nice way to put it waykbordr - since the EE wasnt known in the first cycle and the slot got no AP, in the second cycle the EE slot should get double AP to make up for the missed first cycle. Its not extra - its compensation for missed AP.

at least do that

disagree with those fixes.

That penalizes teams who were on the late signers from the beginning.

You either get rid of them (Seble won't budget) or have them declare early (Seble cant program it)

How do u figure it penalizes teams on late signers?

they know they are late signers and the EE team would've had those attention points if it was a normal schollie so it would only equal things out

way -
Teams choose their battles partly based on the competition. If I am a "B" school chances are I would not go for a stud if there was a "A+" school also considered.
In the above proposal, if you allow the "A+" school to double up after the 1st round I am totally screwed. Some might say that's the risk I take, but I would call in an unfair penalty to the non-EE teams.

lots of options - each of which has plusses and minuses

the worst plan is to do nothing, which creates dire, significantly random effects for teams with EEs and especially for teams with uncertain EEs

BECAUSE it is way harder to fill the slot in nuGame than in real life and BECAUSE creating a rather random and very negative possibility is bad for gameplay. Just as I would not want to play chess if there was a rule that sometimes, on a hard to predict basis, both of my rooks may become pawns after a die roll.

Would you rather play chess if your opponent was given a new rook every time he lost one?

nice spud, but not an apt analogy

the experience in the beta is that unexpected EE's were very hard to replace with any DI quality player

no one is asking to be given anything - other than a chance to compete for DI quality players to fill the slot of unexpected or numerous EEs

why should one get only half as many attention points - in the aggregate - to fill an EE slot as one gets to fill an ordinary open slot?

please recognize the possibility that having never coached at high DI and experienced the existing EE process, your ability to draw inferences about that process may be limited by that lack of experience

Your logic is lost in the vast empty Spudhole universe maxmet where there is no chess, only checkers, because Spud doesn't think its fair that some pieces are more valuable than others.

Once again...you've been Spudded...

yukon gold?

I started a thread on this the day the new beta became a possibility.
I repeatedly stated the REAL issues that will absolutely crush a minority of great coaches... Others with wisdom understood, agreed, etc.
multiple good solutions were proposed. And yes, they could have easily been programmed. Statements otherwise are lies which prove the socialistic intent of the programmer.
And every complaint, every solution was ignored.

the plan- ignore the issue and even the playing field by punishing the upper level coaches. (Make no mistake, this is punishment hoping to even the playing field even more- adding yet another tax to the rich, as if conference cash, randomness, and other changes weren't enough). Once the field is leveled, the excuse "it doesn't hurt many because teams don't have a massive number of ee's" is more valid... But too late.

The attitude with which this very real issue was ignored and downplayed is a bigger frustration to me than the issue itself.
It proves the developer's motivations for these changes and his desire to ignore veterans. This is sad. And appalling.
I like many of the changes but this attitude and lack of change will cause me to leave more than anything else.

Posted by stewdog on 9/6/2016 10:32:00 AM (view original):
I started a thread on this the day the new beta became a possibility.
I repeatedly stated the REAL issues that will absolutely crush a minority of great coaches... Others with wisdom understood, agreed, etc.
multiple good solutions were proposed. And yes, they could have easily been programmed. Statements otherwise are lies which prove the socialistic intent of the programmer.
And every complaint, every solution was ignored.

the plan- ignore the issue and even the playing field by punishing the upper level coaches. (Make no mistake, this is punishment hoping to even the playing field even more- adding yet another tax to the rich, as if conference cash, randomness, and other changes weren't enough). Once the field is leveled, the excuse "it doesn't hurt many because teams don't have a massive number of ee's" is more valid... But too late.

The attitude with which this very real issue was ignored and downplayed is a bigger frustration to me than the issue itself.
It proves the developer's motivations for these changes and his desire to ignore veterans. This is sad. And appalling.
I like many of the changes but this attitude and lack of change will cause me to leave more than anything else.

Are you a computer programmer? Do you know which language WIS uses to program their games or what database backend they use to store the information? Do you know the load on their machines and impact the changes made to the code might impact that? Do you know how long they worked on the code BEFORE they announced the plans to actually implement the recruiting changes and how hard it was or was not for them to get this code into the current game?

How do you know your changes 'could have been programmed' .. if you don't have info of the above?

I would also love to get some stuff into the game. For example, if they would roll in the ability to add potential into the 'player roles', then they could revolutionize recruiting. I would love to see it rolled in. It may or may not happen (probably not).

If something was in the game yesterday, it could be in the game tomorrow.

Whether it is or isn't is WIS's choice.

One option that wouldn't of been too difficult was to remove EEs completely (and I have been a software programmer for almost 30 years). I'm with stewdog in that EEs had their place in order to offset the numerous advantages that elite D1 programs had over other teams like post-season cash (gone), rollover (gone), limited long-distance recruiting (gone), unlimited auction style recruiting (gone) and most coaches were unwilling to challenge them.

So now with all these new changes and removal of all the above, also making it even *WORSE* than it is today to replace EEs is just a slap in the face.

Do you even have a point with that post ?

I havent read every post in this thread but my recommendation would be to assign attention points & recruiting cash if you have a player in the top 40 of the "Big Board". That way the schools can replace your EEs from the beginning. Getting cash or points after the regualr season is redundant since its next to impossible to recruit quality players from 0 at that point.