Posted by johnsensing on 11/27/2016 7:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 11/27/2016 12:57:00 PM (view original):
*Limit to 1 early entry per team per season or have NBA draft before the start of period one, assuming there are no obstacles and doesn't interfere with the game in any other manner.
*Open scouting for all undecided players to Level 4 of last 1 or 2 cycles of period 2
*Keep D-1, D-2, D-3 recruiting separate. Generate some better recruits in each division as needed.
*Eliminate the randomness that goes with winning a recruit. If someone gets to 51% recruiting effort the recruit is theirs.

I figured this would eliminate a lot of the frustrations that coaches have. I'm not sure if it's possible to have the NBA draft before the start of period 1 without any direct or indirect impact on the game. By opening scouting to level 4 on the last two cycles, you're allowing teams that lost battles during recruiting to potentially find that "diamond in the rough". Also, I think the divisions should be kept separate when recruiting, just seems another added frustration for coaches. D-1 can't recruit D-2 players and vice versa. Generate more and better players at D-2 and D-3 to keep them happy and diminish the frustration of D-1 coaches losing battles to D-2 teams.

Lastly, I think the randomness that comes with recruiting absolutely needs to go. Feel free to add your thoughts.

I hate the randomness too (or probabilities, if that word works better for others), wiz, but I think that ship has sailed. That's the "#1" feature of 3.0, as opposed to a bug. I think announcing EEs earlier is a partial fix, but I am going to die in recruiting at LSU in Knight, even if I had that partial fix, because I had 4 EEs with no seniors. With 20 APs through the 1st recruiting period, I'm in just too deep a hole -- best case scenario, I sign two serviceable players, and that is the very best case, because I'm in such an AP hole compared to other players. I think lessening the "value" of APs would fix part of that problem, to the point that if I'm after an elite "late" recruit, I've at least got a chance.

I was thinking award the extra APs as each EE is drafted and you could still do this before the first recruiting period. Therefore, if you had 4 EEs and 0 seniors, then you would be given 100 APs. Just not sure if there is an issue on WIS' end with programming a player getting drafted while still being allowed to play on the team for the remainder of the season. Unless anyone else can think of anything, this would appear to be a simple solution for EEs

Posted by thewizard17 on 11/29/2016 6:10:00 PM (view original):
There are a lot of features I like about the game. However, the one thing I do find frustrating is the inability to view all the recruits or at least a good percentage of them. Even with 6 open schollies at D-1 I can only view about 1/3 of them at level 4. At 2.0 you had the option to view all of them with the scouting service.

If you could view all recruits to level 4 then it basically makes scouting pointless. I think there are a lot of new strategies now with the way scouting is.

I think the idea of not being able to see everyone is a decent idea. It allows for more 'finding diamonds in the rough'. Meaning, not everyone will see that guy that you might find - esp at D3.

At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

What about the imbalance at D3 then?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

You most definitely have a point. I don't disagree with this. However, a simple solution would be to make the "elite players" not so "elite". I've seen some elite post players at D-1 with ballhandling/pass ratings in the 70s and 80s. I think you could still market the product with success and keep the coaches at elite D-1 schools satisfied. There has to be a happy-medium between both the elite and not so elite teams. My team isn't at that point yet and I'm trying to be impartial on this subject, but let's be honest, the elite schools are totally getting screwed.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 11/29/2016 6:10:00 PM (view original):
There are a lot of features I like about the game. However, the one thing I do find frustrating is the inability to view all the recruits or at least a good percentage of them. Even with 6 open schollies at D-1 I can only view about 1/3 of them at level 4. At 2.0 you had the option to view all of them with the scouting service.

If you could view all recruits to level 4 then it basically makes scouting pointless. I think there are a lot of new strategies now with the way scouting is.

I think the idea of not being able to see everyone is a decent idea. It allows for more 'finding diamonds in the rough'. Meaning, not everyone will see that guy that you might find - esp at D3.

I do agree on the point that it's more strategic from a scouting and recruiting standpoint. It's just a personal preference of mine to view all of the recruits. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong. It's possible I'm in the minority.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 11/29/2016 6:10:00 PM (view original):
There are a lot of features I like about the game. However, the one thing I do find frustrating is the inability to view all the recruits or at least a good percentage of them. Even with 6 open schollies at D-1 I can only view about 1/3 of them at level 4. At 2.0 you had the option to view all of them with the scouting service.

If you could view all recruits to level 4 then it basically makes scouting pointless. I think there are a lot of new strategies now with the way scouting is.

I think the idea of not being able to see everyone is a decent idea. It allows for more 'finding diamonds in the rough'. Meaning, not everyone will see that guy that you might find - esp at D3.

I enjoy the idea of discovering a player and not being able to see all the recruits. I just hate having to go through 4 levels of scouting to do it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

I don't think most are mad that it would be harder to be at the top, but most don't like the idea of being punished for actually being good at the game. Sure that looks nice to a new guy who might stay for a couple seasons before he's bored and leaves, but it serves the opposite effect for retention of guys who might stay years.

I also don't understand why people think purging the game of the good users helps, because they are not paying. They seem to forget that someone is still going to get those free credits. There will just be less paying customers in the end.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

What about the imbalance at D3 then?

I was told you could move to D2 regardless of success. Of course, imbalance might be found there too.

But, in my opinion, the vast majority of people join to coach at D1. At schools they see in March. Coaching at W Conn St is just something you have to do to move up.

"I don't think most are mad that it would be harder to be at the top, but most don't like the idea of being punished for actually being good at the game."

Aw, c'mon, man. I think everybody who has looked at it with open eyes realizes that the conclusion of an advantage (NBA-worthy players on your roster) does not constitute punishment. The false idea that the conclusion of an advantage is somehow "punishment" is really getting threadbare.

Posted by thewizard17 on 11/29/2016 6:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

You most definitely have a point. I don't disagree with this. However, a simple solution would be to make the "elite players" not so "elite". I've seen some elite post players at D-1 with ballhandling/pass ratings in the 70s and 80s. I think you could still market the product with success and keep the coaches at elite D-1 schools satisfied. There has to be a happy-medium between both the elite and not so elite teams. My team isn't at that point yet and I'm trying to be impartial on this subject, but let's be honest, the elite schools are totally getting screwed.

The way the game was set up and the way it's set up now does screw them. But, again, if you regularly have 4-5 EE, your team is too good.

I'm not saying this way is the best way to level the field. I'm just saying the field had to be leveled in order to market it.

Posted by poncho0091 on 11/29/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

I don't think most are mad that it would be harder to be at the top, but most don't like the idea of being punished for actually being good at the game. Sure that looks nice to a new guy who might stay for a couple seasons before he's bored and leaves, but it serves the opposite effect for retention of guys who might stay years.

I also don't understand why people think purging the game of the good users helps, because they are not paying. They seem to forget that someone is still going to get those free credits. There will just be less paying customers in the end.

Punished seems harsh. The game evolved to level the playing field. The top coaches that stick around will be the top coaches. They'll just have to achieve it differently.

Non-paying customers aren't really customers. No one opens a coffee shop and gives away coffee. New users will have a learning curve. SIMAI will win more games. And then, maybe, another changes is made when the new customers stop being paying customers.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

What about the imbalance at D3 then?

I was told you could move to D2 regardless of success. Of course, imbalance might be found there too.

But, in my opinion, the vast majority of people join to coach at D1. At schools they see in March. Coaching at W Conn St is just something you have to do to move up.

And the same imbalance for brand new coaches is there at D2. If you move to D2 in your 2nd season of HD, you are at a ddisadvantage.

how many seasons are new coaches going to struggle through in order to get to a place where they are going to be competitive and have fun winning. moving up is just slowing down the process due to the changes that have been made.

Someone mentioned before that making D1 fun should be top priority. I disagree. For the sake of the game, making D3 fun for noobs should be top priority. The changes that were made make it even worse for new coaches and easier for the incumbent elite coaches.

Sure, they can rush up to D2 and lose a bunch then up to D1 where they can lose a bunch more. I know mike really thinks thats what new coaches want but really? Spend literally one year of their life with a hobby where theyre losing over and over and over until they finally start having fun? really? does that make sense to anyone?

I agree that the EE thing is a problem but no one seems concerned at all about new user retention.

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 9:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/29/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/29/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being chastised by sweetpapadad and vandydave, the game isn't marketable to the public when all the power sits with a handful of teams. If you have 5 EE, your team is too good. You can say "Well, that's not my fault" and it isn't but you can't sell the game to new users under those circumstances. My expectations is that teams will stop having 4-5 soon enough. The talent will be better distributed and the game, overall, will be better. And I fully understand that it will suck for those used to being at the top and battling each other.

I mentioned this before and the thread died immediately but this might just be a purge. I've seen posts stating "I haven't bought a team in years" and even more "I'll play out my credits and leave." Having customers who don't pay is a poor business model. Level the playing field, **** off a group that doesn't buy teams and start with fresh group who actually spend money. That seems more profitable.

What about the imbalance at D3 then?

I was told you could move to D2 regardless of success. Of course, imbalance might be found there too.

But, in my opinion, the vast majority of people join to coach at D1. At schools they see in March. Coaching at W Conn St is just something you have to do to move up.

And the same imbalance for brand new coaches is there at D2. If you move to D2 in your 2nd season of HD, you are at a ddisadvantage.

how many seasons are new coaches going to struggle through in order to get to a place where they are going to be competitive and have fun winning. moving up is just slowing down the process due to the changes that have been made.

That imbalance has always existed at D3 and (to a lesser extent) D2. And as long as the game allows veteran coaches to park in the division that new players must start with, it always will. I know you suspect the imbalance will get worse. I suspect it won't. It's way too early to say which of us has it right.