Posted by upsetcity on 11/28/2019 3:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by chapelhillne on 11/28/2019 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by buddhagamer on 11/28/2019 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 11/28/2019 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 11/28/2019 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Still..... D+ vs A+ is absurd given what he threw in.
What was the final battle %?
If he was at moderate, the odds would be 100-0.
If it’s 80 AP total, say 20 /cycle over 4 cycles, this result is completely in line with what I would expect, assuming the rival put in significantly more (say, 60/cycle) AP, made promises, and did more visits. D+ can’t touch A+ if effort is equal or anywhere close; but 20 AP/cycle, only 60% visits, and no promises is leaving a whole lot of room. Remember, this is a second session only battle, meaning the isolated impact of promises is especially large.
If the OP is saying 80 AP per cycle for the A+, then there might be something else going on. Promises are big, but I wouldn’t think they would cover that much ground, to hold the A+ to moderate in that situation.
When a human takes over for a SIM, only the recruiting $$$ is refunded but any accumulated AP is not and stays with the recruits. The other coach likely still had all of first recruiting session AP into that recruit so the AP difference could be quite large. Also, I've heard that prestige changes might not even take effect in RS2 and the OP was still only getting credit using his RS1 prestige.
I've also been told by CS that even when the recruit does NOT have a PT preference, its still a multiplier when offering starts/minutes (it's just a much larger multiplier when they want PT). Thus its likely the mid-major offered start/minutes immediately followed by the full CV/20 HV dump (magnifying the recruiting credit for each visit).
WHAT??
that would be huge news to me. promises as a multiplier, even without a preference - as opposed to a fixed amount (which may vary per recruit and per school offering, but still given a school and a recruit, i thought it was a fixed value).
that is pretty crazy. i actually HATE promises, i feel like 3.0 promises are total BS, you have to promise so many recruits and throw away the regular season, it just sucks. i wish they'd rip them out root and stem. but them being a % that is not retroactive is a lot different than a fixed value and would have to do even more of the damn things. any chance you still have that CS ticket around and could post here?
This is actually something that I've been thinking lately. It just seems very gimmicky. Go to any P6 conference and look at all of the successful teams. Most will be starting multiple freshman, until they reach their promise for the season, then immediately send him to the bench. It may alter their regular season, but the best teams will win come NT and they just need to make it.
The kicker? They're also benefitting by keeping the veteran on the bench as he was also, often times, the highly touted recruit who was offered a promise, but the team is keeping him on the bench to prevent his progressions up the Big Board.
I do like the promises and I think they're an important part of the game. I don't like the idea of removing them. What I've been thinking is to make MORE promises - diluting the meaning of each one - and holding you more accountable to reaching those that you offer. Breakdown promised starts into sub-categories such as "promise regular season start", "promise CT/NT/PI start (if you make it that far), "promise sophomore year start". That was they aren't starting 27 games and get sat during the ones any player would most want to play. The lower level teams would be more likely to make those additional starts as they want to reach success, while successful teams may be more hesitant to offer a freshman starts during their NT.
sorry, that was me you are quoting, my bad (i co-coach with chap and screwed up and accidentally posted as him).
anyway, i always figured most people wouldn't like my preference, which is to totally nix promises.
however, i do think a good compromise is to do one of 2 things:
1) limit the number of promises you can have outstanding, so folks could maybe have only 2 guys who were promised more than 15m. this would also add strategy to recruiting, because you'd have to strategically decide which guys to offer the promises to!
2) make promises permanent - so they'd carry forward as-is every season. i don't like this as its nice to be able to mess with your team lineup and stuff, to improvise and find stuff that works.
3) ill add this - remove the way promises are enforced - as is it KILLS the ability to say well, for these 5 games, im going to try the lineup i really want, or to experiment, so at least i can do some fun stuff or NT prep work during the regular season. instead, have players only quit if you don't meet say 70% of the promise - and if you meet 70 to 100%, then there is a corresponding work ethic hit - maybe 1 point per % you don't meet?