i think i agree.

but you kind of lost me with the last line.

I would definitely go for 'favorite school' having a BIT more impact.

I think favorite school could have a little more impact, but I wouldn't be opposed to reducing the cost multiplier for distance to level the playing field a little.

Seble and hughes- I read his initial post as some players not caring about distance, not an adjustment across the board.  Was that the case?

Posted by seble on 7/21/2010 10:15:00 AM (view original):
I think favorite school could have a little more impact, but I wouldn't be opposed to reducing the cost multiplier for distance to level the playing field a little.

reducing the distance cost factor will have a big impact (especially at DIII).  please think through all of the ramifications before making any adjustments. 

Of course, just saying that I'm not opposed to it.  Also, I wouldn't reduce it to the point that it didn't matter, but to the point where teams could extend their reach a little more. 

extend the reach at d1 yes, but in d3 i think it should go the other way. Personally i dont see d3 and d2 schools recruting players from way far away from their schools.

also feel free to change what effects the visit has on the recruit, but isnt the cost of a home visit supposed to signify the cost of travel, as well as time used up? i mean if i wanted to play away from home the visit would cost california way more than wisconsin but californias visit would be worth more to me.

Posted by asher413 on 7/21/2010 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Seble and hughes- I read his initial post as some players not caring about distance, not an adjustment across the board.  Was that the case?

My idea is that there are some recruits who do not care about where they play in relation to where they live now.  They will play for anyone without regard to distance.  Set the distance for these type of recruits to a specific value (I used 200 miles as an example) regardless of who recruits them.  A certain percentage of recruits could be generated like this.

Other players DO care where they play in relation to where they live.  They are Michigan boys and would rather die than play for Ohio State.  These kind of recruits would work like all recruits do now (distance is paramount to them, local is better).

A third type of player would be the guy who wants playing time, he cares most about who is on your team at his position.  He is a Center and If you have 4 other big men who are Sophomores, he would rather play elsewhere.  You will need to spend more cash on him than a team where he can start as a Freshman.

You could also have a combination of these attributes.

We could find out what type of recruit he is via the phone call and/or scouting trip.

That is how I envisioned it anyway ... a bit of variety. 

reducing the cost multiplier will benefit higher baseline teams in dense areas and screw teams in remote areas.  If a team can expand its reach from 200 to 300 miles, a team in a densely populated area might add 20 new recruits to its "affordable recruits" list, while a team in a remote area might only add a few.  And since worlds are not 100% full, there will be tons of sims in those densely populated areas offering very little competition.  C'est la vie.

Posted by seble on 7/21/2010 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Of course, just saying that I'm not opposed to it.  Also, I wouldn't reduce it to the point that it didn't matter, but to the point where teams could extend their reach a little more. 

What about setting a Cap on Maximum for a Home Visit, Campus Visit or scouting trip.

For example recruits over 800 miles Maximums could look like this;

1. Scouting Trip Max $500
2. Home Visit Max $ 800
3. Campus Visit Max $1200

I can't remember the multipliers off hand so please don't flame.

One thing I never understood why the difference between the cost in Scouting Trip and a Home Visit? You are basically traveling to their hometown or area to watch them play. Why would it cost 25% more in your budget to walk across the street to the recruits house? Also, wouldn't it make more financial sense for a D3 school to do a home visit at the same time as the scouting trip to save money?  

Posted by Rails on 8/6/2010 12:57:00 AM (view original):
reducing the cost multiplier will benefit higher baseline teams in dense areas and screw teams in remote areas.  If a team can expand its reach from 200 to 300 miles, a team in a densely populated area might add 20 new recruits to its "affordable recruits" list, while a team in a remote area might only add a few.  And since worlds are not 100% full, there will be tons of sims in those densely populated areas offering very little competition.  C'est la vie.

This is why I said to do it only with some recruits and not all recruits.

And it does not only have to be the best recruits.

The guys who are generated that don't care about distance can be signed by anyone at the same cost, the others would work the way they do now.

If you are in a remote area, you would add a number of recruits where distance does not matter at all.  Prestige would still matter, as would promises.  You still have to win the recruit.  You also have to find out that he does not care about distance and track him that way with my suggestion.

Posted by Rails on 8/6/2010 12:57:00 AM (view original):
reducing the cost multiplier will benefit higher baseline teams in dense areas and screw teams in remote areas.  If a team can expand its reach from 200 to 300 miles, a team in a densely populated area might add 20 new recruits to its "affordable recruits" list, while a team in a remote area might only add a few.  And since worlds are not 100% full, there will be tons of sims in those densely populated areas offering very little competition.  C'est la vie.

Rails - I don't know if you'll check in on this - I know this has been a sticking point of yours for a while.  What do you think of this idea, developed by a friend who plays the game?  The user is aporter (want to make sure that he gets credit, as it is his idea).

Change the way recruiting costs are done - changing the payment scale to coincide with the ranking, so the costs for scouting trips/HVs/CVs for all 5 stars are the same, all 4 stars, 3 stars, etc.  You could also break down unstarred players by position rating and maybe then by overall, to recognize the decending budgets as you go down in levels.

That would be good, acn--anything to reduce/eliminate the unnatural advantages/disadvantages that don't exist irl.