It's a totally different game!

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2018 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2018 7:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 2/1/2018 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 7:05:00 PM (view original):
I would prefer to remove the overall cap on HVs and move to a per cycle cap. Something like 5 HVs maximum per cycle.

This would prevent the poaching HV "lovebomb" and encourage people to get in on a guy earlier (although would be problematic for new coaches taking over in 2nd session)

But it'd allow people to choose to not be in dice rolls if they prioritize a guy highly enough and want to use all their resources on one dude.

I could get behind an idea like this as well. It would even allow D2 teams to compete for the fringe D1 players against lower prestige D1 schools.

For what it's worth, I wish ALL players were able to be signed by ANY school in RS1. Put enough effort in as a D2 school and you shouldn't have to wait until RS2 to sign a lower rated D1 player. Tweak the coding so that any who is going EE announces it to that particular coach at the beginning of RS1. That coach now knows what players he'll need to replace due to graduation/EE's. Plan accordingly or lose, simple as that. Add a day or two to RS1 and do away with RS2 completely. Problem (potentially)m solved. Haven't really thought through the ramifications of doing it like that, but it's got to be better than the current EE set-up.

I think the majority of us would like to get rid of the two recruiting sessions. Turned out to be such a bad idea.

I'm not really sure why people are supportive of a per cycle cap for APs but a hard cap for HVs. I'd prefer the other way around. I really haven't heard a reason why this would be worse other than the "more openings will automatically win and everyone would be afraid to battle" excuse but I don't really believe that one.

“But it'd allow people to choose to not be in dice rolls if they prioritize a guy highly enough and want to use all their resources on one dude.” - Benis

“I'm not really sure why people are supportive of a per cycle cap for APs but a hard cap for HVs. I'd prefer the other way around. I really haven't heard a reason why this would be worse other than the "more openings will automatically win and everyone would be afraid to battle" excuse but I don't really believe that one.” - Benis, 75 minutes later.

So in short, the point is to allow people to avoid dice rolls if they want to pour all their resources on “one dude”. But he doesn’t really believe that people would decline to battle a team with 6 openings and no hard, total cap.

Thats so Benis. No foresight beyond what’s right in front of his nose.

Only if they're wimps.

Speaking of wimps, what would we call a coach who wants the game to functionally change it’s parameters so that it is possible for him to game his resources such that he doesn’t have to compete with anyone for a player he really wants?

No idea. But I'm sure you'll come up with some nerdy name for it.

pwned

Meh. not nerdy enough.

Posted by zorzii on 2/2/2018 10:25:00 AM (view original):
It's a totally different game!

Wow, that's a convincing argument.

I may have to re-think my position!!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/2/2018 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 2/2/2018 10:25:00 AM (view original):
It's a totally different game!

Wow, that's a convincing argument.

I may have to re-think my position!!!

OK, I went thru the finer points of your argument and came up with this:

No, they aren't.

Biggest difference is the amount of resources. You have to be very careful not to **** them away in D3 because you just don't have much. In D1, we can throw out multiple HV and a CV to "test the waters". In D3, and to a lesser extent D2, you have to decide if you have a legit shot at the prospect.

I will admit that it's "easier" to find comparable players in D2/D3 when you feel you'll miss your top priority. And, if you're not competing for prospects in D1, you're not reaching high enough.

And, of course, we know D1 prospects won't sign with D2/D3 until RS2 so there's a much better chance that your top priority will get snatched away in RS1 by a higher level.

But, honestly, that's about it.

Mike : I play both. In the upper echelon of the D1 curve, it's totally different. I could give you that once you rebuild, it's a bit like D2...

Starting at B, the game gets strategic and tough.

zorzi, I've played all three. I get that you DON'T HAVE TO fight for players at D2/D3. You can probably avoid it at low level D1.

That is NOT how I play. So, to me, "dice rolls" is something I've done at every level. I'm not even saying that it's smart, I'm saying I do it anyway. So battling for players is not different for me at any level.

Now, if you can give me a clear, concise reason why it's SO different, I might reconsider. Hint: "It's a totally different game!!!" will not suffice.

easy fix - change the labels - eliminate very high - they all are just high

Since this is Groundhog Day:

I predict the next crusade by our resident curmudgeon will be another call to change the weight and distribution of "Preferences". But the crusade won't start until he feels that he's been wronged.

Only 2 real differences between D1 and D2/D3:
- Money. In D3 you have to pay attention to your wallet.
- Poaching. Upper tier D1's continue to try to poach. It's not as easy to do this in D2/D3..