very few ever said that once you have an A prestige D1 school everything should be easy...in fact, pretty much everyone who ever posted that sentiment left in a huff months ago (thankfully). but there is a definite line between challenging and impossible...and it shouldn't be a total waste of a season to switch schools at D1, especially when switching between high-level programs. while i maintain there was some logic to the spud viewpoint on EEs (though i argued for more of a compromise view between the "HD3 is perfect" apologists and the total capitulation to high-prestige coaches that some wanted to maintain), this is clearly different. to keep the HD3 is perfectly and purposefully designed mentality through everything just eliminates all shreds of credibility.

So many "haters" .....

Posted by bathtubhippo on 1/28/2017 6:46:00 PM (view original):
very few ever said that once you have an A prestige D1 school everything should be easy...in fact, pretty much everyone who ever posted that sentiment left in a huff months ago (thankfully). but there is a definite line between challenging and impossible...and it shouldn't be a total waste of a season to switch schools at D1, especially when switching between high-level programs. while i maintain there was some logic to the spud viewpoint on EEs (though i argued for more of a compromise view between the "HD3 is perfect" apologists and the total capitulation to high-prestige coaches that some wanted to maintain), this is clearly different. to keep the HD3 is perfectly and purposefully designed mentality through everything just eliminates all shreds of credibility.

I am 100% sure that the problem johnsensing addresses, about losing both previous effort AND any capacity to extend your own effort, is an unintended problem that seble had intended to fix, or at least look into. It was not an intended feature of the design. Even spud agrees it's a glitch.

I understand the frustration, but it is a pretty rare problem, where a human takes over for a human that had extended lots of effort on a late signee, and then bailed on the team. I'd guess users most commonly take over for sims, who seem far less likely to go all in on anyone, and often haven't really extended much effort at all on late signees before the 2nd period. I think I've seen one other mention of this problem popping up before in the forums. Mostly, the complaint is about how hard it is to unlock guys before they sign after taking over in RS2. Above all, I want to see some signing-free cycles for late signees at the start of RS2. That's a magic bullet that makes the game more playable on a number of different fronts.

Posted by johnsensing on 1/27/2017 5:15:00 PM (view original):
This is the first time I've taken over a new team in 3.0, but my god, it makes the EE problems look like a smooth and well-thought-out process. First, a coach taking over a new team is boned by the fact that players can sign immediately in session 2 (and it generally takes at least three cycles before you can offer a CV) -- that's been discussed ad nauseum, WIS doesn't care.

But even worse (and I haven't seen any discussion of this), if the old coach was in on a player, all of your considering credit is gone (so B+ Syracuse is knocked back to very low on any recruit considering it). That would be fine with me (and even makes sense to some extent), except you have no way to re-do the effort -- if the old coach used up his CV and the 20 HVs on the recruit, the new coach cannot assign CV/HVs to that recruit, even if the scholly is outstanding. So even for the few players where the prior coach opened up schollys, the new coach has no chance. This is terrible, and should be fixed immediately.

Wow, I actually agree with johnsensing on something. I think I would still be playing HD if the first recruiting session was the one before the season starts and not the one during the season.

Every first season for a new coach will p much be a lame duck season because you will not have had a chance to recruit successfully/at all since all of the good recruits have already signed or at the very least, are strongly considering other teams. The ridiculously low-capped HVs (20) and CVs (1) further stunt your potential salvageability in year 1.

I definitely like some of the new bells and whistles with recruiting (mainly the transparency), but I feel like the overall "new" concept is backwards, short-sighted, and lacking overall. It wasn't very well thought out or executed...and again, having the guy that was quitting with a 15-month paid buyout, creating the new game/update...I mean that's just the cherry on top of a bathtub full of feces.

Posted by fd343ny on 1/28/2017 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 1/28/2017 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 1/28/2017 6:28:00 AM (view original):

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?

Not once, not under this screen name nor any other screen name (which the hater stupidly ignored). This causes me to wonder if the game actually worked for the OP as he described, or if he missed something. If it were as he experienced, I would think that he would send a ticket and get an explanation, not whine and bltch in the forums. To each his own, I guess.

a pointless post.

LOL. Then since I answered someone's question, it must have been a pointless question that I answered.

Posted by johnsensing on 1/28/2017 9:00:00 AM (view original):

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.

Well, first, I'm not sure you're understanding what I mean by "new". You are "new" at that school.

Second, I'd do recruiting differently but we're working with what is in place. D1 coaches have been given the issue of EE. That creates a recruiting/replacement issue in the 2nd recruiting session. If you are an "old"(returning) coach with a EE issue, you may have a problem. By restricting "new" coaches in the way you're being restricted, it sort of balances the scales.

So, to sum it up, I don't think this is the way I'd do recruiting but there is a logic to it. I'd probably allow "new" coaches to re-recruit but there are HV/CV limits on schools WRT recruits. Syracuse has used them.

As a side note, if you don't sign up for the second recruiting session, the first season at a school totally sucks. At the very least, your 1st season at Syracuse won't be that. You get to recruit some players.

To the extent anyone still cares, below is the ticket I submitted, and the response -- as expected, just a "we're looking at it":

I think there's a major glitch in second session recruiting for a coach who takes over a new team. I just took over Syracuse in Allen -- the prior (human) coach had put in 20 HVs and a CV on a 5-star center (Richard Mobley out of Providence RI). I lost almost all of the prior considering credit (at least enough so Syracuse was knocked back to very low) -- which is OK, and actually makes some sense from a realism perspective -- but the problem is that I could not put any more HVs or a CV into the player, so Boston College (who wound up signing the player) basically won the recruiting battle by default. Questions: (1) was this deliberate in the 3.0 revamp? (2) Will WIS consider changing it so the new coach can do full HVs and CVs, even if the old coach did as well? This seems incredibly punitive, especially given the SEVERE handicap that a coach taking over a new team is already dealing with. Thanks for any light you can shed on this.
1/30/2017 12:08 PM	Customer Support
Hi John, Thanks for the note and feedback. It is a known issue that we're reviewing.