Since the suggestion thread doesn't seem to get much play on this forum, this is a shameless copy and paste. What are your thoughts on this idea??


Since 3.0 was released, it seems like the only strategy for D2/D3 teams is to hide and hope that a higher division school searching for backup options doesn't find their targets. The recruiting $$ difference is so great that there is no chance for a battle unless the lower division uses up 90% of their resources on 1 guy (and has all positive preferences). While I understand that a cross-division battle should be somewhat one-sided, the problem is with the timing. Usually the D2 coach has pumped everything they had into a recruit in order to beat out another D2...then a D1 sim comes down and poaches the recruit and the D2 coach's chances at recovering for a decent class are destroyed.

In session 1, why not have a staggered timeline where D1 starts, D2 starts, D3 starts, then D1 ends, D2 ends, and D3 ends? A 6-8 cycle stagger would work nicely (1.5-2 days).

D1 could battle each other without worrying about beating away reaching D2 schools for their primary backups. D2 schools would then know which players were D1's primary backup options before using up all their money battling each other for one. At the end of D2 session, coaches wouldn't be terrified hoping a D1 sim doesn't discover their targets (same for the end of D3 session with D2 sims).

Posted by pdxblazerfan on 5/3/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Since the suggestion thread doesn't seem to get much play on this forum, this is a shameless copy and paste. What are your thoughts on this idea??


Since 3.0 was released, it seems like the only strategy for D2/D3 teams is to hide and hope that a higher division school searching for backup options doesn't find their targets. The recruiting $$ difference is so great that there is no chance for a battle unless the lower division uses up 90% of their resources on 1 guy (and has all positive preferences). While I understand that a cross-division battle should be somewhat one-sided, the problem is with the timing. Usually the D2 coach has pumped everything they had into a recruit in order to beat out another D2...then a D1 sim comes down and poaches the recruit and the D2 coach's chances at recovering for a decent class are destroyed.

In session 1, why not have a staggered timeline where D1 starts, D2 starts, D3 starts, then D1 ends, D2 ends, and D3 ends? A 6-8 cycle stagger would work nicely (1.5-2 days).

D1 could battle each other without worrying about beating away reaching D2 schools for their primary backups. D2 schools would then know which players were D1's primary backup options before using up all their money battling each other for one. At the end of D2 session, coaches wouldn't be terrified hoping a D1 sim doesn't discover their targets (same for the end of D3 session with D2 sims).

Certainly a start. There is actually a problem in all divisions. D3 is wait until last day and hope the roof does not fall on your head. But what you explain here does, AGAIN, show the importance of location... Far more important than it was Under 2.0, and it was suppose to be something fixed.

Or there are no problems in any division.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Or there are no problems in any division.

What if the recruiting was better? We proposed a solution that improved the way it's been working... You make it sound like recruiting works perfectly. There are problems right now for sure. I know you can't live with that, but there are. Sorry. Not sure you can fix all of them but you can certainly improve the way recruiting works.

Posted by pdxblazerfan on 5/3/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Since the suggestion thread doesn't seem to get much play on this forum, this is a shameless copy and paste. What are your thoughts on this idea??


Since 3.0 was released, it seems like the only strategy for D2/D3 teams is to hide and hope that a higher division school searching for backup options doesn't find their targets. The recruiting $$ difference is so great that there is no chance for a battle unless the lower division uses up 90% of their resources on 1 guy (and has all positive preferences). While I understand that a cross-division battle should be somewhat one-sided, the problem is with the timing. Usually the D2 coach has pumped everything they had into a recruit in order to beat out another D2...then a D1 sim comes down and poaches the recruit and the D2 coach's chances at recovering for a decent class are destroyed.

In session 1, why not have a staggered timeline where D1 starts, D2 starts, D3 starts, then D1 ends, D2 ends, and D3 ends? A 6-8 cycle stagger would work nicely (1.5-2 days).

D1 could battle each other without worrying about beating away reaching D2 schools for their primary backups. D2 schools would then know which players were D1's primary backup options before using up all their money battling each other for one. At the end of D2 session, coaches wouldn't be terrified hoping a D1 sim doesn't discover their targets (same for the end of D3 session with D2 sims).

Risk / reward is part of the game. You aren't describing a problem, this is exactly how the game is designed to work.

Of course it's not perfect. And, no matter what is done, or if nothing is done, it still won't be because there's ZERO chance every user will agree on anything. Your opinion is your opinion and that's fine. But, just because you say "There is actually a problem in all divisions" doesn't make it so. There are a lot of things that can be improved in 3.0 but recruiting is near the bottom.

I like the stagger idea for higher division recruits, if it could be worked into the existing calendar framework. IMO there's already too much dead time between the end of a season and the start of the next so I would be resistant to adding more lag time. Carrying 3 teams, there are times I go a week without a single game to plan for.

I think in-division or lower-division should open automatically at the start, but wouldn't have a problem with D1 having a few exclusive cycles at D1 recruits. The thought process is similar to what went into the whole "red light" idea (which obviously won't thrill all users)

I really like that idea...

"then a D1 sim comes down and poaches the recruit"

Say what??

1. How is a sim 'poaching'?
2. If you're losing to sims in recruiting then you're probably not really putting much effort in.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Of course it's not perfect. And, no matter what is done, or if nothing is done, it still won't be because there's ZERO chance every user will agree on anything. Your opinion is your opinion and that's fine. But, just because you say "There is actually a problem in all divisions" doesn't make it so. There are a lot of things that can be improved in 3.0 but recruiting is near the bottom.

It's not near bottom because it affects competitiveness. To me, it's more important than EES or DEADTIME. D3 is really boring because recruiting does not provide any battles. Wait... Wait... Apply ap, nothing to do but wait until everyone has eaten. The key to D3 is to find the best location, it was a bit like that Under 2.0 but now it's the thing. D2 did not have that problem before, but now it does... I know how to evaluate players... But say I can't get the players that other D2 teams get? Before, it was pretty much possible. Now, it dépends on my location and the number of D1 teams near my targets or close to it.

Posted by zorzii on 5/3/2017 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Of course it's not perfect. And, no matter what is done, or if nothing is done, it still won't be because there's ZERO chance every user will agree on anything. Your opinion is your opinion and that's fine. But, just because you say "There is actually a problem in all divisions" doesn't make it so. There are a lot of things that can be improved in 3.0 but recruiting is near the bottom.

It's not near bottom because it affects competitiveness. To me, it's more important than EES or DEADTIME. D3 is really boring because recruiting does not provide any battles. Wait... Wait... Apply ap, nothing to do but wait until everyone has eaten. The key to D3 is to find the best location, it was a bit like that Under 2.0 but now it's the thing. D2 did not have that problem before, but now it does... I know how to evaluate players... But say I can't get the players that other D2 teams get? Before, it was pretty much possible. Now, it dépends on my location and the number of D1 teams near my targets or close to it.

A) The field is level. All teams are playing the same game. So how does it "affect competitiveness"?
B) Get in a full conference. You'll see battles.
C) I'm not buying your location argument. I've gotten recruits from all over in D3. You should be better at this game than me.

But, FWIW, I think most D3 avoid battles. There's just not enough resources to recover if you lose. But that has nothing to do with recruiting. That's just resource management.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 5/3/2017 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Of course it's not perfect. And, no matter what is done, or if nothing is done, it still won't be because there's ZERO chance every user will agree on anything. Your opinion is your opinion and that's fine. But, just because you say "There is actually a problem in all divisions" doesn't make it so. There are a lot of things that can be improved in 3.0 but recruiting is near the bottom.

It's not near bottom because it affects competitiveness. To me, it's more important than EES or DEADTIME. D3 is really boring because recruiting does not provide any battles. Wait... Wait... Apply ap, nothing to do but wait until everyone has eaten. The key to D3 is to find the best location, it was a bit like that Under 2.0 but now it's the thing. D2 did not have that problem before, but now it does... I know how to evaluate players... But say I can't get the players that other D2 teams get? Before, it was pretty much possible. Now, it dépends on my location and the number of D1 teams near my targets or close to it.

A) The field is level. All teams are playing the same game. So how does it "affect competitiveness"?
B) Get in a full conference. You'll see battles.
C) I'm not buying your location argument. I've gotten recruits from all over in D3. You should be better at this game than me.

A) If someone can use steroid and someone can't, it's not the same playing field. So if someone has access to better recruits and someone does not, it affects competitiveness. If my location argument is bogus, than I am wrong. But ask sharks, they'll tell you otherwise.

B) In D3, full not full, no battles. Wait and see. Cause you are going for D1 players. If you start to battle your conference mates, then what will you do against D2 or D1... Go bozo. D2, same thing. I am battling SIMS and sometimes D1, where I reach and go all-in...

C) Location has a huge impact, if you want to level the field, get rid of the difference in price and let everyone pursue recruits from everywhere. With that, we will be able to come up with different stratégies. And make it possible to scout from 700-1000 away and 1000-1300 etc.

I'm not going to argue with you today because I'm not feeling it. But you're wrong. Just like you're wrong about some recruit generation problem. You're just unable to see past whatever is within your direct eyesight. So enjoy your day. Recruiting is fine, recruit generation is fine. Go after the bigger problems. Like down time.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 2:39:00 PM (view original):
I'm not going to argue with you today because I'm not feeling it. But you're wrong. Just like you're wrong about some recruit generation problem. You're just unable to see past whatever is within your direct eyesight. So enjoy your day. Recruiting is fine, recruit generation is fine. Go after the bigger problems. Like down time.

Prove that I am wrong. I am not alone on this, it made people leave.