Posted by crabman26 on 4/18/2017 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 4/18/2017 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Heres the thing, I had other back up plans in place...I was on Moderate for 2 of them. So when I lost out on the one I wanted I put more APs on my back up plans and they signed immediately on the next cycle

You know why. Other schools were dumping loads of resources into those guys while you were chasing others.

So it was just coincidence that after a few cycles I decide to go to my back up options and they sign the next cycle? I feel if I hadnt put any more APs on them they still would be floating out there deciding...maybe Im just being paranoid.

I mean, after 4 cycles there were guys with noone at High or Very High, I put APs on them and they sign next cycle..

Eh, whatever, guess its just me and not anyone else so Ill shut it...

Probably. I seriously doubt there's a "Screw crabby. When he shows interest, sign immediately" button that CS is pushing.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 4/18/2017 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 4/18/2017 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Heres the thing, I had other back up plans in place...I was on Moderate for 2 of them. So when I lost out on the one I wanted I put more APs on my back up plans and they signed immediately on the next cycle

You know why. Other schools were dumping loads of resources into those guys while you were chasing others.

So it was just coincidence that after a few cycles I decide to go to my back up options and they sign the next cycle? I feel if I hadnt put any more APs on them they still would be floating out there deciding...maybe Im just being paranoid.

I mean, after 4 cycles there were guys with noone at High or Very High, I put APs on them and they sign next cycle..

Eh, whatever, guess its just me and not anyone else so Ill shut it...

Probably. I seriously doubt there's a "Screw crabby. When he shows interest, sign immediately" button that CS is pushing.

I think they know I am on to them...and have a screw crabby button.

Im over it, I didnt need the second recruit but it would have been nice...

At some point, we've all thought they were out to get us. I'm seldom critical of CS, I think that job in and of itself leads to a miserable life, but, on the few occasions I have been, my HBD teams go like 1-14 over the next 5 days.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:41:00 PM (view original):
At some point, we've all thought they were out to get us. I'm seldom critical of CS, I think that job in and of itself leads to a miserable life, but, on the few occasions I have been, my HBD teams go like 1-14 over the next 5 days.

Ugh, dont get me started on HBD...I absolutely think they pick on certain teams each season. My Kinsella team one season had 8 15 day DL injuries, and 4 season enders...I swear they were out to get me!

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):
This is the funny thing about this forum. Every "solution" is good for 1/3 of the userbase. Those at D1. The game is played by more than D1 users.

Actually, my suggestion would improve both D1 & D3. At D3, having old-timer coaches signing D1 talent just skews the playing field against new users. At D1, users are foolish to play press or fast break, in case they lose battles and cannot cover with a D1 quality roster filler.

One simple change would improve both divisions, improve user retention, and more closely resemble reality. Not sure why it is such a burden on D3 old-time users that they would have to move up to D2 to be eligible to recruit "D1" players.

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):
This is the funny thing about this forum. Every "solution" is good for 1/3 of the userbase. Those at D1. The game is played by more than D1 users.

Actually, my suggestion would improve both D1 & D3. At D3, having old-timer coaches signing D1 talent just skews the playing field against new users. At D1, users are foolish to play press or fast break, in case they lose battles and cannot cover with a D1 quality roster filler.

One simple change would improve both divisions, improve user retention, and more closely resemble reality. Not sure why it is such a burden on D3 old-time users that they would have to move up to D2 to be eligible to recruit "D1" players.

No, it wouldn't. As I mentioned, D3 is more about finding players D1/D2 don't want. You seldom battle for anyone because you just don't have the resources. Forcing n00bs and vets to fight for the same patch of land is not going to favor the n00b. And that's exactly what you do when you start limiting who D3 can recruit.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):
This is the funny thing about this forum. Every "solution" is good for 1/3 of the userbase. Those at D1. The game is played by more than D1 users.

Actually, my suggestion would improve both D1 & D3. At D3, having old-timer coaches signing D1 talent just skews the playing field against new users. At D1, users are foolish to play press or fast break, in case they lose battles and cannot cover with a D1 quality roster filler.

One simple change would improve both divisions, improve user retention, and more closely resemble reality. Not sure why it is such a burden on D3 old-time users that they would have to move up to D2 to be eligible to recruit "D1" players.

No, it wouldn't. As I mentioned, D3 is more about finding players D1/D2 don't want. You seldom battle for anyone because you just don't have the resources. Forcing n00bs and vets to fight for the same patch of land is not going to favor the n00b. And that's exactly what you do when you start limiting who D3 can recruit.

Nonsense! Currently, a noob is recruiting from D3 & D2 pools of players that the experienced users at D3 simply ignore. Take a look. In most worlds the top 10 D3 schools have higher OVR team ratings than the #1 D2 team. That doesn't make for a level playing field.

Your argument assumes that we are very close to saturation of users competing for recruits, but the reality is that there aren't enough D1 users to keep D3 from being completely skewed by an unfair market. As it is, all levels are competing for "D1" recruits. That's where the crowding is.

Both D1 & D3 suffer.

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):
This is the funny thing about this forum. Every "solution" is good for 1/3 of the userbase. Those at D1. The game is played by more than D1 users.

Actually, my suggestion would improve both D1 & D3. At D3, having old-timer coaches signing D1 talent just skews the playing field against new users. At D1, users are foolish to play press or fast break, in case they lose battles and cannot cover with a D1 quality roster filler.

One simple change would improve both divisions, improve user retention, and more closely resemble reality. Not sure why it is such a burden on D3 old-time users that they would have to move up to D2 to be eligible to recruit "D1" players.

No, it wouldn't. As I mentioned, D3 is more about finding players D1/D2 don't want. You seldom battle for anyone because you just don't have the resources. Forcing n00bs and vets to fight for the same patch of land is not going to favor the n00b. And that's exactly what you do when you start limiting who D3 can recruit.

Nonsense! Currently, a noob is recruiting from D3 & D2 pools of players that the experienced users at D3 simply ignore. Take a look. In most worlds the top 10 D3 schools have higher OVR team ratings than the #1 D2 team. That doesn't make for a level playing field.

Your argument assumes that we are very close to saturation of users competing for recruits, but the reality is that there aren't enough D1 users to keep D3 from being completely skewed by an unfair market. As it is, all levels are competing for "D1" recruits. That's where the crowding is.

Both D1 & D3 suffer.

In the 4 worlds I have teams in, none feature a single D3 team with an overall rating above the #1 D2 team, much less 10. I've seen PBA and Colorado (in separate worlds) get above the highest D2 in a given season. But I think you are vastly overstating the case.

The top of D3 has always been waaaaay above the average new player controlled team. And it always will be, as long as veterans are allowed to park there. Limiting the quality of the recruits would disadvantage new player in the way Mike says. Now, they have access to the same type of recruit the A+ D3 teams have (unlike the previous version of the game). Limit that pool, and it forces more direct competition - which, as I'm sure you know, is never going to be in the new player's favor.

Posted by pkoopman on 4/18/2017 5:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):
This is the funny thing about this forum. Every "solution" is good for 1/3 of the userbase. Those at D1. The game is played by more than D1 users.

Actually, my suggestion would improve both D1 & D3. At D3, having old-timer coaches signing D1 talent just skews the playing field against new users. At D1, users are foolish to play press or fast break, in case they lose battles and cannot cover with a D1 quality roster filler.

One simple change would improve both divisions, improve user retention, and more closely resemble reality. Not sure why it is such a burden on D3 old-time users that they would have to move up to D2 to be eligible to recruit "D1" players.

No, it wouldn't. As I mentioned, D3 is more about finding players D1/D2 don't want. You seldom battle for anyone because you just don't have the resources. Forcing n00bs and vets to fight for the same patch of land is not going to favor the n00b. And that's exactly what you do when you start limiting who D3 can recruit.

Nonsense! Currently, a noob is recruiting from D3 & D2 pools of players that the experienced users at D3 simply ignore. Take a look. In most worlds the top 10 D3 schools have higher OVR team ratings than the #1 D2 team. That doesn't make for a level playing field.

Your argument assumes that we are very close to saturation of users competing for recruits, but the reality is that there aren't enough D1 users to keep D3 from being completely skewed by an unfair market. As it is, all levels are competing for "D1" recruits. That's where the crowding is.

Both D1 & D3 suffer.

In the 4 worlds I have teams in, none feature a single D3 team with an overall rating above the #1 D2 team, much less 10. I've seen PBA and Colorado (in separate worlds) get above the highest D2 in a given season. But I think you are vastly overstating the case.

The top of D3 has always been waaaaay above the average new player controlled team. And it always will be, as long as veterans are allowed to park there. Limiting the quality of the recruits would disadvantage new player in the way Mike says. Now, they have access to the same type of recruit the A+ D3 teams have (unlike the previous version of the game). Limit that pool, and it forces more direct competition - which, as I'm sure you know, is never going to be in the new player's favor.

Direct competition on a coinflip? You're making no sense whatsoever. You argue that old time Users parking at D3 and avoiding competing with other D3 users ends up good for the new users? Horseshit!

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 5:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/18/2017 5:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):
This is the funny thing about this forum. Every "solution" is good for 1/3 of the userbase. Those at D1. The game is played by more than D1 users.

Actually, my suggestion would improve both D1 & D3. At D3, having old-timer coaches signing D1 talent just skews the playing field against new users. At D1, users are foolish to play press or fast break, in case they lose battles and cannot cover with a D1 quality roster filler.

One simple change would improve both divisions, improve user retention, and more closely resemble reality. Not sure why it is such a burden on D3 old-time users that they would have to move up to D2 to be eligible to recruit "D1" players.

No, it wouldn't. As I mentioned, D3 is more about finding players D1/D2 don't want. You seldom battle for anyone because you just don't have the resources. Forcing n00bs and vets to fight for the same patch of land is not going to favor the n00b. And that's exactly what you do when you start limiting who D3 can recruit.

Nonsense! Currently, a noob is recruiting from D3 & D2 pools of players that the experienced users at D3 simply ignore. Take a look. In most worlds the top 10 D3 schools have higher OVR team ratings than the #1 D2 team. That doesn't make for a level playing field.

Your argument assumes that we are very close to saturation of users competing for recruits, but the reality is that there aren't enough D1 users to keep D3 from being completely skewed by an unfair market. As it is, all levels are competing for "D1" recruits. That's where the crowding is.

Both D1 & D3 suffer.

In the 4 worlds I have teams in, none feature a single D3 team with an overall rating above the #1 D2 team, much less 10. I've seen PBA and Colorado (in separate worlds) get above the highest D2 in a given season. But I think you are vastly overstating the case.

The top of D3 has always been waaaaay above the average new player controlled team. And it always will be, as long as veterans are allowed to park there. Limiting the quality of the recruits would disadvantage new player in the way Mike says. Now, they have access to the same type of recruit the A+ D3 teams have (unlike the previous version of the game). Limit that pool, and it forces more direct competition - which, as I'm sure you know, is never going to be in the new player's favor.

Direct competition on a coinflip? You're making no sense whatsoever. You argue that old time Users parking at D3 and avoiding competing with other D3 users ends up good for the new users? Horseshit!

The average new user controlled team couldn't get to signing range on a player an A+ team wanted. So no "coin flip" involved in those battles. With a bigger pool, the lower prestige team has access to better players than they would with a smaller pool and more direct competition. That's not horseshit, that's plain logic and maths.

If you're concerned about a small pool of players by limiting D3 to D2 and D3 players only then how about they just adjust the recruit generation to create more D3 players? Same sized pool of players as right now but instead of a stud player being 800 overall, they are 700 overall.

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 4/18/2017 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/18/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):
This is the funny thing about this forum. Every "solution" is good for 1/3 of the userbase. Those at D1. The game is played by more than D1 users.

Actually, my suggestion would improve both D1 & D3. At D3, having old-timer coaches signing D1 talent just skews the playing field against new users. At D1, users are foolish to play press or fast break, in case they lose battles and cannot cover with a D1 quality roster filler.

One simple change would improve both divisions, improve user retention, and more closely resemble reality. Not sure why it is such a burden on D3 old-time users that they would have to move up to D2 to be eligible to recruit "D1" players.

No, it wouldn't. As I mentioned, D3 is more about finding players D1/D2 don't want. You seldom battle for anyone because you just don't have the resources. Forcing n00bs and vets to fight for the same patch of land is not going to favor the n00b. And that's exactly what you do when you start limiting who D3 can recruit.

Nonsense! Currently, a noob is recruiting from D3 & D2 pools of players that the experienced users at D3 simply ignore. Take a look. In most worlds the top 10 D3 schools have higher OVR team ratings than the #1 D2 team. That doesn't make for a level playing field.

Your argument assumes that we are very close to saturation of users competing for recruits, but the reality is that there aren't enough D1 users to keep D3 from being completely skewed by an unfair market. As it is, all levels are competing for "D1" recruits. That's where the crowding is.

Both D1 & D3 suffer.

Nonsense!!! I'm in a world with 11 other "new" users. We knew to go after D1 "rejects" in our FIRST recruiting session. We didn't know exactly which ones would qualify as "rejects" but we knew where to look.

Your argument assumes every new user is clueless and simply scours the D3 players. That is simply wrong. By making the recruit field smaller, you force new users to compete with planted D3 vets for talent. That plainly favors the veterans.

That kills the experience for new users. But HD doesn't need new users, right?

Posted by Benis on 4/18/2017 6:13:00 PM (view original):
If you're concerned about a small pool of players by limiting D3 to D2 and D3 players only then how about they just adjust the recruit generation to create more D3 players? Same sized pool of players as right now but instead of a stud player being 800 overall, they are 700 overall.

There's just no compelling reason to structurally "fix" a "problem" that exists because of gameplay with artificial caps or commodity inflation. This is a shared universe game.

Let's not pretend that any of this issue is about protecting the integrity of D3 and the new users who have to start there. The only way to do that is to make coaches move up, and that's not likely to happen (and I wouldn't argue for that anyway). This is an issue because some D1 users want backups to be easier to lock in, they want less risk in going all in on selected targets. They don't like all the moving parts of 3.0, they want it to be more static and predictable, less ambiguous.

Posted by pkoopman on 4/18/2017 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/18/2017 6:13:00 PM (view original):
If you're concerned about a small pool of players by limiting D3 to D2 and D3 players only then how about they just adjust the recruit generation to create more D3 players? Same sized pool of players as right now but instead of a stud player being 800 overall, they are 700 overall.

There's just no compelling reason to structurally "fix" a "problem" that exists because of gameplay with artificial caps or commodity inflation. This is a shared universe game.

Let's not pretend that any of this issue is about protecting the integrity of D3 and the new users who have to start there. The only way to do that is to make coaches move up, and that's not likely to happen (and I wouldn't argue for that anyway). This is an issue because some D1 users want backups to be easier to lock in, they want less risk in going all in on selected targets. They don't like all the moving parts of 3.0, they want it to be more static and predictable, less ambiguous.

I disagree on your suggested reason why people see this as an issue. I have never once complained about not having backup options for D1. Never.

Hell, at the start of Beta I hated the idea of D3 getting D1 players and I didn't even have a D1 team at that point.

Let's assume for a minute that there are users out there that want this change because they genuinely believe it makes for a better game overall.

Posted by pkoopman on 4/18/2017 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/18/2017 6:13:00 PM (view original):
If you're concerned about a small pool of players by limiting D3 to D2 and D3 players only then how about they just adjust the recruit generation to create more D3 players? Same sized pool of players as right now but instead of a stud player being 800 overall, they are 700 overall.

There's just no compelling reason to structurally "fix" a "problem" that exists because of gameplay with artificial caps or commodity inflation. This is a shared universe game.

Let's not pretend that any of this issue is about protecting the integrity of D3 and the new users who have to start there. The only way to do that is to make coaches move up, and that's not likely to happen (and I wouldn't argue for that anyway). This is an issue because some D1 users want backups to be easier to lock in, they want less risk in going all in on selected targets. They don't like all the moving parts of 3.0, they want it to be more static and predictable, less ambiguous.

Well said!

+1



Or whatever you guys do when you agree with a post.


I'd probably be more accepting of these sorts of proposals if the people making them were being honest. It's just a BS "It's not for me, it's for those other guys" nonsense.