Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2017 7:12:00 PM (view original):
"That way new users have to "work" their way into contention."

I can't explain it any better. WifS has decided to make the game harder for both "new" and "returning" users. I don't care if either of you agree but that is a simple fact. Would you prefer the game be easier for both new and returning users? Have a good evening.

You either are being deliberately obtuse, or you don't understand the game. You have said in approximately 100 threads that it's supposed to be hard to stay on top in DI. But not allowing a new coach to come in and compete for recruits that the old coach put effort in on can have an effect of letting the rich get richer. In my case, I took over B+ Syracuse, I want to battle A+ Boston College (who just won the NT, by the way) for a 5-star recruit -- I physically cannot do it, because the old Syracuse coach put in a CV and 20 HVs on the recruit, and the old coach's credit was also totally taken away due to the coaching change (which I don't necessarily have a problem with). So A+ defending national champion Boston College is now going to take what's basically a forfeit win on a 5-star. Leaving aside that WIS is currently ******* off a decade-plus user (which probably isn't the world's best business model), how on earth is this good for gameplay/competitiveness?

I was hoping in HD3.0 we would see a lot more movement including firings but little things like this make it much more appealing to just pick a team camp out. I know I was kinda hoping to switch things up from my ole miss team after next yr taking advantage of this run that seems to be taking place but to also test my abilities and see if I can build another one. I know it would be real disheartening for new coaches to walk into new situation that accompanies a wasted recruiting cycle. I liked knowing that yr 4 was my yr, this ole miss team I really got to see it going from a winless D+ SEC team to conf champ and a NT tourney win. Yes it can be done in yr 5 but I'd hate to waste $12 on yr just because WIS messed up the initial setup.

This is a very peculiar thread to me. I've taken over teams at D3, D2 and D1 and it has worked out pretty well. I guess not trying to force a square peg into a round hole, i.e. not playing the game like I want it to be or like HD 2.0 was, but playing 3,0 as it is, works out pretty nicely.

Posted by CoachSpud on 1/28/2017 1:26:00 AM (view original):
This is a very peculiar thread to me. I've taken over teams at D3, D2 and D1 and it has worked out pretty well. I guess not trying to force a square peg into a round hole, i.e. not playing the game like I want it to be or like HD 2.0 was, but playing 3,0 as it is, works out pretty nicely.

did you run into the phenomen the OP described - where effort was cancelled, but new effort was foreclosed?

The thing that I find really stupid about the new setup is that the game is designed for you to climb the ladder throughout the divisions. You HAVE to go through several job changes and that's what is supposed to happen. That's the way the game was made.

So for it to have stupid glitch like restrictions like the one the OP is describing means that something is seriously flawed.

one other thing about what the OP describes - it is beyond un realistic - it is contrary to common sense

new coach comes in - prior coach visited the kids house 20 times - is that effort gone? you would think reduced but not gone - but if it is gone, why would the new coach not be permitted to visit? isnt that what happens all the time in real life?

is there a game play reason for cancel/constrain? I cant think of one

Posted by rsvphr on 1/27/2017 9:08:00 PM (view original):
There is no doubt in my mind that this is an intentional design element. WIS is trying to eliminate the perceived advantage of taking over a successful team and deriving any short term benefit from doing so. I can understand they want to discourage someone from inheriting an A+ team but the fallout is that any new coach, regardless of the quality of the team he takes, is going to have to recruit with both hands tied behind his back if the recruiting credit doesn't transfer. The result is a level of frustration that is bad for retention. It de-incentivises climbing the ladder and will increase the likelihood of burnout coaching the same team.
It's time to stop bickering and start worrying about what will entice new people to play and existing people to keep on playing. Stop telling me things should be hard. They should not, they should be challenging and fun.

I'm curious how many people are giving up their teams. I could be wrong, but it seems like fewer players are out there now. Plus I see teams with 6 & 7 openings with no signings and I have to think they've thrown in the towel. It would be interesting to see numbers on coaches pre and post 3.0.

Posted by Storm69 on 1/27/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
Mike just likes to take the opposing side...not sure why anyone even responds to him anymore. He just wants to argue or be combative. Is there a way to block someone from the forums so I don't have to waste my time reading his BS posts. Not sure if I have ever seen someone with that many posts in the forum. Almost like he has nothing better to do than troll the forums looking for posts to discredit.

Jesus Christ. There's a "block user" right under my username. What do you think that means?

Posted by johnsensing on 1/27/2017 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2017 7:12:00 PM (view original):
"That way new users have to "work" their way into contention."

I can't explain it any better. WifS has decided to make the game harder for both "new" and "returning" users. I don't care if either of you agree but that is a simple fact. Would you prefer the game be easier for both new and returning users? Have a good evening.

You either are being deliberately obtuse, or you don't understand the game. You have said in approximately 100 threads that it's supposed to be hard to stay on top in DI. But not allowing a new coach to come in and compete for recruits that the old coach put effort in on can have an effect of letting the rich get richer. In my case, I took over B+ Syracuse, I want to battle A+ Boston College (who just won the NT, by the way) for a 5-star recruit -- I physically cannot do it, because the old Syracuse coach put in a CV and 20 HVs on the recruit, and the old coach's credit was also totally taken away due to the coaching change (which I don't necessarily have a problem with). So A+ defending national champion Boston College is now going to take what's basically a forfeit win on a 5-star. Leaving aside that WIS is currently ******* off a decade-plus user (which probably isn't the world's best business model), how on earth is this good for gameplay/competitiveness?

Well, I'm not deliberately obtuse and I freely admit I don't understand all aspects of the game. That said, I understand this part of it.

RSVPHR(or whatever) explained it in full earlier on this page but WifS has created an obstacle when switching jobs/taking a new team. It should be hard to stay on top in D1, I won't back away from that at all. WifS has taken away a LOT of advantages long-time users had(you might have noticed a thread or two complaining about this). So, as I said earlier, WifS has offset that by making it more difficult for "new" users to succeed. This is simply one more piece of the puzzle.

I don't like to use "real life" as an example, HD recruiting translates poorly, but someone posted a few weeks ago about a VA kid going to Texas to play for Shaka Smart. SS recruited him while at VCU. Kids are swayed by a lot of things during recruiting but the coach is the centerpiece most of the time.

And, as I also said earlier, I'm not sure the "make it hard" is the best business model, for bringing in new or retaining users, but at least WifS has made it hard for both new and returning users. There really isn't a participation trophy, it's just difficult to succeed for all.

I don't understand how we can debate what is obviously a glitch that needs to be fixed... And some still say it's working as intended. Taking over a team at D1 is for people with tough skin.

It would work the same if you switched D3 teams or took over a D2. This isn't a D1 "problem".

FWIW, I'd be more annoyed that the previous coach spent "my" recruiting money.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/28/2017 8:45:00 AM (view original):
It would work the same if you switched D3 teams or took over a D2. This isn't a D1 "problem".

FWIW, I'd be more annoyed that the previous coach spent "my" recruiting money.

I think you're wrong on both counts here. First, it's much more of a DI problem (although I agree it's a DII/III problem as well -- can't really speak to that though, because I'm only in DI) -- the recruits are much less fungible. There are approximately 25 elite recruits/season for DI players -- my understanding is that there are many more "elite" DII recruits b/c you're combing the lower reaches of DI. I was not permitted to try to recruit an elite DI player for whom a scholarship was unlocked. Rich get richer, because BC didn't have any competition, and I'm unnecessarily handicapped -- especially because by the time you're able to unlock schollys for other players, the players are signing.

Your second point makes no sense. When you take over a new team, you get full recruiting money (which seems fair to me). Who knows why people leave teams -- why be mad at the past coach? Maybe he got tired of all of the coin flips.

Seems like there are two ways WIS could have dealt with this issue -- (a) new coach keeps all the recruiting credit, which I agree is unrealistic/doesn't make a lot of sense; or (b) new coach gets to re-recruit, which encourages competition, is more fair, etc., etc, and seems to be what WIS is going for otherwise, by giving full recruiting money to the new coach. WIS, for some reason -- although maybe this is just incompetence instead of malice -- decided to do neither, totally screwing up the incentives in the game for all of the reasons other posters have stated. I'm disappointed, but sadly, not surprised, that literally every other poster than you and spud gets why this is a problem.

Can you explain -- other than "it's supposed to be hard" -- why this is good for the game? And the "new/old" dichotomy doesn't work -- because BC and I are both veteran coaches.

Totally agree with the last point. I think it was an oversight rather than intentional.

Would have been nice to do beta for a little longer to test these things out.