Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/25/2012 8:08:00 PM (view original):
I personally think players should care about Big prestige/low playing time VS. lower prestige/high playing time. But I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to get at.     

Posted by mullycj on 6/25/2012 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bullman17 on 6/25/2012 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryrun on 6/25/2012 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Most of what you stated about player improvement is incorrect (or, to be more accurate, what you're asking for is already implemented).  Number of minutes played is a factor in improvement rate, along with WE and practice minutes (and perhaps HS GPA, though that may only impact IQ improvement if I remember correctly).

If player A and B have the same potential, work ethic and practice minutes and player A gets 3 min/game while player B gets 20 min/game, player B will improve at a considerably faster rate.  This is why, if you have a very young team, it's usually best to just take your licks and get your younger players the playing time as it will speed up their improvement.

Do you think that the improvement rate is dramatic enough?  My thought is that there ought to be a pretty significant bump once a player starts to play regularly in addition to the regular, more linear way that a player improves.  In my experience, it seems that most players will make a pretty significant jump in effectiveness once they have adjusted to the speed of the game.  Practice and work ethic are still real important, I am just wondering if the improvement based on actual gametime experience is given enough weight.

Yes it is.  Take FR 2 players with the same WE.  Have one play 20 mins/game and give the other a RS and you will see how much the difference is.

Posted by bullman17 on 6/25/2012 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/25/2012 8:08:00 PM (view original):
I personally think players should care about Big prestige/low playing time VS. lower prestige/high playing time. But I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to get at.     

In my ideal universe, prestige, playing time, distance from home, facilities, coaching style, and probably a few other things would affect where a recruit decides to go with each recruit having a different set of priorities. You would still have a budget that you would need to allocate wisely, but you would spread your recruiting net more widely and would not be able to win a recruiting battle by pouring more resources into a player than the other guy. Ultimately, if multiple teams were to go all out on a guy, he would choose using the best fit based upon what his priorities are. The challenge in recruiting would be to determine what the recruit is looking for and if that is a fit with your school versus the other schools he is looking at.

That's just me, though, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat. I think the recruiting aspect is still going to be enjoyable and plenty challenging.

How would you implement facilities or coaching style into the game?  In particular, how would you do it without creating inherent disadvantages for new coaches?  I've heard suggestions in the past that you be allowed to spend some of your budget on improving your facilities, typically with lists of things from coaches more used to playing basketball video games and wanting gameplay here to sync up better with that experience.  The reality is that in an ongoing, paid game it's bad business to give established coaches additional advantages beyond the already-inherent prestige advantage associated with having a program with at least a recent history of success.

Posted by usc4life on 6/25/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting effort in a nutshell:
Team A is 50 miles from player, spends $300 on a HV
Team B is 500 miles from player, spends $800 on a HV
Both teams put in the same amount of recruiting effort (one HV), but one spent more money to do so.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/25/2012 9:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bullman17 on 6/25/2012 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/25/2012 8:08:00 PM (view original):
I personally think players should care about Big prestige/low playing time VS. lower prestige/high playing time. But I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to get at.     

In my ideal universe, prestige, playing time, distance from home, facilities, coaching style, and probably a few other things would affect where a recruit decides to go with each recruit having a different set of priorities. You would still have a budget that you would need to allocate wisely, but you would spread your recruiting net more widely and would not be able to win a recruiting battle by pouring more resources into a player than the other guy. Ultimately, if multiple teams were to go all out on a guy, he would choose using the best fit based upon what his priorities are. The challenge in recruiting would be to determine what the recruit is looking for and if that is a fit with your school versus the other schools he is looking at.

That's just me, though, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat. I think the recruiting aspect is still going to be enjoyable and plenty challenging.

How would you implement facilities or coaching style into the game?  In particular, how would you do it without creating inherent disadvantages for new coaches?  I've heard suggestions in the past that you be allowed to spend some of your budget on improving your facilities, typically with lists of things from coaches more used to playing basketball video games and wanting gameplay here to sync up better with that experience.  The reality is that in an ongoing, paid game it's bad business to give established coaches additional advantages beyond the already-inherent prestige advantage associated with having a program with at least a recent history of success.

Posted by tbird9423 on 6/25/2012 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usc4life on 6/25/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting effort in a nutshell:
Team A is 50 miles from player, spends $300 on a HV
Team B is 500 miles from player, spends $800 on a HV
Both teams put in the same amount of recruiting effort (one HV), but one spent more money to do so.

Hey there-- Is it a coincidence that I notice my own recruits sign with me often after a "benchmark" dollar amount has been reached?  Ie-- I spend 4800 on the guy and he is on the fence and when I spend over 5k, he signs.  That would seem to go against what I have read and I know that distance plays a major factor, but I am wondering if the "signing" equation doesn't also include some kind of "amount spent" variable?  If it does, which I am pretty convinced of, Team B actually put in more effort (per my assumed formula) but I imagine that the locality variable outweighs that in this example.  Anyone else notice or think that money spent might play a larger role than often suggested?

Posted by tbird9423 on 6/25/2012 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usc4life on 6/25/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting effort in a nutshell:
Team A is 50 miles from player, spends $300 on a HV
Team B is 500 miles from player, spends $800 on a HV
Both teams put in the same amount of recruiting effort (one HV), but one spent more money to do so.

Hey there-- Is it a coincidence that I notice my own recruits sign with me often after a "benchmark" dollar amount has been reached?  Ie-- I spend 4800 on the guy and he is on the fence and when I spend over 5k, he signs.  That would seem to go against what I have read and I know that distance plays a major factor, but I am wondering if the "signing" equation doesn't also include some kind of "amount spent" variable?  If it does, which I am pretty convinced of, Team B actually put in more effort (per my assumed formula) but I imagine that the locality variable outweighs that in this example.  Anyone else notice or think that money spent might play a larger role than often suggested?

Posted by Weena on 6/26/2012 3:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tbird9423 on 6/25/2012 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usc4life on 6/25/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting effort in a nutshell:
Team A is 50 miles from player, spends $300 on a HV
Team B is 500 miles from player, spends $800 on a HV
Both teams put in the same amount of recruiting effort (one HV), but one spent more money to do so.

Hey there-- Is it a coincidence that I notice my own recruits sign with me often after a "benchmark" dollar amount has been reached?  Ie-- I spend 4800 on the guy and he is on the fence and when I spend over 5k, he signs.  That would seem to go against what I have read and I know that distance plays a major factor, but I am wondering if the "signing" equation doesn't also include some kind of "amount spent" variable?  If it does, which I am pretty convinced of, Team B actually put in more effort (per my assumed formula) but I imagine that the locality variable outweighs that in this example.  Anyone else notice or think that money spent might play a larger role than often suggested?

Tbird, there is something I believe you are not considering in your analysis. We as coaches see X amount of dollars spent but the game engine sees it as Y number of points for a HV. All of the recruiting tools (eg. phone calls, HV, CV, scouting trip. etc.) have a point value to the engine. No one knows the values but let's say a phone call is worth 1 point, a scouting trip is worth 5 points, and a CV is worth 10 points. (These are made up numbers just for this example). The team that accumulates the most points wins. There is much more that goes into it than just recruiting tools though such as the team's prestige, the players preference for location (close to home or far away, how many other players are at his position already, and several other factors. These all are assigned point values as well and are included in the total points the engine tallys for recruiting. 

You are correct in noticing that there is a benchmark where a player will change from "on the fence" to being signed. There is a certain level of effort that will equate to the "signing threshold". This threshold is the "effort" necessary to meet the player's "value". This value decreases as recruiting progresses. This drop in value is what causes players to drop down. One caveat to this is that when two or more teams are in a recruiting battle, the value increases. What takes place at that point is that one of the teams involved in the battle must exceed the amount of effort the opponent puts in by a certain level. I'm not sure if this net difference is a percentage or a certain point value. This is why they say be careful in engaging in recruiting battles because it will likely cause you to spend more on a player than he is worth.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/25/2012 9:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bullman17 on 6/25/2012 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by car_crazy_v2 on 6/25/2012 8:08:00 PM (view original):
I personally think players should care about Big prestige/low playing time VS. lower prestige/high playing time. But I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to get at.     

In my ideal universe, prestige, playing time, distance from home, facilities, coaching style, and probably a few other things would affect where a recruit decides to go with each recruit having a different set of priorities. You would still have a budget that you would need to allocate wisely, but you would spread your recruiting net more widely and would not be able to win a recruiting battle by pouring more resources into a player than the other guy. Ultimately, if multiple teams were to go all out on a guy, he would choose using the best fit based upon what his priorities are. The challenge in recruiting would be to determine what the recruit is looking for and if that is a fit with your school versus the other schools he is looking at.

That's just me, though, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat. I think the recruiting aspect is still going to be enjoyable and plenty challenging.

How would you implement facilities or coaching style into the game?  In particular, how would you do it without creating inherent disadvantages for new coaches?  I've heard suggestions in the past that you be allowed to spend some of your budget on improving your facilities, typically with lists of things from coaches more used to playing basketball video games and wanting gameplay here to sync up better with that experience.  The reality is that in an ongoing, paid game it's bad business to give established coaches additional advantages beyond the already-inherent prestige advantage associated with having a program with at least a recent history of success.