Posted by plague on 6/2/2013 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 6/2/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
I have no problem making promises worth more, but I think it should be tied to other recruiting efforts. I don't like the notion that a promise all by itself can be a magic bullet to overwhelm everything else. That's too cheap and easy. Make promises a multiplier to other recruiting efforts. That way promises are worth much more than they are now, but you still have to heavily recruit the player by other means.

Not a big fan of some of the other ideas being thrown around... action limits, increasing considering credit, etc. Recruiting is already heavily tilted against people who miss the first cycle or first day of recruiting. These ideas would only amplify that. Recruiting strategy is predicated on who to recruit and when to recruit them. It seems a lot of people want to try and minimize or eliminate the latter component, and force recruiting to be done mostly upfront. Anything that serves to limit one's options as recruiting progresses is a step in the wrong direction, IMO.

I have not noticed that missing the first cycle or first day is a detriment to recruiting. Is this true?  I just gave up on a battle to a coach who did not recruit until the cycle of signings, he signed both his recruits by jumping on the cycle before signings of teams with much lower prestige than him. I am not complaining what the person did and after reading his conference corner it appears that was his strategy, I am just saying it does not appear to be a negative.

Posted by mamxet on 6/1/2013 6:51:00 PM (view original):
a per cycle cap addresses this - so long as one can pre-load recruiting action in advance for upcoming cycles

Posted by emy1013 on 6/1/2013 1:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 5/31/2013 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/31/2013 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Probably not, but under your system a B+ will never get a top 10 recruit at his position.  Just won't happen.

unless that recruit's favorite school was the B+. maybe one out of every 10 recruits in the 6-10 range go to a B+.

as it is, for a B+ with 6 open scholarships to land a top 10 they need to get really lucky and ignore their other 5 openings.

Totally 100% disagree with the last line.  I'm sorry, but if that's what it's taking, someone isn't doing something right.

maybe i'm exaggerating a bit by saying "ignore" but you need to appear strong enough to potential challengers so that no bigger school decides it's worth it to swoop in. even then, you might get challenged anyway, in which case if you still try to land the top-10 you will both be weaker and appear weaker to potential challengers to your other recruits.

Posted by stinenavy on 6/3/2013 1:06:00 AM (view original):
I think the idea is you can set it in advance. So you can say at 7:00 PM what you want to happen at the 2:00 AM cycle.

Posted by plague on 6/3/2013 5:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 6/3/2013 1:06:00 AM (view original):
I think the idea is you can set it in advance. So you can say at 7:00 PM what you want to happen at the 2:00 AM cycle.

Advanced settings was asked in GD one time and the response was that advanced settings could not be programmed into the game.

Posted by metsmax on 6/3/2013 9:22:00 AM (view original):
The most glaring need for advance loading of recruiting moves is the first cycle.  It is silly that it is a two hour window.  One should be able to "load" that effort during a big chunk of hours prior to the start of recruiting.  (Yes, one would not know what SIMs are doing - so it goes.)

AND, beyond the first cycle the ability to pre-load would be among the most user friendly things WIS could do.  Now, that matters ONLY if they want to enhance the user experience, make playing more comfortable etc.