Posted by mullycj on 10/30/2016 8:14:00 AM (view original):
koop -
Plain and simple - if you have 2 openings and expect EEs (2) then you are fighting for 4 players with the resources for 2. You cant really spare to throw around APs to other players when other teams are going all out for them.
Also, as OTHERS have said, if you have 3 players on the fence at different positions, what position do you try and fill? You have no idea.
I had 2 EEs, so I recruited 5 players with 4 players worth of resources. One EE was probably and the other was "probably staying". I cannot fill the "probably staying" player because I cant unlock anything before they sign with others. Sure I can try to unlock 100 players if I want, but then I probably lose battles to coaches who don't have to spread APs around for new EE players.
I understand what you are saying. I am saying you can't do that in the top (Elite) DI landscape. But maybe that's the whole reason. To make sure the elite don't stay elite.
You CAN spare the APs, especially when your opponents get capped. Their handicap in this situation is much tougher than yours. In case you have forgotten what discussion you're in here, this is specific to the change made to cap the number of APs teams can allocate to a recruit each cycle at 80. In the situation you brought up, you wouldn't have been capped until the late session (10 cycles) and would only have lost 200 total attention points (that's assuming you never signed anyone in the first period; if you had signed someone, the cap wouldn't affect you *at all*). Meanwhile, a team with 6 openings loses 60 APs (for a single-player strategy) for all 22 cycles of the first session. They lose 1320 APs they could have stacked against you in a single battle. And the resources you *gain* for the second period put you in a great position to pick guys off.
In essence, the argument that this change actually further hurts teams with early entries is just ridiculous. Teams that need to plan for early entries are in a much better position with the cap.
Now its a separate question to whether or not elite programs will be able to do what they used to do, which is count on resources from early entries to be able to sign similar quality players that same year. They can't. No secret. So if the problem is simply that you can't guarantee you'll have a class of 4-5 elite players every year, no you can't. That's a feature, not a bug, with 3.0. That issue has been beaten to death, and most of the guys who can't tolerate that loss of advantage have already left. You can still *get lucky* and win all your rolls and come away with a killer class. Guys did that in beta, and I'm sure guys are going to do that in live worlds. I've never player]do by that strategy, though, and you aren't obligated to limit your recruiting to elite players. It's a viable strategy, and it's basically accepting that there will be years when you're taking 2-3 walking, and maybe even sim signed players to get to 9, if you're really unlucky. But you'll have those resources back for both sessions next year, so for players who want to play like that, that's the trade off. You just can't have it both ways in 3.0. You can't go after just elite commodities without having to deal with their volatility,many the consequences of losing the,.
10/30/2016 10:14 AM (edited)