i am playing on game credits, so at least it's not my money, but good gracious the new recruiting system is not good.

the cap on HVs and CVs has ruined strategy. No longer can a team go all in to secure their guy.

Now it's just get high or very high on x number of guys and hope to win the coin flip on 50%. Seriously dumb.

i have no idea why people prefer this over the previous system.

you want more preferences and different scouting things? Cool. You want to get rid of conference and rollover money? I think it has ruined conferences, but fine. You want to neuter prestige? Again, I disagree, but whatever, I will still find a way to be better than most.

But what we have now is boring and less strategic.

i say that having filled my 3 slots in the first session with 2 five stars and a four star, and the current number one ranked recruiting class too. Winning dice rolls hardly thrills me.

Great points JP.... I'm done! But I think it's what they want from long time users.

Good riddance!

preach it, brother

Yet another recruit lost with very high.... anazing how great this game is. A+ means jack ****

So the game where the school with the most resources ALWAYS wins the recruit is more strategic? Hmmm, OK.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2017 6:45:00 AM (view original):
So the game where the school with the most resources ALWAYS wins the recruit is more strategic? Hmmm, OK.

That's not what the OP said at all.

The cap on HV and CV means that in most battles for high-end players, you are limited to spending equal resources with your competitor. And due to the nature of the recruiting structure and the total recruiting $ alloted, if you lose out on the battle due to probability/luck, you can't really recover at all, and are forced to take on walk-ons.If you win the battles due to probability/luck, you can more easily win a ton in D1.

Most of us want to play a skill based game where luck is a minor element, not the other way around.

It's what happened before 3.0.

And, if you remove the caps, the team with 4 openings has a huge advantage over a team with two. More resources. This isn't advanced physics. If I have 20k more in recruiting money, I can offer substantial more CV/HV.

And, addressing your edit, there is no skill in just dumping more resources into a recruit than the other guy. You have more, you use more.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2017 7:59:00 AM (view original):
It's what happened before 3.0.

And, if you remove the caps, the team with 4 openings has a huge advantage over a team with two. More resources. This isn't advanced physics. If I have 20k more in recruiting money, I can offer substantial more CV/HV.

To your idea: I get it, and I don't think the caps necessarily should be removed personally, but I think they should definitely be raised. The issue is a matter of scale. Right now, the game is not effective when 2 top schools competing for a recruit can go all-in with effort and then have to sit and wait to see whether the 51% or 49% probability wins. There need to be other factors at play that involve skill.

Also, don't question my intelligence by saying "this isn't advanced physics". That makes you sound like an *******. Attack the idea, not the person.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2017 8:00:00 AM (view original):
And, addressing your edit, there is no skill in just dumping more resources into a recruit than the other guy. You have more, you use more.

I don't want to get personal or mean with you. But you really don't know what you are talking about in this game. It would be like me offering up opinions on how to win in Hard Ball Dynasty. I would be beyond my depth of understanding.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2017 8:00:00 AM (view original):
And, addressing your edit, there is no skill in just dumping more resources into a recruit than the other guy. You have more, you use more.

I agree that aspect of 2.0 needed to be fixed. However, this version of 3.0 was an over-correction in my opinion. I think the OP stated clearly what doesn't work about the new game. Re-stating the flaws in 2.0 doesn't address that.

All great games have a luck/skill balance that is appealing to players. People write books on this sort of thing. Right now, HD recruiting is tilted too heavily toward luck.

Bbunch gets it. So do nacho and bret

At high D1, I agree with the OP. There are a few things at play here. In 2.0, recruiting was dependent on recruit generation. In 3.0 if you're in a crowded area (like the midwest or NE) now you are dependent on recruit generation and recruit's preferences. If you're a school in NY and have a stud that's 10 miles from you but you don't match up well with preferences you basically have no shot in landing the guy (because of caps). This doesn't come into play as much at D2 or D3 because the odds are you don't have enough money to go all-in on multiple recruits. As bbunch alluded to, you go all-in on a few guys, get to "very high," then sit there and wait. If you win, yay, but if you lose, you're basically stuck with a walk-on.

(Again, regarding high D1). In 2.0 there was a sense of accomplishment when you won a battle or sniped a kid at signings because you paid attention and made the right moves. And if I got sniped I tipped my hat to the other coach, learned from it, and moved on. But at least I knew why I lost and could adjust strategies in future seasons. In 3.0, you're efforts are capped so the computer ultimately decides who wins and loses recruits. In 3.0 I've won and lost battles and regardless of which side I'm on my reaction is the same-'meh.'