Current system already does that.   Just from another angle.

So basically the strong teams can bully the ones that dont have as high as prestige and get more? They have a prestige advantage going head to head with most teams and now you want them to have a monetary advantage as well? You're not going to grow this game you're going to kill it by alienating the user base that doesnt fit into the top tier coaching stratum.

OP has good intent. Not sure if it's a great idea or not.

I'm in favor of more weight being applied to preferences. But then I'd also want all preferences to be revamped, adjusted, and more dynamic.

The basis of it..... no player that wants rebuild should go to Louisville in Smith (who just won a title! ??). No player who wants close to home in NY should be playing on the west coast.

If two A+ schools go all in on a recruit and one has 3 very goods and the other has 3 very bads, I don't care the effort, this should not be a roll. It should be a land slide win for the 3 VGs team. Effort should not trump preferences. Just cuz a school wants a player "really really bad", so what? The player doesn't "prefer" to go to that situation apparently. We should be recruiting strictly off of preferences.

To do this, we'd have to rework the entire preference scenario to make this possible. Maybe add a few more preference options. I don't know. I'm not a developer. But someone is! And this can be done properly. If anyone wants to respond, please don't base it on the current preference situation. Because that doesn't apply. I'm talking about all this in theory as if the game was produced that way from the get go

I’m just trying to address the problem of not having resources left after you lose a roll. If you lose a roll going after a 5 star, that’s kind of expected. But when you go after a modest recruit and lose a 70/30 to a team 2 prestige grades below you and you’re left with your dick in your hand it drives people crazy.

Maybe that’s just part of the game?

Posted by pnedwek on 7/24/2021 8:55:00 PM (view original):
So basically the strong teams can bully the ones that dont have as high as prestige and get more? They have a prestige advantage going head to head with most teams and now you want them to have a monetary advantage as well? You're not going to grow this game you're going to kill it by alienating the user base that doesnt fit into the top tier coaching stratum.

+1

The "solution" for this was always conference cash which I kinda miss. Encouraged joining full or elite conferences but I get why Seble removed it. I always liked the idea of something like some more scouting cash or APs but more recruiting budget is probably too much of an advantage.

However! With firings for those higher tier teams, maybe it does make some sense for a bonus there.

Posted by Baums_away on 7/25/2021 3:12:00 PM (view original):
I’m just trying to address the problem of not having resources left after you lose a roll. If you lose a roll going after a 5 star, that’s kind of expected. But when you go after a modest recruit and lose a 70/30 to a team 2 prestige grades below you and you’re left with your dick in your hand it drives people crazy.

Maybe that’s just part of the game?

I understand your complaint. But things don't ALWAYS work against us if we use good judgment and decision making along the recruiting trail.

I've never been a fan of "We need more recruiting money in RS2 in case we lose our rolls in RS1"...... that's actually one of the most hilarious complaints in the game. It's called prioritizing! If we want more money in RS2, don't spend it all in RS1!

When we lose the bad rolls it sucks. But it's not always going to happen. And we'll have some down years because of it. And some good years when we win. But extra money given out because we blew our load early isn't the answer. I'm not saying that you're specifically asking that. But this kinda goes down a similar path.

If we are smart as coaches, and don't always go in to recruiting with a mentality of "I'm going after that player!", we can find ways to work around bad recruiting decisions. I see a lot of situations where a non A+ coach will unlock and bomb everything on a player on the first day. That's not always smart to do. Sometimes it's good to flex your muscle. But sometimes we put ourselves in a bad situation of just "hoping" to win the roll. Sometimes it's best to be patient.

Posted by Baums_away on 7/25/2021 3:12:00 PM (view original):
I’m just trying to address the problem of not having resources left after you lose a roll. If you lose a roll going after a 5 star, that’s kind of expected. But when you go after a modest recruit and lose a 70/30 to a team 2 prestige grades below you and you’re left with your dick in your hand it drives people crazy.

Maybe that’s just part of the game?

Stop crying about it

Dogg said it all..."Effort should not trump preferences."

Posted by topdogggbm on 7/24/2021 9:11:00 PM (view original):
OP has good intent. Not sure if it's a great idea or not.

I'm in favor of more weight being applied to preferences. But then I'd also want all preferences to be revamped, adjusted, and more dynamic.

The basis of it..... no player that wants rebuild should go to Louisville in Smith (who just won a title! ??). No player who wants close to home in NY should be playing on the west coast.

If two A+ schools go all in on a recruit and one has 3 very goods and the other has 3 very bads, I don't care the effort, this should not be a roll. It should be a land slide win for the 3 VGs team. Effort should not trump preferences. Just cuz a school wants a player "really really bad", so what? The player doesn't "prefer" to go to that situation apparently. We should be recruiting strictly off of preferences.

To do this, we'd have to rework the entire preference scenario to make this possible. Maybe add a few more preference options. I don't know. I'm not a developer. But someone is! And this can be done properly. If anyone wants to respond, please don't base it on the current preference situation. Because that doesn't apply. I'm talking about all this in theory as if the game was produced that way from the get go

What I was thinking about this while reading it was if you could change a recruit's preference.
That might be a little too far on the "dynamic" side of your comments.

Maybe that NY recruit that prefers Close to Home feels that way at the start, but then you bring him to your campus at Pepperdine and he totally changes his mind.

If we want HD to mimic real life, I imagine that happens quite often.
However, that's the unanswerable question, right? Do you want HD to imitate real life?

Posted by Jdizzpimp on 7/26/2021 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 7/24/2021 9:11:00 PM (view original):
OP has good intent. Not sure if it's a great idea or not.

I'm in favor of more weight being applied to preferences. But then I'd also want all preferences to be revamped, adjusted, and more dynamic.

The basis of it..... no player that wants rebuild should go to Louisville in Smith (who just won a title! ??). No player who wants close to home in NY should be playing on the west coast.

If two A+ schools go all in on a recruit and one has 3 very goods and the other has 3 very bads, I don't care the effort, this should not be a roll. It should be a land slide win for the 3 VGs team. Effort should not trump preferences. Just cuz a school wants a player "really really bad", so what? The player doesn't "prefer" to go to that situation apparently. We should be recruiting strictly off of preferences.

To do this, we'd have to rework the entire preference scenario to make this possible. Maybe add a few more preference options. I don't know. I'm not a developer. But someone is! And this can be done properly. If anyone wants to respond, please don't base it on the current preference situation. Because that doesn't apply. I'm talking about all this in theory as if the game was produced that way from the get go

What I was thinking about this while reading it was if you could change a recruit's preference.
That might be a little too far on the "dynamic" side of your comments.

Maybe that NY recruit that prefers Close to Home feels that way at the start, but then you bring him to your campus at Pepperdine and he totally changes his mind.

If we want HD to mimic real life, I imagine that happens quite often.
However, that's the unanswerable question, right? Do you want HD to imitate real life?

now THAT would be fun. Or introduce weird preferences that have NOTHING to do with basketball (like being a Yankees fan or schools they would rather be dead than attend).

Prestige teams already bully everyone. Just today, I lost a recruit I led on entire time until an A+ Sniped at signing. I’m already on the verge of quitting this prestige biased game. Give them more power and it’s a certainty!

Posted by Stormfury on 7/26/2021 7:01:00 PM (view original):
Prestige teams already bully everyone. Just today, I lost a recruit I led on entire time until an A+ Sniped at signing. I’m already on the verge of quitting this prestige biased game. Give them more power and it’s a certainty!

Bye, Felicia

Conference cash was way better than individual team prestige, and too many people already complained about that. I just wish prestige was more dynamic at DI. I was never a fan of baseline prestige.