See, there's the thing. I'm not going to argue your first point. That's your opinion. I may disagree, but that's fine.
The second point, however, assumes something never intended, but was an unintended side effect early in Beta. I never heard once that it was WIS' goal or priority to make the game competitive between divisions. The thing on the developer's agenda was clearly to make battles more attractive within divisions. The legitimate complaint about 2.0 recruiting was the clear disincentive to battling. I guess I never thought I needed to specify "against teams within your own division or conference".
The veteran trick had been to show as few battles as possible while recruiting. Anyone joined in 2 legitimate battles at once was evidently weak and a target. Sometimes it only took 1 to be the target of a late attack. There was even an INCENTIVE to wait until the signing cycle to attack a weak target...you needed to look strong on your 1 or 2 primary targets to avoid being targeted yourself. So, coaches learned to wait to poach on the signing cycle as a way of battle avoidance.
Now, WIS bent over backwards to make it possible to engage in battles...in fact, it's going to be nearly impossible not to battle. However, I do not agree in the slightest degree that it was WIS intention to fix some issue with D2 not being able to win battles against D1. There'd be no benefit to that change. They don't play each other! I'm sure that the big priority for the change was to fill up the considering lists like they are IRL. Not to make Michigan have to actually battle Vassar, or Catawba, or whatever...what would be the point? They do not play each other.
I guess I haven't thought about how the game will be "new" at each level. Maybe there is a perverse way that will be true. I bet the top 5 D3 teams each season will probably be better than D2 teams can be. However, it is very difficult to predict how it will actually turn out. Veterans are leaving mostly because the game they liked had a discrete recruiting period and a leisurely season. Now they are looking at a nebulous 'always on' proposition and they are letting their disappointment that their suggestions were not implemented and feeling burned out.
That and the game is definitely different if a clear cut & dry victory on a recruit may only give you a 70/30 chance or 60/40 chance of landing him. It could turn out to be a fun game, but the strategy is not clear.
9/13/2016 3:05 PM (edited)