I made these in the beta forum, but so much was going on there that we might've gotten lost. But I think coaches that have had EEs here in the first seasons of 3.0 recruiting will tell you that it is a brutal disadvantage. These suggestions won't fix it, but they are easy and will mitigate the damage.

(1) Insert a non-signing cycle at the beginning of the 2nd period.

This is easy. Just process APs and various recruiting actions at 5 PM when the second cycle starts, don't do any signings until 11 PM. This is nothing but a positive for gameplay, and it's totally realistic--there are two signing periods in real life, and there's no recruiting dead period that ends with the beginning of signings.

(2) Give bonus APs to teams with EEs.

Teams with EEs have significantly less resources than teams without them, because APs are a renewable resource that they don't get until the 2nd cycle. It sucks not being able to use the money early, but they do get the money. They just flat don't get the APs that teams in the first cycle have. There are TWENTY-ONE(!) cycles worth of attention points that teams with EEs just flat miss out on. If we give teams with EEs say, 40 APs instead of 20 APs for each early entry, it barely makes a dent in the deficit they have had over the first five days of recruiting. But it does something.

Make these changes, and having EEs is still a disadvantage. But it at least gives those teams a fighting chance.

these were good suggestions to mitigate the issue

seble's answer was lets see how it goes

seble then launched the new game and left

this wont affect all that many teams, but folks who get multiple EEs or surprising EEs will be very frustrated by the inability to replace them with a DI quality player - not an elite, just a guy who fits in DI.....

my view is that such frustration is a problem - and it is rather unrealistic to be unable to replace EEs with at least DI level players.

But, that view was rejected by WIS and the game belongs to them.

..or just remove EEs
..or have them declare early....

Or limit to 1 or 2 per team.

..ANYTHING but
.."lets wait and see how painful it is to existing users first"

It will somewhat work itself out over time, because the potential for recruiting multiple EEs on the same team is certainly going to decrease. It will be really painful the first time through though.

Have them declare early... Even if it evens out.

Posted by mullycj on 10/3/2016 10:35:00 PM (view original):
..or just remove EEs
..or have them declare early....

"Just remove EEs"....it would solve the problem. Rather than declaring early, having an extra inserted recruiting period, giving schools additional APs, etc. you could simply cut out the cancer and be cured.

A third suggestion to tarv's excellent two above:

3. Reduce the "value" of APs. Right now, it seems that the "head start" in APs from the 1st round makes it nearly impossible for a school with EEs to compete on anything like a level playing field. Based on some battles I've been in, and this EE fiasco, I think APs are too strong/should be knocked down by 1/3 or 1/2.

Posted by johnsensing on 10/4/2016 10:11:00 AM (view original):
A third suggestion to tarv's excellent two above:

3. Reduce the "value" of APs. Right now, it seems that the "head start" in APs from the 1st round makes it nearly impossible for a school with EEs to compete on anything like a level playing field. Based on some battles I've been in, and this EE fiasco, I think APs are too strong/should be knocked down by 1/3 or 1/2.

I'm not sure about an exact number, but I also think APs are worth too much right now, just based on the limited information I've gotten from one side of battles.

if they dont want to reduce AP value, they could increase the value of HV and CV

Since AP's are worth no more iin the second period than the first, reducing their value works against coaches trying to replace EE's, eh?

Posted by johnsensing on 10/4/2016 10:11:00 AM (view original):
A third suggestion to tarv's excellent two above:

3. Reduce the "value" of APs. Right now, it seems that the "head start" in APs from the 1st round makes it nearly impossible for a school with EEs to compete on anything like a level playing field. Based on some battles I've been in, and this EE fiasco, I think APs are too strong/should be knocked down by 1/3 or 1/2.

Screwing with the other parts of recruiting just messes other things up unrelated to EEs.

Unless you think APs are too strong separate from the EE issue

Removing EEs will solve the the issue ...........can't get no easier than that. Unless it's possible to get more Junior College Recruits added to recruiting phase 2.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/4/2016 12:49:00 PM (view original):
Since AP's are worth no more iin the second period than the first, reducing their value works against coaches trying to replace EE's, eh?

The issue is that coaches with EEs get 20 APs for the 2nd cycle of recruiting.

Coach without EEs gets 20 APs for the entire 1st and second cycle.

SO, someone without an EE will always have an advantage unless something is changed. Just imagine where 2 coaches are both going after the same guy who has a late signing preference. The coach with no EE gets ~400 APs more than the EE coach. Therefore if APs were less valuable, the EE coach would have a better shot at it.

Making APs less valuable is a band-aid and I don't like it.
1) Remove EEs entirely (I also don't like this)
2) Have EEs declare at the end of the scouting period before Recruiting stars, give teams the right amount of $$$ and APs for their openings.