My concern from today's DevChat is the combination of the following comments/sentiments that were expressed at various point -- 1. Teams in the lead for a recruit aren't guaranteed to sign the kid, 2. Players will sign at different points in time during the process and 3. It is recommended that players actively recruit for back-up options in the new system.

So, according to the above description, I'm going to need to recruit back-up players "just in case" I don't win the guy I'm in the lead on. But what if my backup player reaches his "signing point" faster in the process than my primary target does? Now I'm stuck with a player I only wanted as a backup simply because he reached his signing point before my primary target did -- a determination totally made by a random number generator and which I can't "speed up" or "slow down" in any capacity? Given those mechanics, I don't see how people can insulate themselves from getting players they don't necessarily want given the system as described and I see a lot of folks either getting screwed out of players they want due to backups signing earlier or being forced to take walk-ons because they hold out for a guy who winds up signing on the final window and then having no time to go back and find a backup player.

I think you would not offer a scholarship to your back up option (but they would still be either high or moderate in interest level so all you would need to do is to offer them a scholarship and they would sign instantly if you lost out on your primary recruit).

Posted by rednu on 3/4/2016 3:09:00 PM (view original):
My concern from today's DevChat is the combination of the following comments/sentiments that were expressed at various point -- 1. Teams in the lead for a recruit aren't guaranteed to sign the kid, 2. Players will sign at different points in time during the process and 3. It is recommended that players actively recruit for back-up options in the new system.

So, according to the above description, I'm going to need to recruit back-up players "just in case" I don't win the guy I'm in the lead on. But what if my backup player reaches his "signing point" faster in the process than my primary target does? Now I'm stuck with a player I only wanted as a backup simply because he reached his signing point before my primary target did -- a determination totally made by a random number generator and which I can't "speed up" or "slow down" in any capacity? Given those mechanics, I don't see how people can insulate themselves from getting players they don't necessarily want given the system as described and I see a lot of folks either getting screwed out of players they want due to backups signing earlier or being forced to take walk-ons because they hold out for a guy who winds up signing on the final window and then having no time to go back and find a backup player.

You guys are forgetting the other side to the coin. You need your targets, backups (more than just 1 backup), and REACHES. You could win your reach just as easily as you lose your target.

While you can't insulate yourself, that's a necessary evil to making it possible to steal from the rich. We want that, right?

Posted by jetwildcat on 3/4/2016 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 3/4/2016 3:09:00 PM (view original):
My concern from today's DevChat is the combination of the following comments/sentiments that were expressed at various point -- 1. Teams in the lead for a recruit aren't guaranteed to sign the kid, 2. Players will sign at different points in time during the process and 3. It is recommended that players actively recruit for back-up options in the new system.

So, according to the above description, I'm going to need to recruit back-up players "just in case" I don't win the guy I'm in the lead on. But what if my backup player reaches his "signing point" faster in the process than my primary target does? Now I'm stuck with a player I only wanted as a backup simply because he reached his signing point before my primary target did -- a determination totally made by a random number generator and which I can't "speed up" or "slow down" in any capacity? Given those mechanics, I don't see how people can insulate themselves from getting players they don't necessarily want given the system as described and I see a lot of folks either getting screwed out of players they want due to backups signing earlier or being forced to take walk-ons because they hold out for a guy who winds up signing on the final window and then having no time to go back and find a backup player.

You guys are forgetting the other side to the coin. You need your targets, backups (more than just 1 backup), and REACHES. You could win your reach just as easily as you lose your target.

While you can't insulate yourself, that's a necessary evil to making it possible to steal from the rich. We want that, right?

I'm not talking about the level of player jet. I'm talking about wanting to avoid a situation where I get my No. 4 and No. 6 options when I could have had my No. 1 and No. 2, regardless of whether they were "reaches" or not, simply because the "signing time" was randomly selected to be earlier for 4 & 6 than it was for 1 & 2. Or, worse, get no player at all. The way I'm interpreting things (which might be prone to my error in interpreting WIS) is that in the new system, I won't have the ability to prioritize my signings because I'll simultaneously have to be recruiting both my backups and my main targets, but my backups might be randomly generated with a quicker trigger to sign the letter of intent than my main targets when it comes to signing. Even worse, depending on when players are randomized to sign, there's a chance I get stuck, through no real fault of my own, with a walk-on.

The way things are right now, signings very much mirror real life with a burst of recruits committing the first signings cycle (our WIS equivalent of Signing Day) and then gradually from there with most "battles" resolved the following day and the really tight ones tapering down, much as recruits trickle in as players fall through the cracks, etc. In the current game, it presents a clear point at which to shift focus if I'm not sure I'm able to win a battle for a given player and I'm still able to cover my bases and field a competitive program.

Under the proposed system (again, as I'm interpreting what was said), a player might be pre-programmed to not sign with ANYONE until the last cycle. So now, say I'm chasing Player A and he is programmed to not sign until the last minute -- 1. I don't know this and don't see a mechanism anywhere for how I would know this other than the player just never signs and never signs (but why would I offer a scholarship to someone else...I'm in the lead for this player and I want THIS player over any other on my list), 2. if I am in the lead, I am not guaranteed to "get" him according to today's DevChat, and 3. if I lose the random number lottery for signing him, I am now stuck, through no fault of my own, taking one of the crappy Walking Dead zombies that WIS gives out as walk-ons.

I consider myself a pretty laid-back sort, but I guarantee that if/when I get stuck with a walk-on despite doing everything "right," my mind is quickly going to transition to the question of why in the hell I'm paying to play roulette here when I can find a casino where the payout for gambling is considerably higher than a mythical national championship trophy and a few bucks credit.

I think the concerns are legit. Have backups and with holding a scholarship won't work there bud. Like rednu says if his backup has a quicker trigger then, he will pick me the coach who has offered the scholarship.

Honestly, I feel like this both mirrors real life and makes for a more fun game. Don't want your backup plan to sign early? Don't offer a scholarship to your backup plan. Now if somebody tries to fight for your backup plan, you have a decision to make: do you fend them off in case you lose out on your Plan A? Or do you try to work to secure your backup plan? To me, this looks like it actually makes the game more fun.

Now, if guys automatically sign with the top school who has offered them when they hit their signing point, then that would be a problem. Somebody could go $110 special and beat you who had a lot more (but no scholly) invested. But as long as that's not the case, then I think this adds texture to the strategy, and I consider your bug to be a feature

Posted by tarvolon on 3/4/2016 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I feel like this both mirrors real life and makes for a more fun game. Don't want your backup plan to sign early? Don't offer a scholarship to your backup plan. Now if somebody tries to fight for your backup plan, you have a decision to make: do you fend them off in case you lose out on your Plan A? Or do you try to work to secure your backup plan? To me, this looks like it actually makes the game more fun.

Now, if guys automatically sign with the top school who has offered them when they hit their signing point, then that would be a problem. Somebody could go $110 special and beat you who had a lot more (but no scholly) invested. But as long as that's not the case, then I think this adds texture to the strategy, and I consider your bug to be a feature

I agree with much of what you say tarv, but where it falls apart for me is the punitive nature of playing the whole game of chicken through and potentially getting a walk on solely because of a random number generation. And even then I would be okay if walk-ons were like real life and could actually play the game they're walking on for. Some can even play well enough to earn scholarships down the road. WIS walk-ons for human coached teams, however, are designed to be penal. They suck. Really bad.

I mean, yeah, we're walking a fine line here to some decent ideas. I'm not against kids not signing with whoever is in the lead because kids do stupid stuff all the time...I can handle that as long as it doesn't get too extreme (kids routinely turning down a D1 offer to go play for a 5-22 D2 program, for instance) because kids do stupid stuff near signing day all the time. I've just play tested enough stuff that my mind immediately goes to where the system can be gamed and where things fall through the cracks. This seems like a pretty significant crevasse potentially and if we're concerned about population trends, creating a situation where paying customers do things right but get penalized in pretty much the worst way possible in the game seems a very dangerous thing to do. Like I said, I'm pretty laid back I think, but that would quickly grind my gears.

missed the chat, when does this go into effect?

Posted by tarvolon on 3/4/2016 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I feel like this both mirrors real life and makes for a more fun game. Don't want your backup plan to sign early? Don't offer a scholarship to your backup plan. Now if somebody tries to fight for your backup plan, you have a decision to make: do you fend them off in case you lose out on your Plan A? Or do you try to work to secure your backup plan? To me, this looks like it actually makes the game more fun.

Now, if guys automatically sign with the top school who has offered them when they hit their signing point, then that would be a problem. Somebody could go $110 special and beat you who had a lot more (but no scholly) invested. But as long as that's not the case, then I think this adds texture to the strategy, and I consider your bug to be a feature

Exactly. Thank you for a sensible post!

First.. You have the guy considering you and you don't offer a scholarship unless you want him to sign. Someone else might offer him and give him a scholarship. If they do then he might sign with them.

Please tell me this will be tested in a beta world

Posted by tcnelson1315 on 3/5/2016 10:13:00 PM (view original):
Please tell me this will be tested in a beta world

He said a little over a month away from beta testing. I'd put that probably ~2-3 months away maybe a month after March Madness ends?

It seems right now seble is working on fine tuning the exact recruiting numbers such as budgets and effort values.

I say six months before beta testing! And I will say again, I HATE the idea of shutting down worlds so everything kicks off at once! If you do that you need to give us a NEW ground zero World as well to satisfy the masses.

Posted by tarvolon on 3/4/2016 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I feel like this both mirrors real life and makes for a more fun game. Don't want your backup plan to sign early? Don't offer a scholarship to your backup plan. Now if somebody tries to fight for your backup plan, you have a decision to make: do you fend them off in case you lose out on your Plan A? Or do you try to work to secure your backup plan? To me, this looks like it actually makes the game more fun.

Now, if guys automatically sign with the top school who has offered them when they hit their signing point, then that would be a problem. Somebody could go $110 special and beat you who had a lot more (but no scholly) invested. But as long as that's not the case, then I think this adds texture to the strategy, and I consider your bug to be a feature

This.

Posted by the0nlyis on 3/5/2016 11:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tcnelson1315 on 3/5/2016 10:13:00 PM (view original):
Please tell me this will be tested in a beta world

He said a little over a month away from beta testing. I'd put that probably ~2-3 months away maybe a month after March Madness ends?

It seems right now seble is working on fine tuning the exact recruiting numbers such as budgets and effort values.

Ha....didn't even take March Madness into consideration.

If he keeps his timeline he's going to go to beta towards the end of NCAA tourney, which is the same time frame free seasons will be offered to attract new players. So a new player could come in, play a season (or 2 if it's a 2x/day world), then need to wait a month (while the game is on hold for the update to take effect), then have to learn a whole new game. This seems like a marketing101 fail.