I feel like it would be better to have the same # of AP regardless of the # of openings you have. I think of it as coaching/recruiting staff size. D1 say 100, D2 maybe 80 and D3 60. If I sign a recruit right now I get less AP, but from a real world perspective if I sign a recruit you should be able to focus more, not less, on other recruits. Also could discourage the practice of loading up 6-7 in the same class. Anyone know the reasoning behind getting more AP per scholly available?

Interesting point. It could really hurt the mega-class.

But then prestige would have to be adjusted to have a much bigger impact. But if we gave the fake coaches the advantages that real life Duke has, they would literally get all the recruits, not a good recipe for keeping those outside of the A prestige as a paying customer.

I suggested it before beta started - in addition to static amount of attention, I also suggested getting rid of dollars completely, and having visits determined by how well you match the recruits preferences, and how much attention you’re giving him; so the recruit determines if he wants to visit, or if he wants to see you, and how often. So recruiting then is based entirely on how teams prioritize (attention and promises), and how well teams match the recruit’s preferences, along with prestige.

I don’t think it was seriously considered. I suspect the thinking was that it was too much of a departure from the bidding process everyone was used to; resource allocation as “effort” seems tied to this game, for better or worse (much worse, IMO).

It would definitely disincentivize the megaclass approach by a bit. There would still be the advantage of loads of upperclassmen, but presumably most teams would be taking a significant talent hit, having to spread their priorities out on recruiting years more evenly.

It seems like "visits" under your suggestion would just be window dressing. It would simply be how much AP you assign to a player vs what someone else assigns to that player. The rest would be calculated based on preference and prestige. That's still resource allocation even if you remove dollars buying visits. You'd also have to figure out how to calculate distance, or do away with it all together. Otherwise, 1 AP is going to mean the same for 1 mile as it does 1,000 miles for any recruit that doesn't have a distance preference.

I do like the idea of having AP being the only currency for recruiting. It's not very intuitive that we have separate dollar budgets for scouting and recruiting, particularly as a new coach. It would be a nice to simplify that.

Hell, you could go further. Maybe you just have one pool of AP that can be used for both scouting and recruiting. If you choose to unlock more players in scouting with your AP pool, you take the hit on what you have left to recruit. Flip side of that is a limited pool, but more resources for recruiting. Gives you a bit more strategy. I have not thought this out at all so there's probably something wrong with this suggestion.

Posted by Basketts on 8/28/2019 4:27:00 PM (view original):
It seems like "visits" under your suggestion would just be window dressing. It would simply be how much AP you assign to a player vs what someone else assigns to that player. The rest would be calculated based on preference and prestige. That's still resource allocation even if you remove dollars buying visits. You'd also have to figure out how to calculate distance, or do away with it all together. Otherwise, 1 AP is going to mean the same for 1 mile as it does 1,000 miles for any recruit that doesn't have a distance preference.

I do like the idea of having AP being the only currency for recruiting. It's not very intuitive that we have separate dollar budgets for scouting and recruiting, particularly as a new coach. It would be a nice to simplify that.

Hell, you could go further. Maybe you just have one pool of AP that can be used for both scouting and recruiting. If you choose to unlock more players in scouting with your AP pool, you take the hit on what you have left to recruit. Flip side of that is a limited pool, but more resources for recruiting. Gives you a bit more strategy. I have not thought this out at all so there's probably something wrong with this suggestion.

The money used to be combined. It actually did give a few different strategies on how to scout vs recruit.

Posted by duece112 on 11/1/2017 3:31:00 PM (view original):
I feel like it would be better to have the same # of AP regardless of the # of openings you have. I think of it as coaching/recruiting staff size. D1 say 100, D2 maybe 80 and D3 60. If I sign a recruit right now I get less AP, but from a real world perspective if I sign a recruit you should be able to focus more, not less, on other recruits. Also could discourage the practice of loading up 6-7 in the same class. Anyone know the reasoning behind getting more AP per scholly available?

I think it makes sense to have more AP with class size because you need it to unlock actions on more recruits.

Now, you could make your base recruiting budget bigger and then $ per opening less.

Posted by duece112 on 11/1/2017 3:31:00 PM (view original):
I feel like it would be better to have the same # of AP regardless of the # of openings you have. I think of it as coaching/recruiting staff size. D1 say 100, D2 maybe 80 and D3 60. If I sign a recruit right now I get less AP, but from a real world perspective if I sign a recruit you should be able to focus more, not less, on other recruits. Also could discourage the practice of loading up 6-7 in the same class. Anyone know the reasoning behind getting more AP per scholly available?

i think its because there just about has to be *some* currency for recruiting. in real life that may largely be the emotional connection built between the player and the assistant coach / primary recruiter / whatever, it may be in part the leveraging of the connection an AAU coach has with a certain shoe company, and so forth - but most of these things translate terribly to a strategy game like this.

so, i think if you start with the premise of, there has to be some currency coaches can 'spend' on a recruit (not necessarily a single currency, but at least one), then you would expect pretty significant issues if the guy with 1 opening had the same amount of currency as the guy with 5 openings, and i suppose giving some currency per opening is the logical conclusion.

Posted by duece112 on 11/1/2017 3:31:00 PM (view original):
I feel like it would be better to have the same # of AP regardless of the # of openings you have. I think of it as coaching/recruiting staff size. D1 say 100, D2 maybe 80 and D3 60. If I sign a recruit right now I get less AP, but from a real world perspective if I sign a recruit you should be able to focus more, not less, on other recruits. Also could discourage the practice of loading up 6-7 in the same class. Anyone know the reasoning behind getting more AP per scholly available?

Also, if I have 1 opening and another team has 4 openings and we both have 100 AP. I can put all 100 AP in 1 recruit and the other team has to spread out his AP to 25 each. Not a fair playing field IMO. The 1 opening team will get the recruit 99% of the time

Posted by terps21234 on 8/29/2019 10:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by duece112 on 11/1/2017 3:31:00 PM (view original):
I feel like it would be better to have the same # of AP regardless of the # of openings you have. I think of it as coaching/recruiting staff size. D1 say 100, D2 maybe 80 and D3 60. If I sign a recruit right now I get less AP, but from a real world perspective if I sign a recruit you should be able to focus more, not less, on other recruits. Also could discourage the practice of loading up 6-7 in the same class. Anyone know the reasoning behind getting more AP per scholly available?

Also, if I have 1 opening and another team has 4 openings and we both have 100 AP. I can put all 100 AP in 1 recruit and the other team has to spread out his AP to 25 each. Not a fair playing field IMO. The 1 opening team will get the recruit 99% of the time

"The 1 opening team will get the recruit 99% of the time".....

I know you were exaggerating, but not with the way this game works now. The lower odds team wins WAAAAAY to much in this game. As I've mentioned before, i feel the same if I'm the 20 or the 80 in a lopsided roll. Cuz this game WANTS the little guy to win. In my opinion

From many years of playing GD and now HD I have come to the realization that the developers are going to go the easiest route which takes less time on their part just to get the game ready to go. Wow that was a long run on sentence. And if you are wondering I am also ginobili04 and cfbfan18

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/31/2019 5:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by terps21234 on 8/29/2019 10:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by duece112 on 11/1/2017 3:31:00 PM (view original):
I feel like it would be better to have the same # of AP regardless of the # of openings you have. I think of it as coaching/recruiting staff size. D1 say 100, D2 maybe 80 and D3 60. If I sign a recruit right now I get less AP, but from a real world perspective if I sign a recruit you should be able to focus more, not less, on other recruits. Also could discourage the practice of loading up 6-7 in the same class. Anyone know the reasoning behind getting more AP per scholly available?

Also, if I have 1 opening and another team has 4 openings and we both have 100 AP. I can put all 100 AP in 1 recruit and the other team has to spread out his AP to 25 each. Not a fair playing field IMO. The 1 opening team will get the recruit 99% of the time

"The 1 opening team will get the recruit 99% of the time".....

I know you were exaggerating, but not with the way this game works now. The lower odds team wins WAAAAAY to much in this game. As I've mentioned before, i feel the same if I'm the 20 or the 80 in a lopsided roll. Cuz this game WANTS the little guy to win. In my opinion

No one who consistently gets themselves into 20% rolls will be able to field a good team. If you put in Max HV, CV, 40 AP per cycle you better expect to get at least to 40%.

Meanwhile, someone who is getting themselves into 80-20 rolls once a year for 5-stars is doing a great job.

I'm not sure if I'd rather have two guys @ 70% or four guys @ 35%.

I'm guessing the four @ 35 leads to more signings.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/31/2019 5:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by terps21234 on 8/29/2019 10:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by duece112 on 11/1/2017 3:31:00 PM (view original):
I feel like it would be better to have the same # of AP regardless of the # of openings you have. I think of it as coaching/recruiting staff size. D1 say 100, D2 maybe 80 and D3 60. If I sign a recruit right now I get less AP, but from a real world perspective if I sign a recruit you should be able to focus more, not less, on other recruits. Also could discourage the practice of loading up 6-7 in the same class. Anyone know the reasoning behind getting more AP per scholly available?

Also, if I have 1 opening and another team has 4 openings and we both have 100 AP. I can put all 100 AP in 1 recruit and the other team has to spread out his AP to 25 each. Not a fair playing field IMO. The 1 opening team will get the recruit 99% of the time

"The 1 opening team will get the recruit 99% of the time".....

I know you were exaggerating, but not with the way this game works now. The lower odds team wins WAAAAAY to much in this game. As I've mentioned before, i feel the same if I'm the 20 or the 80 in a lopsided roll. Cuz this game WANTS the little guy to win. In my opinion

Do they though? No one ever complains when they win a battle that they had the highest %.

Posted by oldwarrior on 8/31/2019 7:30:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure if I'd rather have two guys @ 70% or four guys @ 35%.

I'm guessing the four @ 35 leads to more signings.

i'd take the 2 @ 70, under 10% chance of getting nobody, its almost double the odds of getting nobody for 4 @ 35. the times when you get lucky and hit 3-4 on the 4 players might be a waste, at least in d1 where it seems like just getting to 10 is a battle and the priority. i'm taking it on faith the listed odds are accurate.

For all the people who use SSS to say the listed odds are accurate, I can say that I have tracked all my battles and my results:
Battles where I had a >50 chance of winning (19): Projected to win 12.4. Won 14.
Battles where I had a <50 chance of winning (7): Projected to win 2.9. Won 1.

It doesn't quite seem like they're tossups guys.