Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 8/28/2008If the change does make it so you pretty much need to know his potential then people will share that information. If the diff in high/low is only a few points here or there then it will pretty much be like knowing what sets they ran in HS. Sure, it helps, but its hardly going to make or break if you sign him or not.

BINGO. It seems like it will either be irrelevant, so nobody will bother to spend the money, or important enough that people will divide the cost and share the info (at least in the lower divisions).

Honastly, I think both of these changes sound like they will improve the game in D1, and hurt the game at D3.

Gotcha. So were agreeing on the same thing. If the change does make it so you pretty much need to know his potential then people will share that information. If the diff in high/low is only a few points here or there then it will pretty much be like knowing what sets they ran in HS. Sure, it helps, but its hardly going to make or break if you sign him or not.

Sort of. I'm just questioning the logic of making this feature something you have to pay for out of your budget vs something everyone would just know. I'd bet that most of the information will get shared among multiple coaches with only one coach actually paying for it. So if I set up a proxy team to simply buy the scouting info then share it with 15 coaches, all those teams gain the information AND the extra recruiting money (without paying for the scouting), which pretty much hoses the coaches who can't find someone to share with.

If there were more of a true Risk vs Reward factor here I'd be more inclined to get behind this feature. You know, lets say at D-III scouting all of NY and PA was going to cost 700 dollars. That's two potential home visits I'm giving up, so I have to think about it maybe. Do I want to know if studly D-III All-American looking recruit wants to go far from home bad enough to pay 700 dollars to find out? That's risk vs reward.

There's no Risk vs Reward when I can scoop up a proxy team and share out all that information to the rest of my teams and my buddies, so it seems kinda pointless to not just give this information to all coaches.

Quote: Originally posted by decepticons on 8/28/2008
Gotcha. So were agreeing on the same thing. If the change does make it so you pretty much need to know his potential then people will share that information. If the diff in high/low is only a few points here or there then it will pretty much be like knowing what sets they ran in HS. Sure, it helps, but its hardly going to make or break if you sign him or not. Sort of. I'm just questioning the logic of making this feature something you have to pay for out of your budget vs something everyone would just know. I'd bet that most of the information will get shared among multiple coaches with only one coach actually paying for it. So if I set up a proxy team to simply buy the scouting info then share it with 15 coaches, all those teams gain the information AND the extra recruiting money (without paying for the scouting), which pretty much hoses the coaches who can't find someone to share with. If there were more of a true Risk vs Reward factor here I'd be more inclined to get behind this feature. You know, lets say at D-III scouting all of NY and PA was going to cost 700 dollars. That's two potential home visits I'm giving up, so I have to think about it maybe. Do I want to know if studly D-III All-American looking recruit wants to go far from home bad enough to pay 700 dollars to find out? That's risk vs reward.There's no Risk vs Reward when I can scoop up a proxy team and share out all that information to the rest of my teams and my buddies, so it seems kinda pointless to not just give this information to all coaches.<!-- Message body -->

Yup I agree 100%. Theres no reason at all I'm ever going to scout on Alfred when I can just grab the information through other teams/coaches.

Maybe scouting services will cost enough that they really aren't a great idea at d3?

What about International guys? Will we scout them all together or will it be broken up by continent?

That's kind of what I was wondering a couple of pages back, it will be kind of hard to know how useful they will be until we know the cost of it. Of course, it doesn't stop people setting up proxy teams and just using it to buy all the scouting info and giving that info out.

Wonder how much it would cost to scout the whole world and get info on every recruit...Then you could sell it on the black market :)

Quote: Originally Posted By gonarayshell on 8/28/2008What about International guys? Will we scout them all together or will it be broken up by continent

As I was typing up the hawaii question, that question popped up and sent it into the dev chat.

Quote: Originally Posted By naufan on 8/28/2008I know it's only one school, but what happens at Hawaii, they already get a low amount of recruits, and now some of them are suddenly going to want to leave the islands

It's not suddenly. The potential for a player to want to stay close to home or go far away has always been there. Now you'll just be able to see it via scouting.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

It is really sad (to me at least) to hear how many people on here blatantly admit to being open to collusion. Creating more server load, using free-ghost accounts, for an online product that they supposedly respect and have fun playing, doesn't seem like a good attitude to me. I'm not naive enough to believe that it wouldn't happen, but it just seems sad.

On a more constructive note, I think that the information gleaned should be HEAVILY molded to the school doing the scouting. For instance, based on your depth chart and the sets you run, Recruit X would have Y potential for growth in Z areas. That might be a heavier programming task, but it would help cut down on some of the collusion, and then make it more applicable to all 3 Divisions.

I think it sounds like a great idea to make recruiting that much more exciting and interesting, but steps should be taken to make sure it is not abused.

I've personally been dreading the addition of "potential" since the first time I heard it mentioned.

I like being able to decide which skills improve and which don't on my own (through practice plan). I already find it annoying that some skills, such as FT% and DEF, can't be improved as much as others. I just don't see why it's an improvement to limit these choices/strategy.

In all honesty tho, IRL coaches from different schools talk about this all the time so why shouldn't we? Am I saying its right/wrong not at all but IRL it happens all the time, make friends get info so on and so fourth.

Why not just make it ok to chat with other coaches, then making friends and getting to know other coaches would be part of the game, you'd know more coaches then the handful in your conference. Just a thought as I'm fairly certain stopping collusion with this is going to be near impossible.

Quote: Originally Posted By sparksjay on 8/28/2008It is really sad (to me at least) to hear how many people on here blatantly admit to being open to collusion. Creating more server load, using free-ghost accounts, for an online product that they supposedly respect and have fun playing, doesn't seem like a good attitude to me. I'm not naive enough to believe that it wouldn't happen, but it just seems sad.

On a more constructive note, I think that the information gleaned should be HEAVILY molded to the school doing the scouting. For instance, based on your depth chart and the sets you run, Recruit X would have Y potential for growth in Z areas. That might be a heavier programming task, but it would help cut down on some of the collusion, and then make it more applicable to all 3 Divisions.

I think it sounds like a great idea to make recruiting that much more exciting and interesting, but steps should be taken to make sure it is not abused.

I agree with you but the fact is that some people are going to do it, and if I don't want to have a disadvantage, I'd do it too.

I don't think sharing information about players is collusion.

I would have a problem with two coaches teaming up to drive off others, or with two high-prestige coaches blatently splitting up top players so they never competed with each other, but could out compete everyone else.

Just sharing information about recruits doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as these things though.