Just throwing this out there and maybe I'm missing something but if you make the Close to Home preference TOO strong, doesn't that just have teams fall victim to the luck of recruit generation again?

Posted by emy1013 on 1/20/2022 2:45:00 AM (view original):
Just throwing this out there and maybe I'm missing something but if you make the Close to Home preference TOO strong, doesn't that just have teams fall victim to the luck of recruit generation again?

Yes and no. You're right technically. But if the system is done properly there's enough balance across the land. Just as there is now. There only difference is, in my example of a recruit wanting to play close to home in Virginia, you won't see Virginia battling Michigan St. Because the Michigan St coach would know he's got no shot (after some gaming experience). It would be Duke vs Virginia instead.

There's always a bit of randomness in the recruit generation that impacts it all. Based on cost alone. But that's real life as well . Maybe starting small and just fixing the other areas mentioned (wants rebuild, play for new couch, etc) would be enough to patch things up enough, to then reevaluate things.

My beef with preferences is less focused on "close to home" than it is the overall concept. Seeing 4 very goods and losing to a team with some neutrals mixed in, isn't appealing to me.

Maybe a stair step approach; where each very good that you have builds your score enough to counteract prestige. So that a recruit with 4 very goods will value YOU as an A+ prestige school in his eyes. And a battle would be treated that way.

I can't put my finger on the exacts to fix it. But there's a way!

TopDoggg, the stairstep approach is an interesting idea, would seem to fix the general preference v prestige issue, then you could re-evaluate and see if specific preferences would be worth adjusting.

Posted by oldwarrior on 1/18/2022 9:55:00 PM (view original):
Let's put some of these suggestions to work.

In HD, Hawaii struggles in recruiting and often needs to go the international route. In a few worlds they have been successful, often making the NT, occasionally even a deep run in the tourney.

Then one magic season, the top player in the country is found living in the basement of a University of Hawaii building. But he has a preference to play in a rebuild far from home. Which results in the recruit ignoring Hawaii, no matter the recruiting effort that is invested.

I know this is a bit old … but it might give a bit of an extra edge to them they didn’t previously have on ‘far from home’ players that would let them compete where they couldn’t previously.

(speaking as a Hawaii coach)

Posted by emy1013 on 1/20/2022 2:45:00 AM (view original):
Just throwing this out there and maybe I'm missing something but if you make the Close to Home preference TOO strong, doesn't that just have teams fall victim to the luck of recruit generation again?

If ‘far from home’ were also enhanced would it though? Because it would provide a boost to getting recruits NOT in your back yard.

Posted by emy1013 on 1/20/2022 2:45:00 AM (view original):
Just throwing this out there and maybe I'm missing something but if you make the Close to Home preference TOO strong, doesn't that just have teams fall victim to the luck of recruit generation again?

i think the answer here would be yes, but i think the close to home preference is rare enough that even if they made it stronger, it would be ok? i personally think the built-in distance penalty is significant enough that the close to home preference really shouldn't be too strong just on that basis. i think far from home should be significantly stronger, because its fighting up stream - not sure if HD allows that right now, a preference and its inverse if you will, to vary in strength. i think it should?

back when this pref stuff was discussed in the old days, way before there was ever a release about it, i think the idea of preference strengths was brought up a bunch of times. as in, a dude might have a slight close to home pref, and another might have a strong one. i am not sure i like the idea of majorly enhancing the impact of preferences, in general, across the whole pool. its probably too much complexity / screen space, but perhaps adding preference strengths would be the way to split the difference here? perhaps they could just put that in for a couple key ones (distance, success), to add some spice to the mix?

It should be easier/cheaper to scout JUCO/transfers. Realistically, the player has had at least 1-2 seasons out in the college world, and in the real world, if he hasn't redshirted, the player has enough tape a coach can go through and scout. Maybe automatically start JUCO/transfers at scouting level 2 and have to spend to get them to level 3/4. Or, give a level of scouting per year the player has been in college, so a player transferring after his freshman season would be at level 2, a player transferring after his sophomore season would be at level 3, and so on.

As was said, make preferences matter a lot more than they already do. If a player has a couple "bad" or "very bad" preferences I should be reluctant to try to recruit them, unless my prestige is an A.

I'd also like to see recruiting money that isn't spent that season rolled into the next season. It could be limited to 25-50%.

Posted by camelspider on 1/25/2022 7:48:00 PM (view original):
It should be easier/cheaper to scout JUCO/transfers. Realistically, the player has had at least 1-2 seasons out in the college world, and in the real world, if he hasn't redshirted, the player has enough tape a coach can go through and scout. Maybe automatically start JUCO/transfers at scouting level 2 and have to spend to get them to level 3/4. Or, give a level of scouting per year the player has been in college, so a player transferring after his freshman season would be at level 2, a player transferring after his sophomore season would be at level 3, and so on.

As was said, make preferences matter a lot more than they already do. If a player has a couple "bad" or "very bad" preferences I should be reluctant to try to recruit them, unless my prestige is an A.

I'd also like to see recruiting money that isn't spent that season rolled into the next season. It could be limited to 25-50%.

I like ALL of this!

Except the last part. Stacking recruiting money makes an ugly situation in some cases. You know what others are working with each and every season, and it should be that way. If I have one lucky season where everyone decides to leave my recruits alone (out of pure luck), that shouldn't aid me going into next season also.

I get that part but I'm looking at it from a mid-major or rebuilding team's perspective too. I know it can stack up a lot, coming from Gridiron Dynasty where that happened all the time. That's why I said it could be limited to 25-50% of the coaches' left over cash being rolled over, so that teams aren't having $250K sitting in their bank account.
I'd also like to see a recruiting cash reward system for teams/conferences that make the tournaments.
Oh, and, a probation system could be put in place too. Get caught giving too many bribes and you could be put on probation. Too many players flunking out of college? Probation. UNLV threw the game against Duke so they could collect a huge payday? Probation. (That third one can't really be done in HD.)

Posted by camelspider on 1/26/2022 8:24:00 PM (view original):
I get that part but I'm looking at it from a mid-major or rebuilding team's perspective too. I know it can stack up a lot, coming from Gridiron Dynasty where that happened all the time. That's why I said it could be limited to 25-50% of the coaches' left over cash being rolled over, so that teams aren't having $250K sitting in their bank account.
I'd also like to see a recruiting cash reward system for teams/conferences that make the tournaments.
Oh, and, a probation system could be put in place too. Get caught giving too many bribes and you could be put on probation. Too many players flunking out of college? Probation. UNLV threw the game against Duke so they could collect a huge payday? Probation. (That third one can't really be done in HD.)

Basically all your requests (or most of them) are exactly what HD 2.0 was. Not sure if you played then or not. I played 1.0 and left before I got a chance to play 2.0. But that's how a lot of things used to be somewhat.

Posted by topdogggbm on 1/26/2022 10:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by camelspider on 1/26/2022 8:24:00 PM (view original):
I get that part but I'm looking at it from a mid-major or rebuilding team's perspective too. I know it can stack up a lot, coming from Gridiron Dynasty where that happened all the time. That's why I said it could be limited to 25-50% of the coaches' left over cash being rolled over, so that teams aren't having $250K sitting in their bank account.
I'd also like to see a recruiting cash reward system for teams/conferences that make the tournaments.
Oh, and, a probation system could be put in place too. Get caught giving too many bribes and you could be put on probation. Too many players flunking out of college? Probation. UNLV threw the game against Duke so they could collect a huge payday? Probation. (That third one can't really be done in HD.)

Basically all your requests (or most of them) are exactly what HD 2.0 was. Not sure if you played then or not. I played 1.0 and left before I got a chance to play 2.0. But that's how a lot of things used to be somewhat.

I feel like this guy must be joking because that's exactly 2.0 haha.

Not joking at all. Never played 2.0. Guess I missed out. But, I like how 3.0 is for the most part.

This has turned into a discussion almost solely centered on recruiting, but I'll chip in a comment about something else that falls in line with the original topic.

People may disagree with this, but I would like to see D1 prestige work the same way it does in D2 and D3. All schools and conferences should have equivalent baseline prestige. After all, if we are talking "what if," why shouldn't Robert Morris or UNO or [insert random non-powerhouse school name you like] be able to get to A+ prestige?

I understand that people may want to have dream jobs like Kentucky and UCLA and Duke, but those jobs get locked down in many worlds because someone got there first (and I say that as someone who has been playing HD since its inception). Or maybe you are an alumnus of a smaller D1 school and want to turn them into a juggernaut. I'd like to be able to control my own destiny a little more than that and, with enough success, get any school to the A+ prestige level, regardless of what its real-life history is.

Posted by davis on 2/9/2022 4:20:00 PM (view original):
This has turned into a discussion almost solely centered on recruiting, but I'll chip in a comment about something else that falls in line with the original topic.

People may disagree with this, but I would like to see D1 prestige work the same way it does in D2 and D3. All schools and conferences should have equivalent baseline prestige. After all, if we are talking "what if," why shouldn't Robert Morris or UNO or [insert random non-powerhouse school name you like] be able to get to A+ prestige?

I understand that people may want to have dream jobs like Kentucky and UCLA and Duke, but those jobs get locked down in many worlds because someone got there first (and I say that as someone who has been playing HD since its inception). Or maybe you are an alumnus of a smaller D1 school and want to turn them into a juggernaut. I'd like to be able to control my own destiny a little more than that and, with enough success, get any school to the A+ prestige level, regardless of what its real-life history is.

For two reasons....

1) the game needs "something" for coaches to continuously work towards. And that something has to be interesting to the masses. The entire community. More coaches over the length of time will be much more interested in investing time money and effort to EARN their way to Kansas. Compared to far fewer coaches being interested in Robert Morris as an A+ school. If someone left Robert Morris with an A+ you might have 2 people apply for it. If Kansas is left open with an A+, almost every coach in the county is applying. It happens now. It's got to be blatantly obvious to the developers that the game is right, as is, regarding this topic.

2) new users. I've stated in the past that this game attracted me because it LOOKED like college basketball. If 12 elite coaches decided to make the ivy league unstoppable (which could really happen technically), it may be fun for that group. But if I was a new coach at that time and stumbled across an E8 full of ivy league schools, I wouldn't even try the game. It just wouldn't be appealing to ME.

Not everyone feels like I do. That's fine. But we have to be appealing to new users. And mirroring real life somewhat is a must.