Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2017 2:45:00 PM (view original):
In other words, why shouldn't D1 be a level playing field for all schools and all conferences? Why shouldn't the only differentiating factor should be the skills of the humans playing the game?

The answer to this question is "because that's how it is in real life".

In HBD, the Sioux City Scmhucks have no bonus or penalty in $$ over the Metropolis Batmens but it's because these are fake teams with no connection to RL.

There is an element of realism in HD.

That's the party line.

You will also hear the "if you don't want baseline prestige play D2" as a common response.

Well, I wasn't addressing you. So there's that.

But, to answer your question, basically the same reason EA Sports no longer produces a college football game. People like the "names". When EA Sports was sued for use of likeness in their college games, they stopped making the game. Now they could have continued to make the game but, if the black freshman QB at Bama wore #2 and had the same height/weight as Hurts, they'd be sued again. And the market for a college game that has a white #19 at BAMA playing QB at 5'9" 168 lbs in 2016 doesn't exist.

People like "names" and Kentucky contends for titles every year. Hartford does not.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2017 2:45:00 PM (view original):
In other words, why shouldn't D1 be a level playing field for all schools and all conferences? Why shouldn't the only differentiating factor should be the skills of the humans playing the game?

This is stupid, if you want a level playing field play D2 or D3, D1 is set up to be a different animal. You are supposed to work your way up the ladder to get to the high baseline prestige schools like in real life. In real life it's extremely hard to sustain success at non Big-6 schools, it's possible but it's a lot harder. I like that you have to work your way up, I worked my way up to my dream school VT, now I want to build it up to a A prestige school, and when I do that I want to reap the rewards of all my hard work. I just pray that this game isn't completely messed up by the time I do that.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2017 3:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't think you've answered the question.

Why should B6 jobs be more desirable? Why should Kentucky inherently have an advantage over Rhode Island? Or Hartford?

Because it's supposed to be like real life, Rhode Island is not going to win a NT ever.

The answer is-

That is how they DESIGNED it to work.

Why else do you HAVE to start at D3?
Why do you have to spend several seasons building a resume before you can play D1?
Why do they have the job hiring and firing process?
Why do they have baseline prestige for only D1?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Well, I wasn't addressing you. So there's that.

But, to answer your question, basically the same reason EA Sports no longer produces a college football game. People like the "names". When EA Sports was sued for use of likeness in their college games, they stopped making the game. Now they could have continued to make the game but, if the black freshman QB at Bama wore #2 and had the same height/weight as Hurts, they'd be sued again. And the market for a college game that has a white #19 at BAMA playing QB at 5'9" 168 lbs in 2016 doesn't exist.

People like "names" and Kentucky contends for titles every year. Hartford does not.

I get the fact that people like the names. It might give somebody playing HBD more personal satisfaction to win a World Series playing as "New York Yankees" or "Boston Red Sox" or "Chicago Cubs" than it would if they won a WS as the "Jacksonville Jackoffs". But there is no inherent advantage to playing as NY, Boston or Chicago over playing at Jacksonville. If you can put together the best team bill your own skill and effort in Jacksonville, you'll thrive.

Unless I'm understanding something: is there more inherent advantage built into the game if you play in one of the B6 conferences? Or is the advantage kind of "self made" because the better coaches tend to naturally gravitate to the B6 conferences, and therefore those teams and conferences tend to have better prestige and success because they have the best coaches?

If it's the former, I have an issue with that. It's not a level playing field.

If it's the latter, then that's fine. That's ideally what you do want.

And the references to "baseline prestige" seem to imply that it is indeed the former.

Yes, it was designed for UNC to be more highly sought after than LaSalle or VaTech for that matter.

Its built in. That's what I'm saying. They designed it that way but gave far too many advantages so they completely neutered B6 D1. It went too far IMO.

I guess the race was for the better coaches to get to the top schools. Which they did. I got stuck at VaTech in S17, I think, and got my brains beat in by Duke/UNC. They'd plant a flag on a recruit and VaTech had no shot. It was a boring game if you weren't at Duke/UNC/etc.

Posted by jcfreder on 3/2/2017 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Of course the game is not 100% real life. But some degree of realism is a good goal in a simulation game.

Battles are good. One of the best things about 3.0. But realistic battles are better. D1 heavyweights going at it for a top recruit makes sense. But D1 having to exert anything more than minimal effort against a D3 makes no sense. One way of fixing that would be to block lower division schools from chasing some or all D1 guys. In real life, a top 250 guy is not going to entertain overtures from a D3 coach. Another way would be to use prestige realistically, to make D1 effort worth much, much more than D3.

I do not think coaches should be compensated after losing a battle.

"But D1 having to exert anything more than minimal effort against a D3 makes no sense... make D1 effort worth much, much more than D3."

As it stands now, a D1 team can easily take any recruit from a D3 team if they do any reasonable amount of recruiting. Prestige is rigged so that there is NO overlap between D1/D2 and likewise NO overlap between D2/D3. There is no need to cap any level of recruit away from D3, and doing so would only reduce strategy, as discussed over and over and understood by everyone except zorzii.

Yeah it had issues and needed to be fixed. But they've completely changed the whole idea of the game IMO in regards to the way it was originally designed. Taking away bonus cash and rollover would have probably been plenty. But they also threw in preferences, variable signing decisions and replenishable recruiting budget (APs). Oh and they removed the cap for how high a low prestige D1 could reach.

And made EEs have bigger penalty. Forgot about that one.

WIS is in the business to make money. Why would they want to stick with a game (2.0) that benefits and is enjoyable to 15 players in each world? The same 15 players receiving free season after free season.

Make it fun and enjoyable for as many players as possible. That is the only way to increase revenue. And that is exactly what they did.

People forget that.

Especially the ones that start their complaint with "I haven't paid for this game in years and, once my credits run out, I'm going to quit if you don't...." then follow it with a demand for changing it back to the way it was.

Seriously, who's the more valuable customer? The guy with 6 teams playing on credits or the guy with two teams he had to pay for?