Posted by texrangers18 on 2/21/2017 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 2/21/2017 1:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 2/20/2017 6:23:00 PM (view original):
I'm incredibly surprised by the answer to the first question.

Don't be. As discussed at length in the other thread, raising or eliminating caps doesn't add strategy and surely doesn't help the game overall.

I completely disagree. Not even sure how one could argue it doesn't add strategy. Right now, with a cap, your strategy stops with that cap. So if two teams both go full in on a recruit, then it just becomes a dice roll. How is a dice roll strategic?

How is overwhelming a recruit with HV strategic when you have far more resources than the other user?

This is the example I used in another thread:

Let's say there is no HV cap. You have three openings, I have one. I know, at that point, that you have more resources. Even under the current system, I know you can double my AP every cycle. But, under the "no HV cap" system you're pushing, I also know you'll be able to offer more HV. I calculate that I can offer 22. I estimate that you can offer 48(maybe it's 46, maybe it's 53). I look at your team with 4 JR, 4 SO, 1 FR. I check your boxes and notice you really only utilize 10(one redshirt, one player gets 3.4 MPG). So I assume you could take two walk-ons and be just fine. Is there any reason I would fight you for this recruit? Uncapped HV would turn this into "more resources wins" and discourage battles. Which is the game WifS CHOSE to do away with.

You may be right Mike. What many of us are saying is they went to far and there may be a way to find a happy medium. It doesn't have to be all chance, or all resources. Being a better coach should have advantages.

Now that I know what RNG is, my answer would go the other way.

Posted by cburton23 on 2/21/2017 1:08:00 PM (view original):
You may be right Mike. What many of us are saying is they went to far and there may be a way to find a happy medium. It doesn't have to be all chance, or all resources. Being a better coach should have advantages.

The current game is the "happy medium". "All chance" would forego recruiting altogether, and just randomly assign recruits. As it stands, there are coaches now that understand the game, the decision points, and the strategic implications of their choices. Those are the "better coaches", at least regarding recruiting in 3.0. Cream rises to the top, same as ever.

Posted by cburton23 on 2/21/2017 1:08:00 PM (view original):
You may be right Mike. What many of us are saying is they went to far and there may be a way to find a happy medium. It doesn't have to be all chance, or all resources. Being a better coach should have advantages.

The real problem is we know too much about everyone else. As in my example, I would be able to figure out, roughly, what sort of resources the other guy could commit. I didn't discover some magic formula, it's all there for everyone to see. The only thing I can't do is get inside his head to know if HE wants to battle for the guy. But I am afforded the info to know he COULD outresource me.

One solution would be to limit HV per cycle. Which naturally limits overall HV but it would force people to commit to battles early or to bail quickly. I can't imagine that would be popular. I'd also limit AP to 40 per cycle. Makes it more difficult for D3 to "pile on" AP before D1/D2 come calling and will slow the lower level schools ability to open up the other options. Additionally, it puts the 1 opening school on the same AP battlefield as the 3 opening school.

I'm frustrated when people use the word "random" when talking about probability. It implies that all strategy has been removed.

I've begun to ignore all words after "random", "dice roll" and "coin flip". The folks using those terms are not accepting that they can improve their chances with their choices. There is no discussion with them.

Just raise the cap to 25? Can that hurt?

Does it help? How so?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/20/2017 7:36:00 PM (view original):
It wouldn't. It would be a return to "I have more resources. I get the recruit." WifS CHOSE to move away from that game.

WiS chose to do it so now the user base has to agree with that decision? It's not like the results of this forum poll are somehow binding and demand action from the developers. The decision to move away from that game isn't inherently right just because seble made it.

But it's done. Now the user decides if that's the game they want to play. Anyone hankering for the good ol' days is going to be disappointed eventually.

I'm against raising the cap because it plays into the hands of the superclass coaches who will run classes with six openings into can't beat recruiting machines. I think that is a cheap trick and the cap on visits at least limits the impact of those who use it. Actually if anything, I would like to see a cap introduced on total attention points...like they used to do with phone calls and letters, whereby after a certain number (200? 250?) the impact per point begins to decline significantly. That would allow coaches to engage in more battles and survive losing one battle for an elite player. That would mean more battles with 3 or 4 coaches in on most elite prospects more like IRL recruiting.

Supposing you removed the caps but massaged the base:per opening recruiting cash ratio a little bit more towards base? So for D1 maybe make it 7K base + 2.5K per opening...

I think it ids important to have a bigger base (not meaning bigger than now), but a base that is a large percentage of the total amount you get. This insures that those with fewer openings can compete with those with a lot. Right now, I feel like the amounts re pretty much good.