i would also be fine with a narrowing of the range for battles. not a lot but a little, it takes a rather wide effort disparity, or prestige disparity all else held equal, to turn a battle to a 100/0. i think the band is perhaps a little wide, schools can really punch up 2 full grades right now, although perceptions keeps many from realizing that possibility. seems like a perhaps 20% reduction in the effort differential for that line, where you go from 80/20 to 100/0, or something in that ballpark, would help convert some of these 70% battles into 100%.

no one wants to talk about winning when odds aren't in your favor..i've won a couple of 30:70 'coin flips' as a lower prestige recruiter..but i'm not going to puff my chest out in the forums

Posted by Baums_away on 3/9/2022 10:05:00 AM (view original):
I think it's frustrating for the most part, not because you got a bad roll, but becasue after you lose 1 or 2 rolls your entire recruiting session is now a complete waste because it's so hard to be able to find and compete for backups. And that probably means your entire next season is a complete waste.

I almost wish they would reduce the effect of APs so that once you've maxed out on a recruit with promise/20 HV/1 CV then it would be easier to throw your AP on someone else and position yourself to go after them if you lose a roll. Right now it feels like if you don't go 80 AP on guys every cycle that you're at a big disadvantage. Or give back 50% or your resources after you lose a roll. I'm sure these would cause other problems.

Or maybe base recruit generaiton on number of coaches. More coaches = more recruits.

well said!

I think one super reasonable suggestion that has been raised before (assuming it wouldn't break the code of the game) is introducing new players in RS2. Just like in real life you have players emerge from nowhere in their senior seasons or you have kids reclassify - it's not unrealistic for a new 5 star to appear in RS2 let alone a bunch of new kids added to the pool. I think it would add a layer to strategy in recruiting and make losing battles (especially at D1) less frustrating.

An alternative is generating more transfer scenarios...perhaps to start it's limited to sim-coached teams but improving transfer logic would better reflect the current landscape of college sports.

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 3/10/2022 2:29:00 PM (view original):
I think one super reasonable suggestion that has been raised before (assuming it wouldn't break the code of the game) is introducing new players in RS2. Just like in real life you have players emerge from nowhere in their senior seasons or you have kids reclassify - it's not unrealistic for a new 5 star to appear in RS2 let alone a bunch of new kids added to the pool. I think it would add a layer to strategy in recruiting and make losing battles (especially at D1) less frustrating.

An alternative is generating more transfer scenarios...perhaps to start it's limited to sim-coached teams but improving transfer logic would better reflect the current landscape of college sports.

I like this - you could even treat some of the leftovers like HBD does with "Diamonds in the Rough" - a previously no-big-deal recruit grows an inch, or puts on muscle, turns his life around etc.
Odds are that kid has been 'found' and scouted, but ignored. You'd have to go back and take a gander and see that he is now more desirable.

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 3/10/2022 2:29:00 PM (view original):
I think one super reasonable suggestion that has been raised before (assuming it wouldn't break the code of the game) is introducing new players in RS2. Just like in real life you have players emerge from nowhere in their senior seasons or you have kids reclassify - it's not unrealistic for a new 5 star to appear in RS2 let alone a bunch of new kids added to the pool. I think it would add a layer to strategy in recruiting and make losing battles (especially at D1) less frustrating.

An alternative is generating more transfer scenarios...perhaps to start it's limited to sim-coached teams but improving transfer logic would better reflect the current landscape of college sports.

I'm actually against the idea of new recruits. It potentially creates the scenario where a few top teams have the chance to secure a top level target in cycle 1, and then sign a new high end target in cycle 2 since everyone's cash be exhausted already from the first cycle battles. they may be winning on prestige alone at this point and as usual the rich get richer.

Posted by rugburn on 3/12/2022 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 3/10/2022 2:29:00 PM (view original):
I think one super reasonable suggestion that has been raised before (assuming it wouldn't break the code of the game) is introducing new players in RS2. Just like in real life you have players emerge from nowhere in their senior seasons or you have kids reclassify - it's not unrealistic for a new 5 star to appear in RS2 let alone a bunch of new kids added to the pool. I think it would add a layer to strategy in recruiting and make losing battles (especially at D1) less frustrating.

An alternative is generating more transfer scenarios...perhaps to start it's limited to sim-coached teams but improving transfer logic would better reflect the current landscape of college sports.

I'm actually against the idea of new recruits. It potentially creates the scenario where a few top teams have the chance to secure a top level target in cycle 1, and then sign a new high end target in cycle 2 since everyone's cash be exhausted already from the first cycle battles. they may be winning on prestige alone at this point and as usual the rich get richer.

The way I propose this is that the recruits should be mid-level players (mostly jucos, but maybe 25% HS seniors), ~650 OVR types primarily. I’m not talking about 5-stars, essentially for the reason laid out here. I’m talking about stopgap players, guys who can fill a bench role for a couple seasons for new coaches, or in case of bad luck RS1, or guys who can bridge the gap between a big EE class and the next reload, or otherwise guys who belong on mid-major type squads, with aspirations of moving up a step at a time. In other words, a little better than replacement level on C+ D1 teams. I would specifically not make these the sorts of players elite teams would save resources to go after.

Be aware that coaches changing schools, with full recruiting and scouting dollars, would have a huge advantage in signing any newly introduced recruits in RS2.

This is a good, thought-provoking discussion - enjoying it. I agree with the view that several people have expressed: the hard part is that when you lose a couple of coin tosses, you're dead in the water. I'm considering dropping one of my teams if recruiting doesn't go well this season because due to a couple of crappy coin toss years, I have seven openings and can't see a path forward without a good haul this time around. That can't possibly be what WIS wants.

I think the solution isn't to expand the number of available recruits, especially not top-tier recruits - as has been mentioned, we don't want to have two dozen all-star teams with 850 average ratings in any given world. I also don't see a reason to generate an additional pool of players for the second cycle. My solution is simpler: just push up the baseline for recruit quality at each of the D1, D2, and D3 levels. To me, the problem is that we see things like a big man with 34 ATH or a guard with 46 SPD or anyone with a 17 DEF (in all cases, the hypothetical numbers are meant to be ultimate ratings after they have achieved their potential). These guys are just useless, and no human coach would take them (unless under very unusual circumstances). If there were more recruits who at least could play roles and not be absolutely horrific, then a coach could use his AP to at least get someone helpful - not a stud, but not a useless piece of crap either - in the second cycle. It would also raise the quality of AI teams, as they wouldn't be starting five guys that no human coach would ever recruit. So it takes care of a couple of issues without causing a ton of problems, unless I am missing something.

Posted by utthead on 3/14/2022 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Be aware that coaches changing schools, with full recruiting and scouting dollars, would have a huge advantage in signing any newly introduced recruits in RS2.

That’s actually a feature. Right now, changing jobs is a real drag for the most part, because so few recruits remain on the board, the ones left worth going after are heavily invested in. There’s no real reason a job change should feature no recruits in season 1, so that’s exactly what this proposal is designed to address, along with alleviating some pain for schools with out of the blue EEs.

Posted by davis on 3/14/2022 5:06:00 PM (view original):
This is a good, thought-provoking discussion - enjoying it. I agree with the view that several people have expressed: the hard part is that when you lose a couple of coin tosses, you're dead in the water. I'm considering dropping one of my teams if recruiting doesn't go well this season because due to a couple of crappy coin toss years, I have seven openings and can't see a path forward without a good haul this time around. That can't possibly be what WIS wants.

I think the solution isn't to expand the number of available recruits, especially not top-tier recruits - as has been mentioned, we don't want to have two dozen all-star teams with 850 average ratings in any given world. I also don't see a reason to generate an additional pool of players for the second cycle. My solution is simpler: just push up the baseline for recruit quality at each of the D1, D2, and D3 levels. To me, the problem is that we see things like a big man with 34 ATH or a guard with 46 SPD or anyone with a 17 DEF (in all cases, the hypothetical numbers are meant to be ultimate ratings after they have achieved their potential). These guys are just useless, and no human coach would take them (unless under very unusual circumstances). If there were more recruits who at least could play roles and not be absolutely horrific, then a coach could use his AP to at least get someone helpful - not a stud, but not a useless piece of crap either - in the second cycle. It would also raise the quality of AI teams, as they wouldn't be starting five guys that no human coach would ever recruit. So it takes care of a couple of issues without causing a ton of problems, unless I am missing something.

Agree with this! Right now when you're looking at your pool, you have to cut out so many guys, just based on atrocious ratings.

More quality recruits, please.

Posted by salag on 3/15/2022 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by davis on 3/14/2022 5:06:00 PM (view original):
This is a good, thought-provoking discussion - enjoying it. I agree with the view that several people have expressed: the hard part is that when you lose a couple of coin tosses, you're dead in the water. I'm considering dropping one of my teams if recruiting doesn't go well this season because due to a couple of crappy coin toss years, I have seven openings and can't see a path forward without a good haul this time around. That can't possibly be what WIS wants.

I think the solution isn't to expand the number of available recruits, especially not top-tier recruits - as has been mentioned, we don't want to have two dozen all-star teams with 850 average ratings in any given world. I also don't see a reason to generate an additional pool of players for the second cycle. My solution is simpler: just push up the baseline for recruit quality at each of the D1, D2, and D3 levels. To me, the problem is that we see things like a big man with 34 ATH or a guard with 46 SPD or anyone with a 17 DEF (in all cases, the hypothetical numbers are meant to be ultimate ratings after they have achieved their potential). These guys are just useless, and no human coach would take them (unless under very unusual circumstances). If there were more recruits who at least could play roles and not be absolutely horrific, then a coach could use his AP to at least get someone helpful - not a stud, but not a useless piece of crap either - in the second cycle. It would also raise the quality of AI teams, as they wouldn't be starting five guys that no human coach would ever recruit. So it takes care of a couple of issues without causing a ton of problems, unless I am missing something.

Agree with this! Right now when you're looking at your pool, you have to cut out so many guys, just based on atrocious ratings.

More quality recruits, please.

I also agree with this. I know this isn't real life, but it seems like at least 20% of generated D1 recruits wouldn't even be scouted by D1 teams. I'm not sure how recruits are generated (it can't be random, can it?), but it would make sense to have a certain number of each type of role player in the pool. There are too many recruits that don't serve any role and therefore aren't useful to anyone. Shooters, point guards, perimeter defender, inside defender, rebounder, etc. Just make sure that every single recruit can at least be decent at something. Otherwise, why are they even scouted out of high school?

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 3/10/2022 2:29:00 PM (view original):
I think one super reasonable suggestion that has been raised before (assuming it wouldn't break the code of the game) is introducing new players in RS2. Just like in real life you have players emerge from nowhere in their senior seasons or you have kids reclassify - it's not unrealistic for a new 5 star to appear in RS2 let alone a bunch of new kids added to the pool. I think it would add a layer to strategy in recruiting and make losing battles (especially at D1) less frustrating.

An alternative is generating more transfer scenarios...perhaps to start it's limited to sim-coached teams but improving transfer logic would better reflect the current landscape of college sports.

I really like the idea of new recruits in RS2. I think they could happens across multiple divisions too, I think that would add a lot of new strategy into the recruiting process.

less crazy about the transfer idea tbh. Seems super hard to get right and would likely tick off a lot of users.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/15/2022 1:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by utthead on 3/14/2022 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Be aware that coaches changing schools, with full recruiting and scouting dollars, would have a huge advantage in signing any newly introduced recruits in RS2.

That’s actually a feature. Right now, changing jobs is a real drag for the most part, because so few recruits remain on the board, the ones left worth going after are heavily invested in. There’s no real reason a job change should feature no recruits in season 1, so that’s exactly what this proposal is designed to address, along with alleviating some pain for schools with out of the blue EEs.

So it is actually mostly for the benefit of coaches changing jobs?

Don't care for the idea.

Best suggestion is better D1 recruits at the low and medium range. Too many D1 recruits can't even play.

Posted by utthead on 3/16/2022 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/15/2022 1:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by utthead on 3/14/2022 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Be aware that coaches changing schools, with full recruiting and scouting dollars, would have a huge advantage in signing any newly introduced recruits in RS2.

That’s actually a feature. Right now, changing jobs is a real drag for the most part, because so few recruits remain on the board, the ones left worth going after are heavily invested in. There’s no real reason a job change should feature no recruits in season 1, so that’s exactly what this proposal is designed to address, along with alleviating some pain for schools with out of the blue EEs.

So it is actually mostly for the benefit of coaches changing jobs?

Don't care for the idea.

Best suggestion is better D1 recruits at the low and medium range. Too many D1 recruits can't even play.

1) And teams losing unexpected EEs, yes.
2) I don’t care.
3) All recruits can play, of course it’s a matter of what you’re willing to live with. Players slightly better than replacement level are generally pretty easy to sign for almost nothing at D1 (AP +scholarship), as long as you get in on them early enough. The main problem is that most coaches don’t like investing AP in those players soon enough to keep sims or lower level schools from investing deep, and that’s where D1 schools run into trouble getting the backups they think are scarce. And that’s a user gameplay issue.