Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
I'm for a single session because of job change/new coaches. The first season under the current system is a waste. You probably have a bad team full of players you didn't recruit. You can't gain an "attachment" to the team that way and I believe that's one of the reasons a lot of users don't have Season 2. If you go 5-22 with players you didn't bring in, there's little incentive to re-up. If you go 5-22 with 4 guys you recruited, maybe you see light at the end of the tunnel. Or maybe you just like developing the guys you recruited. And it's entirely possible you recruit 4 piles of steaming garbage but they're your steaming garbage and you learned something. You gain no knowledge in recruiting and don't develop "your" guys. It's just not fun.

This.

Posted by lakevin on 10/4/2017 11:41:00 AM (view original):
As much as I want a more elegant fix, I have come around to the belief that the right solution is to go back to a single session of recruiting right after coach signups. Fixes job change and EE problem without shifting the benefit too much to the better programs.

Mike, say your obnoxious piece, and then go away. I'm not responding to you.

Mike had, IMHO, the most elegant argument supporting a single recruiting session. Even some who find him obnoxious yielded to the inescapable logic and agreed 100%.

lakevin doesn't have time to read threads. Gets in the way of planning out his next snide remark.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 10/4/2017 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by lakevin on 10/4/2017 11:41:00 AM (view original):
As much as I want a more elegant fix, I have come around to the belief that the right solution is to go back to a single session of recruiting right after coach signups. Fixes job change and EE problem without shifting the benefit too much to the better programs.

Mike, say your obnoxious piece, and then go away. I'm not responding to you.

Mike had, IMHO, the most elegant argument supporting a single recruiting session. Even some who find him obnoxious yielded to the inescapable logic and agreed 100%.

Most of us agree with it. And even more agreed a year ago when others said it then too. We're all playing the waiting game on whether anything will happen Seble's end.

While I generally agree with the sentiments about taking over a team and becoming vested in it through recruiting your own players, the issue that is ignored in this discussion is that recruiting under the current system is seven days long ... five (in season) + two postseason. If you move it all to one post season recruiting session you add five days to the season's length.

Personally, I don't care one way or another, but my recollection is this issue did come up in Beta testing and that seble was not in favor of extending the season by five days (Of course I could be mistaken about all of this).

Kill some of the dead time and it won't be 5 days.

Agreed, but I believe he was against extending it beyond its current length which is why he wanted the in season recruiting.

Combine jobs and new coach sign ups. Just saved 2 days.

Re-up before NT starts. Sign-up, job change runs during NT. That probably saved 10 days.

Posted by Benis on 10/4/2017 1:12:00 PM (view original):
Combine jobs and new coach sign ups. Just saved 2 days.

Jobs runs every three hours, new coaches grab jobs instantly. Hmmmmmm...

This can be solved by simply not allowing new coaches to sign up. This change would produce approximately the same results as the current system.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2017 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
I'm for a single session because of job change/new coaches. The first season under the current system is a waste. You probably have a bad team full of players you didn't recruit. You can't gain an "attachment" to the team that way and I believe that's one of the reasons a lot of users don't have Season 2. If you go 5-22 with players you didn't bring in, there's little incentive to re-up. If you go 5-22 with 4 guys you recruited, maybe you see light at the end of the tunnel. Or maybe you just like developing the guys you recruited. And it's entirely possible you recruit 4 piles of steaming garbage but they're your steaming garbage and you learned something. You gain no knowledge in recruiting and don't develop "your" guys. It's just not fun.

This.

Move new player sign ups to the coach change period, if it’s decided that this really is a compelling reason new players don’t stick around. No need to cram 7 days of recruiting between seasons.

Let’s be really clear now. This isn’t primarily about new players or even job changes, because there are simpler tweaks that can address those problems - if they’re really problems - that are less cumbersome than scrapping a major feature of 3.0. The core of support for going back to one big session between seasons is among people who want to reduce the volatility/risk of early entry caliber players, and to narrow the range of teams that can compete for them. The result would be a less competitive game.

Let's be PERFECTLY clear.

I don't give a damn about EE "problems". As I said, I waited 2-3 weeks for both my teams. BOTH first seasons were a complete waste of time. I'm a vet, I get it. I don't think new users get it nor should they. The first season should be full of fun and learning. It is decidedly neither.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/4/2017 3:06:00 PM (view original):
Let's be PERFECTLY clear.

I don't give a damn about EE "problems". As I said, I waited 2-3 weeks for both my teams. BOTH first seasons were a complete waste of time. I'm a vet, I get it. I don't think new users get it nor should they. The first season should be full of fun and learning. It is decidedly neither.

...and there are ways to address that - IF it is an actual problem, and not just speculation - that don’t involve basically reverting back to a less competitive version of the game at the top levels. You’ll note, the original post is not a gripe about the length of time between seasons, or the length of time it takes between new player sign-up and rollover. It’s all about wanting better access to better recruits after losing existing players to early entry.

Yours is certainly not a universal gripe. Users don’t come in to an NCAA simulation thinking they’re going to be building a dynasty at Carleton. I don’t think they’re looking to get attached to the first team anyway, at least when they realize they can’t start at Duke. I don’t think the game wants them attached to the first team.

In the first season, it’s about hooking them on the process. Is it fair, and is it fun? And will I get where I want to be in a reasonable amount of time? I suspect those are a lot more important to the actual new players than can I bring in my own players for this first season? Your gripe probably has more to do with people who are already playing the game, thinking about adding worlds. As has been suggested before, a better idea than nixing in-season recruiting (which is, in itself, a potential draw for new players with bad teams, giving them something to do other than think about how they’re losing by 50 points to veteran smurfs who stick in D3 for the credits) is to let players with a certain level of overall experience start at any level under C- level D1 prestige.

Lots of things to do that are less drastic, with less severe gameplay implications, if new players and job changes are the real concern.

First seasons are not fun. Nor do you learn a damn thing about recruiting.

Do you dispute either of those premises?

And, please, do not pretend you know what my gripe is "probably" more to do with. IF my conference had not been full of users I knew from HBD, I would not have played a 2nd season. You know why? Because the game was not fun and I did not learn a damn thing about recruiting.

I'll add, for clarity, that one must re-up before RS2 so, if you're trying to pull down players, you don't even really recruit as no one will sign before you're gone.