of course it impacts everyone the same way - one can say that about any rule for any game

my opinion is that this rule is bad for game play - but of course those who choose to play the new game will handle it

you could play poker but make a rule that you roll the dice at the end of the hand and if you roll a six then one of you face cards - if any - becomes a 2. That would apply to everyone. It would hurt the game.

the fact that a rule or process applies to everyone doesnt answer the question whether it is good for the game.

Under the new recruiting system, you can go all in (20 visits) on 2 recruits within 300 miles if you have 2 openings, meaning you at most can try to get 2 top 10 recruits. If they are a good match for your team, you are very likely to sign them in a battle and can go outside the 300 mile radius but you really need to scout for good matches. I have had no issues with this in BETA and currently have the #1 team in the country with 4 players on the draft board. I also last season, lost out on one player and had to go get a development guy in the second recruiting session. If you are lucky enough to carry multiple EE players, you will need to supplement your roster with good dev guys and role players and it may take a season to get back to the top but it adds something to the game. Do you go get a good core of players or go all in on a big class, knowing that you could be penalized for having so many EE's. It adds a layer of strategy to the game and in the long run, will really benefit good coaches who scout and find players to match their system.

you may be right - I am less optimistic about the long term result, unless the new game scouting/recruiting has the overall effect of making it very unlikely that anyone would have more than one or two EE

at minimum, the transition over the first couple of seasons will be painful for people who have elite teams now.

Posted by kubasnack on 8/23/2016 10:36:00 AM (view original):
Under the new recruiting system, you can go all in (20 visits) on 2 recruits within 300 miles if you have 2 openings, meaning you at most can try to get 2 top 10 recruits. If they are a good match for your team, you are very likely to sign them in a battle and can go outside the 300 mile radius but you really need to scout for good matches. I have had no issues with this in BETA and currently have the #1 team in the country with 4 players on the draft board. I also last season, lost out on one player and had to go get a development guy in the second recruiting session. If you are lucky enough to carry multiple EE players, you will need to supplement your roster with good dev guys and role players and it may take a season to get back to the top but it adds something to the game. Do you go get a good core of players or go all in on a big class, knowing that you could be penalized for having so many EE's. It adds a layer of strategy to the game and in the long run, will really benefit good coaches who scout and find players to match their system.

Yes. I would also add that the value of having backups *already on your team* is going to skyrocket. In other words, class balance and strategic thinking will be more important.

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/22/2016 11:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 8/22/2016 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 8/22/2016 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Stop with the late, early thing. It does not work... Ees need a solution fair to those who lose them.

Define fair. Is fair an expectation to replace an early entry with the same caliber player on the late scholarship? I'd say nah. If you are expecting to lose an elite player early, you should make your first priority to target a similar elite player in the early period. As everyone knows, if you lose more than a couple EEs, you're going to be hurting. Is that unfair because teams are used to a system where EEs don't hurt as much? I tend to think not. Losing an advantage can feel like a penalty if you're accustomed to the advantage. I suspect that's what's going on here.

Gameplay is going to adjust, and I suspect resourceful coaches are going to find ways to get quality, and mitigate damage of EEs pretty fast.

How do you define fair? I don't understand your logic at all. You don't have the APs to recruit for all your openings + all the guys you expect to lose in EE. You can't just "target a similar elite player" because you're already targeting that guy to replace your seniors.

In the old system, EEs cost you your best players but you had a chance to recruit similar-quality guys who were less developed to replace them. You call that an "advantage?" And now it's fair because you lose your best players and have virtually no meaningful chance to replace them with similar-quality players?

I'm not sure you're 100% clear on what the word "advantage" means...

Losing an early entry means next year's team is not as good as it would have been had he stayed, but it's neutral to what it would have been if you had swung and missed on him in the first place. You may feel penalized, but it's actually just a return to stasis.

In 2.0, when you lose an early entry, you get that scholarship for the full recruiting period. Because 2.0 recruiting is based entirely on an allocation of assets, the scholarship you gain from an early entry is indeed a recruiting advantage. It increases prestige (which is still true) and you have the asset for the full period, to add to your war chest. The difference now is that you only have the asset for the last half of the period.

I define fair as a condition where people get what they deserve. This is still a commodity game, as much as I would personally like to see it move away from that. Elite players are commodities that everyone wants. We earn those commodities mostly through strategic planning, so "fair" should be determined on that basis. We "deserve" based on what we have prepared for.

Posted by fd343ny on 8/23/2016 1:05:00 AM (view original):
backups in place for multiple possible unknown events

with resources that are inherently inadequate for the task

some think that is a fun game, others dont. I dont.

Exactly, tried back-ups... But don't forget, you need to unlock stuff...

I am with Oldresorter, make them declare early, fixed... We have all the resources and know what to expect and can plan on what we want to recruit. It's more interesting that way.

In 2.0, when you lose an early entry, you get that scholarship for the full recruiting period. Because 2.0 recruiting is based entirely on an allocation of assets, the scholarship you gain from an early entry is indeed a recruiting advantage. It increases prestige (which is still true) and you have the asset for the full period, to add to your war chest. The difference now is that you only have the asset for the last half of the period.

The increase in prestige does NOT occur now until *AFTER* the 2nd period has finished. In 2.0 you got the EE, got the prestige bump and THEN got to recruit a replacement (starting at the same time everyone else does).

Now in 3.0, you miss out on a huge portion of recruits (probably 2/3rds of them already signed), you get the EE and have to rush to quickly fill the empty spots with either tightly battled elite recruits or D1 scraps, and after everyone has signed, WIS holds the NBA draft and only then do you get the bump from the EEs.

Posted by buddhagamer on 8/23/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
In 2.0, when you lose an early entry, you get that scholarship for the full recruiting period. Because 2.0 recruiting is based entirely on an allocation of assets, the scholarship you gain from an early entry is indeed a recruiting advantage. It increases prestige (which is still true) and you have the asset for the full period, to add to your war chest. The difference now is that you only have the asset for the last half of the period.

The increase in prestige does NOT occur now until *AFTER* the 2nd period has finished. In 2.0 you got the EE, got the prestige bump and THEN got to recruit a replacement (starting at the same time everyone else does).

Now in 3.0, you miss out on a huge portion of recruits (probably 2/3rds of them already signed), you get the EE and have to rush to quickly fill the empty spots with either tightly battled elite recruits or D1 scraps, and after everyone has signed, WIS holds the NBA draft and only then do you get the bump from the EEs.

And then you lose your bump (plus some) when you are not able to find a remotely similar talent and have a bad season. The worst is going to be in the first few seasons of the beta.

Posted by buddhagamer on 8/23/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
In 2.0, when you lose an early entry, you get that scholarship for the full recruiting period. Because 2.0 recruiting is based entirely on an allocation of assets, the scholarship you gain from an early entry is indeed a recruiting advantage. It increases prestige (which is still true) and you have the asset for the full period, to add to your war chest. The difference now is that you only have the asset for the last half of the period.

The increase in prestige does NOT occur now until *AFTER* the 2nd period has finished. In 2.0 you got the EE, got the prestige bump and THEN got to recruit a replacement (starting at the same time everyone else does).

Now in 3.0, you miss out on a huge portion of recruits (probably 2/3rds of them already signed), you get the EE and have to rush to quickly fill the empty spots with either tightly battled elite recruits or D1 scraps, and after everyone has signed, WIS holds the NBA draft and only then do you get the bump from the EEs.

Right, but the whole premise is that you can no longer expect to directly replace an early entry with the scholarship you get from the early entry. The prestige bump still happens. You just can't use it to maintain a pipeline, you have to plan ahead. And it can be done. I've gone to dice rolls on elite prospects in the late session, keeping them on the line from the start without a scholarship offer.

At this point everybody knows that the first 2 seasons of 3.0 are going to be painful for the elite of the elite teams in a position to lose multiple early entries. It's a feature, not a bug, and I'm not unsympathetic to it. Though you can also argue that you get an extra "old" recruiting session to prepare for it, if you choose. You can continue to play 3.0 as you have, gambling on high-risk, high-reward classes; or you can adjust and play it more cautiously. I like having that choice, and I think the game will be better for breaking up the teams that have built elite pipelines with 4 or 5 scholarship assets to allocate every year.

Posted by zorzii on 8/23/2016 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 8/23/2016 1:05:00 AM (view original):
backups in place for multiple possible unknown events

with resources that are inherently inadequate for the task

some think that is a fun game, others dont. I dont.

Exactly, tried back-ups... But don't forget, you need to unlock stuff...

I am with Oldresorter, make them declare early, fixed... We have all the resources and know what to expect and can plan on what we want to recruit. It's more interesting that way.

In 3.0, you can sign a recruit with no recruiting money. You can assign your attention points to a recruit and then once, open, offer a scholarship and he will sign. There are a lot of recruits available in the second period, its not 2/3 signing in the first period. It will be different, but will be interesting. I would expect within 3 seasons, few teams if any will have more than 2 EE's.

Posted by fd343ny on 8/22/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):
the problem as I have seen it is not that you cant replace an unexpected EE or a large number of EEs with comparable players

the issue is that you will often be unable to replace such EEs with a player who belongs in DI

+1

also, to me, this is less an advantage issue, than an enjoyment issue. team construction / composition is arguably the best part of the game. having a talented team in d1 these days, it means jack ****, and i like that. its more important for the team to fit like a glove.

the problem with recruiting before EEs declare is, you don't know who is leaving (generally speaking), and you don't know who you need. if your first step in recruiting isn't to analyze your team needs, you probably aren't very good at this game. that first step is going to be impossible, which just makes things really frustrating. you guys talking about real life totally miss the reality here. in real life, you have 13 scholarships, and you can run 7 players for about 100% of total time. so if you lose a couple unexpectedly that you can't replace, you still only need say your best 7 of 11. and that is even accepting the very shaky premise that the big d1 schools struggle to replace their EEs. in HD, you need most or all of your team, depending what set you run, so having a couple vacant spots you cannot fill with warm bodies, it really screws things up, and frankly its probably going to make it so man is even more ubiquitous at high d1 because high d1 press is going to take a major hit.

in short, i just don't think its fun to be in a situation where several guys COULD leave, even if only 1 will on average (i don't buy your guys assumption that EEs won't be consolidated still, nobody knows but i probably have a better guess than most and my guess is you guys are wrong. it should be more spread but you guys talk teams having the potential for multiple EEs will be a thing of that past and that is almost definitely false). you won't know who you are losing and won't be able to plan at all, and that sucks. its not as much about the fairness as the frustration.

I'm still fairly new at this. I don't know all the lingo. EE????

Early Entry ... By and large this is a D1 issue.

Posted by possumfiend on 8/24/2016 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Early Entry ... By and large this is a D1 issue.

This is more of a big 6 division 1 issue..

" i just don't think its fun to be in a situation where several guys COULD leave "

I suspect 95% of the coaches would like to try that kind of fun, though. Don't expect sympathy from them.