have a recruit for no effort. That was the whole point of a lot of the changes. However, what if I lose that battle? Well I move on to a backup plan. Well let's see, this backup guy who maybe I've invested 10 APs on every cycle has a D2 team on him. I unlock all actions and a scholly offer but I'm still behind. I send in 5-10 HVs but I'm still behind. I can't send in 20 HVs because I already spent most of my money battling Duke (which the new system is encouraging me to do, right?).

So now here you are, back where you started. Teams don't want to battle anymore because losing is too risky. I have to worry about some fiddle fart D2 team who happened to pump 100 APs into a recruit for 10 cycles and built a huge lead.

This does not accomplish one of their goals of encouraging battling for top recruits.

WHY? Seriously, why does it have to be this way. Let D1 have their game. Let D2 have their game. Let D3 have their game. This is just stupid to have the system designed this way.

I am all for delineating clear groupings of recruits by division, as long as we can still keep Seble's red lights. Those really seem to get under Spud's skin so I would hate to see them go away. The rest of what you are talking about it spot on.

Posted by Benis on 1/4/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/4/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.

The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.

Just so you know two teams, a+ and a-, are on a recruit, a legit future D1 player, but a d2 has been going all out to get him and leads now. None of these two teams can spend money ( capped by the way so no real
advantage there) if they want to be able to battle D1 schools on other prospects, so now, witty d2 teams are going on d1 options or developing d1 project. The kid has 87 ath to start.. but needs practice elsewhere.. maths don't add up. We can't battle each others and need to pour at least 50 % of what a d2 has put in to hope to get that team to moderate, which isn't a sure thing. We don't have enough.. and getting us more would destroy the strategy so the real sol is to get d1 as an incentive huge incentive for d1 recruits. A pref. Wants to play D1...

As long as it's an effort-based system, if a D2 is the only one willing to go all out on visits and promises, why shouldn't they be in contention? This is the mindset of 2.0, where people were used to cherry-picking among certain levels of recruits. Gameplay can adjust, but expectations have to adjust along with it.

Here's how I see it.

Seble stated that it was one his goals was to encourage battling among top recruits. He said too often that the team on a recruit first gets him. I think we can all agree on this - yes?

I think what happens here is that you are discouraging battling and making coaches as risk averse as before.

If I'm D1, I'm encouraged to battle other D1 teams, right? If I'm at NC State I shouldn't just let UNC or Duke just have a recruit for no effort. That was the whole point of a lot of the changes. However, what if I lose that battle? Well I move on to a backup plan. Well let's see, this backup guy who maybe I've invested 10 APs on every cycle has a D2 team on him. I unlock all actions and a scholly offer but I'm still behind. I send in 5-10 HVs but I'm still behind. I can't send in 20 HVs because I already spent most of my money battling Duke (which the new system is encouraging me to do, right?).

So now here you are, back where you started. Teams don't want to battle anymore because losing is too risky. I have to worry about some fiddle fart D2 team who happened to pump 100 APs into a recruit for 10 cycles and built a huge lead.

This does not accomplish one of their goals of encouraging battling for top recruits.

WHY? Seriously, why does it have to be this way. Let D1 have their game. Let D2 have their game. Let D3 have their game. This is just stupid to have the system designed this way.

On the contrary, the system is very intelligent, far more than the previous one. There are many available strategies to set about recruiting players for your team. It has definitely encouraged battling among top recruits - the ones that need to be battled for - and it seems ridiculous to suggest otherwise. In practice, from what I've seen, those elite recruits are much more likely to be battled for than under 2.0.

That D2 in the example that zorzii puts forth is making a big gamble. Not only that A level teams won't prioritize and fight for him, but also that there are no B and C level D1s watching this unfold and noticing that right now The A teams have failed or neglected to put the D2 away, and there is an opportunity for D1 mid-majors to come in and snag him.

Its a matter of prioritization. You roll for the best recruits you think you have a legitimate shot at. You want to plan to win roughly half of them. You try to put together a class around them, with guys you don't necessarily want or need to fight for. But if a lower level team wants those guys, you have to be ready to move on. That's a consequence of the choice you make, and the strategy you employ. You don't get to cherry-pick, and the system isn't stupid for removing that aspect of the game. This is a commodity game. You need to fight for the best commodities you can find and afford to win. The good news is that everyone is playing in the same system, under the same rules.

Recruits should be pre-interested in a few non-Sim schools appropriate to their level when recruiting starts.

This was one great missed opportunity in the 3.0 preference system.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/4/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/4/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.

The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.

Just so you know two teams, a+ and a-, are on a recruit, a legit future D1 player, but a d2 has been going all out to get him and leads now. None of these two teams can spend money ( capped by the way so no real
advantage there) if they want to be able to battle D1 schools on other prospects, so now, witty d2 teams are going on d1 options or developing d1 project. The kid has 87 ath to start.. but needs practice elsewhere.. maths don't add up. We can't battle each others and need to pour at least 50 % of what a d2 has put in to hope to get that team to moderate, which isn't a sure thing. We don't have enough.. and getting us more would destroy the strategy so the real sol is to get d1 as an incentive huge incentive for d1 recruits. A pref. Wants to play D1...

As long as it's an effort-based system, if a D2 is the only one willing to go all out on visits and promises, why shouldn't they be in contention? This is the mindset of 2.0, where people were used to cherry-picking among certain levels of recruits. Gameplay can adjust, but expectations have to adjust along with it.

Here's how I see it.

Seble stated that it was one his goals was to encourage battling among top recruits. He said too often that the team on a recruit first gets him. I think we can all agree on this - yes?

I think what happens here is that you are discouraging battling and making coaches as risk averse as before.

If I'm D1, I'm encouraged to battle other D1 teams, right? If I'm at NC State I shouldn't just let UNC or Duke just have a recruit for no effort. That was the whole point of a lot of the changes. However, what if I lose that battle? Well I move on to a backup plan. Well let's see, this backup guy who maybe I've invested 10 APs on every cycle has a D2 team on him. I unlock all actions and a scholly offer but I'm still behind. I send in 5-10 HVs but I'm still behind. I can't send in 20 HVs because I already spent most of my money battling Duke (which the new system is encouraging me to do, right?).

So now here you are, back where you started. Teams don't want to battle anymore because losing is too risky. I have to worry about some fiddle fart D2 team who happened to pump 100 APs into a recruit for 10 cycles and built a huge lead.

This does not accomplish one of their goals of encouraging battling for top recruits.

WHY? Seriously, why does it have to be this way. Let D1 have their game. Let D2 have their game. Let D3 have their game. This is just stupid to have the system designed this way.

On the contrary, the system is very intelligent, far more than the previous one. There are many available strategies to set about recruiting players for your team. It has definitely encouraged battling among top recruits - the ones that need to be battled for - and it seems ridiculous to suggest otherwise. In practice, from what I've seen, those elite recruits are much more likely to be battled for than under 2.0.

That D2 in the example that zorzii puts forth is making a big gamble. Not only that A level teams won't prioritize and fight for him, but also that there are no B and C level D1s watching this unfold and noticing that right now The A teams have failed or neglected to put the D2 away, and there is an opportunity for D1 mid-majors to come in and snag him.

Its a matter of prioritization. You roll for the best recruits you think you have a legitimate shot at. You want to plan to win roughly half of them. You try to put together a class around them, with guys you don't necessarily want or need to fight for. But if a lower level team wants those guys, you have to be ready to move on. That's a consequence of the choice you make, and the strategy you employ. You don't get to cherry-pick, and the system isn't stupid for removing that aspect of the game. This is a commodity game. You need to fight for the best commodities you can find and afford to win. The good news is that everyone is playing in the same system, under the same rules.

Now THAT is spot on, shoe. Don't be discouraged that a lot of guys (coughbeviscough) don't understand the game as well as you do.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/4/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/4/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.

The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.

Just so you know two teams, a+ and a-, are on a recruit, a legit future D1 player, but a d2 has been going all out to get him and leads now. None of these two teams can spend money ( capped by the way so no real
advantage there) if they want to be able to battle D1 schools on other prospects, so now, witty d2 teams are going on d1 options or developing d1 project. The kid has 87 ath to start.. but needs practice elsewhere.. maths don't add up. We can't battle each others and need to pour at least 50 % of what a d2 has put in to hope to get that team to moderate, which isn't a sure thing. We don't have enough.. and getting us more would destroy the strategy so the real sol is to get d1 as an incentive huge incentive for d1 recruits. A pref. Wants to play D1...

As long as it's an effort-based system, if a D2 is the only one willing to go all out on visits and promises, why shouldn't they be in contention? This is the mindset of 2.0, where people were used to cherry-picking among certain levels of recruits. Gameplay can adjust, but expectations have to adjust along with it.

Here's how I see it.

Seble stated that it was one his goals was to encourage battling among top recruits. He said too often that the team on a recruit first gets him. I think we can all agree on this - yes?

I think what happens here is that you are discouraging battling and making coaches as risk averse as before.

If I'm D1, I'm encouraged to battle other D1 teams, right? If I'm at NC State I shouldn't just let UNC or Duke just have a recruit for no effort. That was the whole point of a lot of the changes. However, what if I lose that battle? Well I move on to a backup plan. Well let's see, this backup guy who maybe I've invested 10 APs on every cycle has a D2 team on him. I unlock all actions and a scholly offer but I'm still behind. I send in 5-10 HVs but I'm still behind. I can't send in 20 HVs because I already spent most of my money battling Duke (which the new system is encouraging me to do, right?).

So now here you are, back where you started. Teams don't want to battle anymore because losing is too risky. I have to worry about some fiddle fart D2 team who happened to pump 100 APs into a recruit for 10 cycles and built a huge lead.

This does not accomplish one of their goals of encouraging battling for top recruits.

WHY? Seriously, why does it have to be this way. Let D1 have their game. Let D2 have their game. Let D3 have their game. This is just stupid to have the system designed this way.

On the contrary, the system is very intelligent, far more than the previous one. There are many available strategies to set about recruiting players for your team. It has definitely encouraged battling among top recruits - the ones that need to be battled for - and it seems ridiculous to suggest otherwise. In practice, from what I've seen, those elite recruits are much more likely to be battled for than under 2.0.

That D2 in the example that zorzii puts forth is making a big gamble. Not only that A level teams won't prioritize and fight for him, but also that there are no B and C level D1s watching this unfold and noticing that right now The A teams have failed or neglected to put the D2 away, and there is an opportunity for D1 mid-majors to come in and snag him.

Its a matter of prioritization. You roll for the best recruits you think you have a legitimate shot at. You want to plan to win roughly half of them. You try to put together a class around them, with guys you don't necessarily want or need to fight for. But if a lower level team wants those guys, you have to be ready to move on. That's a consequence of the choice you make, and the strategy you employ. You don't get to cherry-pick, and the system isn't stupid for removing that aspect of the game. This is a commodity game. You need to fight for the best commodities you can find and afford to win. The good news is that everyone is playing in the same system, under the same rules.

Great post Shoe. Couldn't agree more.

That's true there is more battling. You got little boners like me coming in with my D- prestige and signing 4 stars.

I don't understand, my a- d2 school had 400+ ap , 20 minutes, 5 hvs and a great preferences and just got lapped by a d1 team.

I kid i kid

Posted by kcsundevil on 1/4/2017 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Recruits should be pre-interested in a few non-Sim schools appropriate to their level when recruiting starts.

This was one great missed opportunity in the 3.0 preference system.

Why, noteamguy?

Posted by Benis on 1/4/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 4:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/4/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/4/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Implementing caps on divisions effectively eliminates the concept of pull-downs. I don't think that would end up being a popular choice. Certainly doesn't add realism, if that's what bothers people about D2 occasionally beating a D1 for a recruit.

The best scenario, IMO, is that people ultimately accept that effort is part of recruiting (because most people want it that way) and adjust their gameplay *and expectations* accordingly.

Just so you know two teams, a+ and a-, are on a recruit, a legit future D1 player, but a d2 has been going all out to get him and leads now. None of these two teams can spend money ( capped by the way so no real
advantage there) if they want to be able to battle D1 schools on other prospects, so now, witty d2 teams are going on d1 options or developing d1 project. The kid has 87 ath to start.. but needs practice elsewhere.. maths don't add up. We can't battle each others and need to pour at least 50 % of what a d2 has put in to hope to get that team to moderate, which isn't a sure thing. We don't have enough.. and getting us more would destroy the strategy so the real sol is to get d1 as an incentive huge incentive for d1 recruits. A pref. Wants to play D1...

As long as it's an effort-based system, if a D2 is the only one willing to go all out on visits and promises, why shouldn't they be in contention? This is the mindset of 2.0, where people were used to cherry-picking among certain levels of recruits. Gameplay can adjust, but expectations have to adjust along with it.

Here's how I see it.

Seble stated that it was one his goals was to encourage battling among top recruits. He said too often that the team on a recruit first gets him. I think we can all agree on this - yes?

I think what happens here is that you are discouraging battling and making coaches as risk averse as before.

If I'm D1, I'm encouraged to battle other D1 teams, right? If I'm at NC State I shouldn't just let UNC or Duke just have a recruit for no effort. That was the whole point of a lot of the changes. However, what if I lose that battle? Well I move on to a backup plan. Well let's see, this backup guy who maybe I've invested 10 APs on every cycle has a D2 team on him. I unlock all actions and a scholly offer but I'm still behind. I send in 5-10 HVs but I'm still behind. I can't send in 20 HVs because I already spent most of my money battling Duke (which the new system is encouraging me to do, right?).

So now here you are, back where you started. Teams don't want to battle anymore because losing is too risky. I have to worry about some fiddle fart D2 team who happened to pump 100 APs into a recruit for 10 cycles and built a huge lead.

This does not accomplish one of their goals of encouraging battling for top recruits.

WHY? Seriously, why does it have to be this way. Let D1 have their game. Let D2 have their game. Let D3 have their game. This is just stupid to have the system designed this way.

Exactly.

Success at D1 should be hard.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2017 7:55:00 PM (view original):
Success at D1 should be hard.

Didn't you quit D1 because it was too hard? Not trying to troll you. But isn't that what happened?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2017 7:55:00 PM (view original):
Success at D1 should be hard.

It is. You should try it.

Well, that was 10 years ago but not exactly.

I didn't have the desire to fight for several more seasons to turn terrible VaTech into an ACC contender when the hot, new HBD had come out. I'm a baseball guy anyway. HBD had a much more level playing field from Day 1 and I enjoyed it more. That said, I found HBD public worlds too easy so I started two private ones and filled them with users who knew what they were doing. Because I don't like easy.

Do you think success at D1 should be easy? Because, and I'm sort of trolling you, every gripe I see is requesting some change that makes success at D1 easier.