Please list your questions/concerns regarding GAME IMPROVEMENTS/UPDATES. Please no "Which RB plays FB in the WB formation type questions...LOL" (Old timers get that reference)

And let's keep the commentary to an absolute mininum, ie please post your question(s) only.

We'll stop collecting questions 3/20 and I'll send this thread to Robert that day.

The interview will be scheduled once WIS has gotten a chance to review the questions/concerns. I'll give about a week's notice once we lock down the interview date. It will be LIVE but not sure yet how much, if any, audience participation we'll have.

Thanks,
Majique

Well, you took my number one question…..


Now, for my others…

1) Is removal of the “Elite” status on the table? If not, is there a possibility of trial running this in one world?
2) Is there any proposed or scheduled adjustment to fumbles for RB and INT for QB’s?
3) The dev chat led to quite a few contradictions and even more questions than answers, three specific sub-issues truly need clarification:
a) Exactly does or does not TECHNIQUE matter and at what positions?
b) Does GI matter for a QB?
c) Does the NC winner get a recruiting boost of any kind (Y or N)? How does it affect recruiting if Y?

1. Can we please install a diminished value of returning coaches to taking over elites? It's BS that coaches that have not played in a number of seasons can come back and have first shot at elites over coaches with good records and have continued to play the game. Otherwise, make the game have fluid elites!

2. Game starts percentages need to be more static. I can have one player getting a start at 32% and another player does not get a start with 37%. This of course makes the WE drop because you don't get a warning that he is unhappy. Then it takes 3 games to get over that one game result. Then to top it off his WE will not grow at all the rest of the season! The number needs to be set at a certain percentage so that coaches can prevent this from happening, it's too hard to dial your team and player subs with every player having different percentages.

My main concern is the "Prestige system." Power Conf. always gets bumps over non-powers. It forces everyone into the same redundant teams, with pretty much the same results every season, no parity or Cinderella teams. There is really no competition, just well-established elite teams and contenders; the rest are for show. That's just my perspective after 20+ seasons; hence I had to leave my beloved Navy team (Bryant) for a power conference team I really have no interest in.

in a free country, every swingin dick could build a monument

is that what you want?

relegation?

so mighty community college A&M in poughkeepsie new mexico can be notre dame?

i would love it

users will flee

Poughkeepsie Rules

These are my general questions. There could be numerous threads about questions regarding actual execution of the game play.

1) Considering more fluidity in the game? Top (elite teams) and top conferences change/evolve to reflect the personality of each word.
2) Time limits for coaching? Give a "life limit" on the ability for each coach ID to be "alive" in each world.
3) Coach ratings? Give ratings on coach's success in recent seasons to allow direct transparency to see why some coaches get some jobs.
4) Changing to reflect real world teams and conferences - pro draft? Some GD schools do not exist any further and conferences have changed.
5) Recruiting to be less geographic centric? Too many teams are constrained because the recruit populations are too small compared to other locations. (Wyoming the state vs Houston in D1A are usually equal) Make cross country or regional recruiting possible with minimal limitations.
6) Recruiting should not be hard-wired to elites. Make recent (last ten seasons or so) fit that (see #1).
7) Changing recruiting so that it isn't such of an auction using unrealistic campus visits? Need some discussions with the community on this. I have thought of many different options.
8) Making all players available to teams of all levels? With upper divisions weighted more for selection (like D1A to D1AA) but every player available for all teams D1A to DIII.
Enough for now. Bye.

I would like for the job hiring process to be explained. How does it actually work?

We need a community college A&M in Poughkeepsie, New Mexico, to step up to the plate and win one for the Gipper. That, my friend, is real NIL era sports. A bum team from the state of Indiana, winning a title. Granted, the team, comprising 23-year-olds, has a budget close to that of a professional minor-league team, but the point is that they won a Natty. I hear you; most would probably leave. Adversity isn't a strong gene for some.

During in-season when the asst coach scouts four players we should see the potential (VH, H, AVG….) of those recruits just like during recruiting.

General:
When it comes to recruiting, historically winning programs earn an advantage over historically non-winning programs; that is customarily called “prestige.” We know that exists, and it is reasonable that it should. It simulates real life and arguably has a positive effect on game play.

The question is this: are you ever going to get rid of “vision” altogether? (1) It is redundant of prestige, and therefore completely unnecessary. (2) Within each division except D1A, it reserves generally better-quality recruits for privileged teams by presenting an absolute, rigid and unnuanced recruiting prohibition against some teams but not others in the same division. This is arbitrary, unfair, and unrealistic. There is no real-life counterpart, nothing even remotely similar. (3) In that it artificially favors some teams over others, it generates an artificial disparity between teams that is harmful to game play.

In short, vision damages the game while adding nothing positive to it.