I am all for making the game better but not sure if this is it.
I will go into this with an open mind but have huge fears and surely Seble will NOT rush this. I think this needs beta tested for several months and feed back given and that feedback actually taken into consideration. There should not be a time table set on this...beta test as long as you have to to get it right and if it doesn't work as intended then trash it DON"T shove it down our throat and tell us we have to. I'm a D2 & D3 guy and I do like how recruiting is but will try this and who knows maybe it can work. I can see this needing to maybe run several cycles before a lot of the legitimate feedback can be given too because not all recruiting sessions are all alike. Unfortunately even if this turns out to be great it will drive some coaches away...not everyone will beta test and those who don't will possibly be handicapped a few seasons by those that do and that alone is going to **** people off. I enjoy this game a lot and I'm not against change as I want the game to be better and it can be....so much better! I also don't want this game to be time sensitive...Like I was able to scoop up a couple studs during the season from my d3 school now because the d2/d1 coach in that area left for vacation or had a RL emergency causing him to miss two days of the first recruiting cycle. Also if we can recruit anybody and I have 6 open schollies on my d2 and d3 teams in their respective worlds and a lot of the d1 schools don't show that many openings because of E/E's am I actually going to be able to grab some "super studs"!

Posted by dacj501 on 3/4/2016 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/4/2016 4:56:00 PM (view original):

i think the first half of your points actually agree with me? not sure, but ill respond to one of the devil's advocates one.

the thing about luck... yes, its worse for top coaches. i obviously agree, you could probably find 100 posts where i talk about in team setup and game planning, how volatility is enemy #1 for top teams. of course top teams seek to minimize the impact luck has on their outcomes. but, that doesn't mean luck is good for the masses.

look at the history of luck-driven events in this game. dilemmas - massive disaster (granted, for a myriad of reasons). EEs - people have complained about the luck without pause for 10+ years. injuries - they've been toned down to a cat's meow of what they once were, due to complaints about luck. hell, even the sim engine gets complaints, about the outlier results. its enough that seble introduced feedback, to reduce very unlikely scenarios from taking place.

the history is clear - the kinds of coaches that play HD, don't want their success and failure predicated on events that are largely RNG driven. its almost paradoxical, given the underlying nature of any simulation is repeated coin flipping. but, it is what it is. making it so a guy can spend 10,000 on a player, and another guy can spend 50,000 (using the same 5:1 ratio from the dev chat), and the 10K guy still has a non-0 chance of winning - that will never fly with this crowd. it doesn't matter if you are a+ or d+, that would drive just about anyone bat **** crazy. leveling the playing field shouldn't be about randomly screwing people over hard enough that nobody can really get ahead. it should be organic. before seble wrecked recruit gen, mid majors were very successful in d1, way more than in real life, that was the least of anyone's worries. the complaints came from the other side. introducing luck-driven equalizers is not the answer.

i agree that if one guy spends 49K, and the other spends 50K, it should not be a 0/100% chance of winning, respectively (assuming those are effort points, adjusted for prestige and all). from the minute seble announced signings would have a random element, it was condemned, and i immediately supported it. i think its crazy a guy spends 1 dollar more on a tens of thousands of dollars scale, and wins 100%. but, its even more crazy for a guy to outspend another 5:1 and potentially be able to lose. this isn't real life where you have many targets and can run 6-7 men. so, if a battle is close, give the underdog a chance, and if the battle isn't close, don't. i honestly thought that would be intuitively obvious to everybody, i am genuinely somewhat stunned seble came out and said a 5:1 battle could go to the 1 guy...

If in a 50k:10k battle you give the 1 guy 0% chance of winning, he has wasted that 10k. Most likely, for the 10k guy, that 10k is a pretty high % of his budget, too. Now, 10k guys has nothing for it.

If you are spreading the odds roughly proportionally to all contributors, you are ensuring that every dollar spent has value. you're getting balls in a lottery, which is at least SOMETHING, even if it doesn't materialize into a player.

They key is: you need to spread your odds out among multiple players. NEED to. Want 1 recruit? get your odds on the good enough players to add up, and you'll be fine in the long run. Better than trying to get one guy under the current system, having someone come over top, and you losing everything you've put in. The beauty of an odds system is that, over the long haul, it all balances out. All-pay auctions, on the other hand, do not.

You didn't touch on my other point. There's a survivor's bias here. This 'crowd' are the 'haves' that had enough success to keep playing the game.

There's nobody on here like "this game isn't fun, i'm getting my *** kicked, i'm gonna stop playing...but i will continue to post on the forums all the time and participate in dev chats to get the game better. because if the game is better, i'll play again.

"Haves" always care more about keeping what's theirs than about gaining something new. It's like the freakanomics Duke basketball ticket example. You can't break the A+ dynasties up without risking the C-schools taking some back from the B's.

The system you describe previously, where mid-majors were competitive...they were competitive by complete accident. The ratings system was broken. It's like the texas sharpshooter fallacy - you can't look at something you did in the past, pick a bullet hole, draw a target around it, and call yourself a sharpshooter. The ratings system needed an update, and so did recruiting, and so did many other aspects of the game. Continuous improvement is what we need here. Old system balanced mid majors? fuckin wonderful, chalk it up, we can do better.

If someone feels like all the effort they've put into the game is about to be taken away by the intro of random chance...consider them the B+ school that dumped 40k on a recruit named HD where an A+ is about to swoop in...

(the analogy needs work but i think there's something profound there)

I am both a have and a have not. My MSU team is doing great, and I am against a number of these proposals for reasons that may affect them going forward.

That doesn't magically give me a direct line to BCS gigs in Tark and Phelan, where I am having to start in D2 to try to build back up there, the same as everyone else does. I am not enthused about other aspects of this proposal as it relates to my D2 teams and my rebuilds, since nothing about jobs is included.

I am both a have and a have not and neither fact is unduly influencing my POV. I don't believe these changes are necessary to make the game much better than it currently is. I believe these changes have a great possibility of making the game worse than it currently is, for both my A+ team and my stepping stone teams.

I, and presumably most other posters, are not so shallow that we cannot or will not honestly evaluate the proposals at hand in the interests of this game that we've obviously spent a good deal of time on, based on how we think it will impact the game as a whole.

I sort of get offended when posts like yours either explicitly or implicitly assume that only our personal self-interest drives our positions. Or mine at least - I won't presume to speak for anyone else.

Not saying you, or anyone else, is incapable of evaluating from all perspectives - i'm just saying that most people are not. There's an undeniable zeitgeist here that is resistant to these changes. Which is ridiculous, when you think about it. The game was initially perfect and is getting worse with every update? Of course not. Then why are all changes seen as a negative?

It's not "wrong" to value something you have more than something you don't, either. The point of the Duke study I reference is not to say Duke students are idiots, it's to point out an aspect of human nature that isn't necessarily intuitive.

Posted by jsajsa on 3/4/2016 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/4/2016 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jsajsa on 3/4/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):
I got about half way through the dev chat and am now pausing out of frustration (to post here and hopefully pick up where I left off later).

I really hate where this is going. Seble, please let me do the beta because it would be nice to be proven wrong and stick around but I'm just so disinterested in this point. How about starting with maybe the dumbest idea I have ever seen put forth here, with the only real competition being those short lived behavioral problem players:

"The leading team doesn't always sign the recruit" is a stupid stupid stupid implementation. Which leads to another quote that I hate: "but there will be a bit of luck involved." Where did we lose sight of this being a game? The game is suppose to be as realistic as possible within the confines of a game, not to try to exactly mimic real life. I don't see the enjoyment of this at all. I want to be able to trust the game, not rely on the whims of imaginary players with imaginary mood swings.

As has been discussed ad nauseum around here, there are major major issues with DI that simply aren't issues at the lower levels. Yet the issues of DI still aren't being addressed since recruit generation is not being addressed. Maybe that won't be an issue anymore after the update but I don't really want to dwell on this since I don't play DI anyway.

Still hate the idea of in season recruiting. A game, not real life...

I hope the beta proves me wrong

i hate the idea of recruiting every 3-6 hours for 2-4 days straight, but everyone that agrees with me already quit.

Thank you for that intelligent response. You don't have to agree with me, but childish responses are not welcome.

I think he was just saying not everybody likes recruiting how it currently is... time commitment at least. Myself, I like the 3 hour cycles. But I will probably also like the in-season recruiting. lol. I just hope I can pace myself and not spend my budget like crazy early!

I got it, just misread it the first time. I really like having it separate so that during the season I am focused on the season and during recruiting I am focused on recruiting. I don't want recruiting to overshadow what's supposed to be the goal which is to actually win the games.

Posted by jsajsa on 3/4/2016 5:25:00 PM (view original):
I got it, just misread it the first time. I really like having it separate so that during the season I am focused on the season and during recruiting I am focused on recruiting. I don't want recruiting to overshadow what's supposed to be the goal which is to actually win the games.

Yeah I like seperation as well as the idea of in-season. The thing that cracks me up is my dad, brother, uncle, cousin, and myself are all playing and during recruiting we are just trying to one up the next guy. The problem I have with it seperated.... is that during the season I just have nothing to do. I am addicted to this game, lol, so having something during the season is personally going to help me.

Posted by jaymc2007 on 3/4/2016 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jsajsa on 3/4/2016 5:25:00 PM (view original):
I got it, just misread it the first time. I really like having it separate so that during the season I am focused on the season and during recruiting I am focused on recruiting. I don't want recruiting to overshadow what's supposed to be the goal which is to actually win the games.

Yeah I like seperation as well as the idea of in-season. The thing that cracks me up is my dad, brother, uncle, cousin, and myself are all playing and during recruiting we are just trying to one up the next guy. The problem I have with it seperated.... is that during the season I just have nothing to do. I am addicted to this game, lol, so having something during the season is personally going to help me.

I think having something to do is going to help keep new coaches. Keep them engaged throughout the season.

Also, something to do when in the middle of a ****** rebuild!

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/4/2016 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 3/4/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I swear I'm like the only forum semi-regular who doesn't think these changes are a disaster. Maybe because I haven't lived through a major update before. I hope that some of the concerns will come out in testing and will get tweaked. By I really, really like the idea of adding some randomness so that it isn't just "spoils to the biggest budget." I also like the concept of changing the recruiting timeline and of camps.

The biggest concerns I have are (1) If grades are A-F and aren't division-relative, they're going to be useless as hell, and (2) I'm fine with the schools with EEs having some uncertainty as to who they'll need before the 2nd recruiting period (this is 100% realistic, and they'll have the big board as a guide), but they are going to need some sort of budget bonus to allow them to recruit in the first period (even if they can't actually sign some of the guys until the 2nd period)

i like some stuff, attention points and camps and all could be interesting. its really the balance of the game i am worried about, seble is so casually ready to rip bonus money out of d2/d3 (although he is now undecided), pulldowns/dropdowns are gone, who knows what will be left. at one point, i was excited about the possibilities, but the more seble talked, the more worried i got - because the change is just so massive in scope.

It seems a little strange for him to be this far along in the update and not have made a decision about bonus money or any comment about it. Its inclusion or exclusion and size relative to the other recruiting factors will have a major impact on the update.

Posted by taggl on 3/4/2016 5:14:00 PM (view original):
I am all for making the game better but not sure if this is it.
I will go into this with an open mind but have huge fears and surely Seble will NOT rush this. I think this needs beta tested for several months and feed back given and that feedback actually taken into consideration. There should not be a time table set on this...beta test as long as you have to to get it right and if it doesn't work as intended then trash it DON"T shove it down our throat and tell us we have to. I'm a D2 & D3 guy and I do like how recruiting is but will try this and who knows maybe it can work. I can see this needing to maybe run several cycles before a lot of the legitimate feedback can be given too because not all recruiting sessions are all alike. Unfortunately even if this turns out to be great it will drive some coaches away...not everyone will beta test and those who don't will possibly be handicapped a few seasons by those that do and that alone is going to **** people off. I enjoy this game a lot and I'm not against change as I want the game to be better and it can be....so much better! I also don't want this game to be time sensitive...Like I was able to scoop up a couple studs during the season from my d3 school now because the d2/d1 coach in that area left for vacation or had a RL emergency causing him to miss two days of the first recruiting cycle. Also if we can recruit anybody and I have 6 open schollies on my d2 and d3 teams in their respective worlds and a lot of the d1 schools don't show that many openings because of E/E's am I actually going to be able to grab some "super studs"!

I agree. I like most of seble's ideas. In addition, there is a chance that these recruiting changes could help build interest. But if it's rushed, it's more than likely going to be a bug-filled failure (judging by past HD experiences).
I am one that likes the idea of one that spends less having a chance to win a recruit. I do think that could help mid-majors a bit, helping to make D1 more competitive.

I am concerned with a lot of old-heads leaving without trying out the new updates, and FOX not making efforts to fill the game up. More than anything, this game needs more humans. The proposed updates don't bother me at all (and I actually like quite a few of them), but they also don't feel super-necessary. If the changes drive more people away than they bring in, then it's not worth it IMO.

Posted by johnsensing on 3/4/2016 3:37:00 PM (view original):
This strikes me as cutting off a leg when the patient only has a stubbed toe. If recruit gen is fixed, and jobs at high DI are fixed (so that A+ schools are firing people if the coach doesn't hit a high level of baseline success w/in 3 or 4 seasons), I think 90% of people's problems go away. I hate, hate, hate the idea of randomness in recruiting -- there's enough randomness in the game already. Hopefully I am wrong, but every time I read about these updates, I get a sinking feeling....

100% agree with every word in this post.

I just wish the developers would have listened.....there is zero chance they swallow their pride now and scrap whatever they have already started to work on the real minor changes that the game needs.

Posted by the0nlyis on 3/4/2016 11:06:00 AM (view original):

We don't have any plans to open new worlds. At this point, our focus is improving the game and bringing in people to fill up the current worlds.

Yay my question got mentioned

My two cents:

The more things that are determined by "luck," the fewer things that are determined by "being good." In all things in life, all any person strives for is control. Every advance in the world -- be it sports, technology, culture, everything -- is created to decrease the role of luck in our daily lives.

We don't think about it, but we abhor the concept of luck. Yes, we enjoy when we get lucky. But we hate being unlucky. The magnitude of crushing disappointment associated with being unlucky far outweighs the magnitude of joy at being lucky. Therefore, adding luck to a game where it's not necessary will only continue to create over time a greater amount of negative feeling than positive feeling.

Life is hard enough. People play a game because they would like one place in their life where their hard work and intelligence nets a proportionally large reward. Not because they want yet something else besides their job, marriage, kids, other people's kids, world events, politics, the weather, the economy, etc that's left to the winds of chance.

There's a reason we're basketball fans, and not fans of the National Coin Flip League.

Any time you add luck where it's not necessary is a bad idea.

Posted by bakerbarnett on 3/4/2016 6:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/4/2016 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 3/4/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I swear I'm like the only forum semi-regular who doesn't think these changes are a disaster. Maybe because I haven't lived through a major update before. I hope that some of the concerns will come out in testing and will get tweaked. By I really, really like the idea of adding some randomness so that it isn't just "spoils to the biggest budget." I also like the concept of changing the recruiting timeline and of camps.

The biggest concerns I have are (1) If grades are A-F and aren't division-relative, they're going to be useless as hell, and (2) I'm fine with the schools with EEs having some uncertainty as to who they'll need before the 2nd recruiting period (this is 100% realistic, and they'll have the big board as a guide), but they are going to need some sort of budget bonus to allow them to recruit in the first period (even if they can't actually sign some of the guys until the 2nd period)

i like some stuff, attention points and camps and all could be interesting. its really the balance of the game i am worried about, seble is so casually ready to rip bonus money out of d2/d3 (although he is now undecided), pulldowns/dropdowns are gone, who knows what will be left. at one point, i was excited about the possibilities, but the more seble talked, the more worried i got - because the change is just so massive in scope.

It seems a little strange for him to be this far along in the update and not have made a decision about bonus money or any comment about it. Its inclusion or exclusion and size relative to the other recruiting factors will have a major impact on the update.

Perhaps how thing has an impact on things liek that?
s

Posted by jeffdrayer on 3/4/2016 8:48:00 PM (view original):
My two cents:

The more things that are determined by "luck," the fewer things that are determined by "being good." In all things in life, all any person strives for is control. Every advance in the world -- be it sports, technology, culture, everything -- is created to decrease the role of luck in our daily lives.

We don't think about it, but we abhor the concept of luck. Yes, we enjoy when we get lucky. But we hate being unlucky. The magnitude of crushing disappointment associated with being unlucky far outweighs the magnitude of joy at being lucky. Therefore, adding luck to a game where it's not necessary will only continue to create over time a greater amount of negative feeling than positive feeling.

Life is hard enough. People play a game because they would like one place in their life where their hard work and intelligence nets a proportionally large reward. Not because they want yet something else besides their job, marriage, kids, other people's kids, world events, politics, the weather, the economy, etc that's left to the winds of chance.

There's a reason we're basketball fans, and not fans of the National Coin Flip League.

Any time you add luck where it's not necessary is a bad idea.

Exactly. Well said, jeff.

I just sat here and read all seven pages of this thread. Here's all I have:

1. Splitting recruiting is good.

2. Adding luck to recruiting is bad -- potentially really bad.

3. The downtime, however long it will be, is bad -- potentially really bad; Four to eight weeks without a game, as said many times here, will kill the game population.

4. I'm reserving total judgement until after I see how all these words look in action, but my initial response is somewhat negative.

Posted by jeffdrayer on 3/4/2016 8:48:00 PM (view original):
My two cents:

The more things that are determined by "luck," the fewer things that are determined by "being good." In all things in life, all any person strives for is control. Every advance in the world -- be it sports, technology, culture, everything -- is created to decrease the role of luck in our daily lives.

We don't think about it, but we abhor the concept of luck. Yes, we enjoy when we get lucky. But we hate being unlucky. The magnitude of crushing disappointment associated with being unlucky far outweighs the magnitude of joy at being lucky. Therefore, adding luck to a game where it's not necessary will only continue to create over time a greater amount of negative feeling than positive feeling.

Life is hard enough. People play a game because they would like one place in their life where their hard work and intelligence nets a proportionally large reward. Not because they want yet something else besides their job, marriage, kids, other people's kids, world events, politics, the weather, the economy, etc that's left to the winds of chance.

There's a reason we're basketball fans, and not fans of the National Coin Flip League.

Any time you add luck where it's not necessary is a bad idea.

"Luck" is the only way for a simulation to implement variance...at least without implementing some crazy cellular automata-type system.

As basketball fans, if we knew the better team was going to win 100% of the time, we wouldn't watch. There is variance involved. How else could you explain why player's don't 'always make' or 'always miss' free throws?

Managing luck involves MORE skill than managing certainties.

Without some level of luck, most of us would never have even a chance at winning a national title in HD. No suspense. No excitement.

I'm not necessarily arguing that more luck is always better. I'm saying it, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Like a dressing on your salad. Boring without it, a soup with too much.