I know the powerhouses of the Big 6 Conferences in Div I may not feel this way, but my 3.0 teams are close to 100 points better than ANY of my 2.0 teams.

I know the competition is better also, but it is really nice to see team Ath, Speed, and Def all in the 70's in Div II.

Posted by jpmills3 on 4/22/2017 9:21:00 AM (view original):
Disagree. Your better players, in my opinion, are just as likely stemming from lack of competition. Game has lost soooo many coaches, especially at the top. There is a trickle down effect to recruiting going on. If there was actually semi-full worlds, recruiting would be an absolute mess and I think people on the whole would shocked at how awful the new set up is.

+1
Smith DI is a ghost town

Posted by jpmills3 on 4/22/2017 9:21:00 AM (view original):
Disagree. Your better players, in my opinion, are just as likely stemming from lack of competition. Game has lost soooo many coaches, especially at the top. There is a trickle down effect to recruiting going on. If there was actually semi-full worlds, recruiting would be an absolute mess and I think people on the whole would shocked at how awful the new set up is.

I don't necessarily agree more users would reveal the awfulness of the current set up. But I do agree the most complained about aspect of the current set up - D2/D3 recruiting "D1" players - would be solved with more D1 users. Certain D1's would still **** and moan about lack of back up options, but at least it would be to low D1.

Posted by jt2xTTU on 4/22/2017 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 4/22/2017 9:21:00 AM (view original):
Disagree. Your better players, in my opinion, are just as likely stemming from lack of competition. Game has lost soooo many coaches, especially at the top. There is a trickle down effect to recruiting going on. If there was actually semi-full worlds, recruiting would be an absolute mess and I think people on the whole would shocked at how awful the new set up is.

I don't necessarily agree more users would reveal the awfulness of the current set up. But I do agree the most complained about aspect of the current set up - D2/D3 recruiting "D1" players - would be solved with more D1 users. Certain D1's would still **** and moan about lack of back up options, but at least it would be to low D1.

This post is right on the money. It's a supply and demand issue, not an issue with the set up of the game.

From the perspective of a D2/D3 coach like myself, if there were more humans crushing the lower level schools that reach for D1 guys, it would force me to rethink my recruiting philosophy. The only risk/reward right now is gauging how high to reach.

yeah, I'm not sure it's a good thing to see these lower division teams on steroids. the disparity between the top and the bottom, especially the sims, is bigger than ever. i think supply and demand is a big part of it due to the depopulation, but it's also due to continued horrible sim recruiting. i recall seble saying this was something he was working on improving with the beta....obviously that didn't happen!

some of the exhibition game results are totally ridiculous--human D3 teams are absolutely crushing big 6 sim teams! that really shouldn't happen, not only does it mean the D2/D3 human teams have been inflated against their own schedules, but that the D1 sims are extra bad for their D1 schedules. the game has become very unbalanced in that regard.

Big 6 sims are faring worse than mid major sims. I suspect it's because they're shooting for - and losing - a higher quality recruit in line with baseline prestige. Totally speculative, but if true, that's probably a simple tweak, if they cared to fix it. Other than that, neglecting to fix hiring at the same time is why we've ended up with half empty big 6 conferences. Currently, those teams have to crash before anyone who is interested is qualified, and at that point, you're usually better off with your current team. Fixing hiring will go a long way toward improving the supply/demand issue.

I think an often overlooked issue at play is the reduced number of recruits available in 3.0 vs. 2.0 -- there are hundreds fewer generated (though I know not their breakdown by level), which I think is exacerbating the ruckus at the top of the feeding ladder. I've used the same system for close to 4 years to "score" recruits and know where the line was for a "good" d3/d2 recruit for each division is. And while my overall scores should trend higher in 3.0 because I now can see all the high-highs as opposed to having to discover them, the level of recruit that I'm seeing human-owned Big Six teams have to reach for is at/below where I used to look for top-level D2 talent. If the game were anywhere near full, the amount of refuse that teams would have to grab to fill out D3 rosters would be appalling.

Posted by rednu on 4/22/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I think an often overlooked issue at play is the reduced number of recruits available in 3.0 vs. 2.0 -- there are hundreds fewer generated (though I know not their breakdown by level), which I think is exacerbating the ruckus at the top of the feeding ladder. I've used the same system for close to 4 years to "score" recruits and know where the line was for a "good" d3/d2 recruit for each division is. And while my overall scores should trend higher in 3.0 because I now can see all the high-highs as opposed to having to discover them, the level of recruit that I'm seeing human-owned Big Six teams have to reach for is at/below where I used to look for top-level D2 talent. If the game were anywhere near full, the amount of refuse that teams would have to grab to fill out D3 rosters would be appalling.

Nope, there are the same number of recruits created. That was verified in one of the chats. It can look different, because in the previous version, higher prestige teams had more "vision". Recruits appearing as D1 for a lower prestige D2 team would appear as D2 for higher prestige teams.

I think it is better under 3.0 at D1. New coaches have a chance of competing. Not being favored until they grow their team but still having a chance to compete with odds against them. Most people are willing to take a shot against the odds but almost none are willing to take a shot with no chance whatsoever. I was waiting for my credits to expire in 2.0. With 3.0 I wanted to stay.

The major talent dropping to lower levels will be cured as more coaches move up to D1. Also expect some of the other coaches may trickle back in to challenge the new top dogs. Nothing like this anywhere else. D1 was desolate outside of the Big 6 conferences in 2.0. That is not the case anymore. Eventually some of those coaches will have the ability to take those Big 6 jobs if they want them.

One thing I have personally experienced is that there is less 2 teams colluding against 1 in this format so far. It used to be soo common it was laughable to think you had a chance of being anything but a first round casualty without multiple teams working together in a world. I seriously thought I had two choices either I had to put all three of my teams in the same world or quit. I decided I was going to quit at that time in 2.0. Things changed in 3.0. It may have something to do with the percentages making it more difficult to guarantee a recruit, my moves to D1, more acceptance from other coaches, or any number of factors. I just know that I feel better about this game with its ups, downs, and challenges.

If that ever results in a title who knows? Still plenty of great coaches out there beating me with their mad skillz.

Posted by pkoopman on 4/22/2017 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 4/22/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I think an often overlooked issue at play is the reduced number of recruits available in 3.0 vs. 2.0 -- there are hundreds fewer generated (though I know not their breakdown by level), which I think is exacerbating the ruckus at the top of the feeding ladder. I've used the same system for close to 4 years to "score" recruits and know where the line was for a "good" d3/d2 recruit for each division is. And while my overall scores should trend higher in 3.0 because I now can see all the high-highs as opposed to having to discover them, the level of recruit that I'm seeing human-owned Big Six teams have to reach for is at/below where I used to look for top-level D2 talent. If the game were anywhere near full, the amount of refuse that teams would have to grab to fill out D3 rosters would be appalling.

Nope, there are the same number of recruits created. That was verified in one of the chats. It can look different, because in the previous version, higher prestige teams had more "vision". Recruits appearing as D1 for a lower prestige D2 team would appear as D2 for higher prestige teams.

Really? Was that a dev chat or a post? Because I could have sworn we had people running numbers beta vs. "real" worlds and determined there were fewer recruits being generated. Also vaguely remember seble saying he was cutting the pool down slightly.

really hard to compare this stuff because of the multiple dynamic changes - some of what they did in 3.0 is great - some reflects what I think are foolish decisions without adequate thought or testing

I'm using my accumulated seasons after cutting way down on teams - not sure whether I'll pay for 3.0

Posted by rednu on 4/22/2017 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/22/2017 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 4/22/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I think an often overlooked issue at play is the reduced number of recruits available in 3.0 vs. 2.0 -- there are hundreds fewer generated (though I know not their breakdown by level), which I think is exacerbating the ruckus at the top of the feeding ladder. I've used the same system for close to 4 years to "score" recruits and know where the line was for a "good" d3/d2 recruit for each division is. And while my overall scores should trend higher in 3.0 because I now can see all the high-highs as opposed to having to discover them, the level of recruit that I'm seeing human-owned Big Six teams have to reach for is at/below where I used to look for top-level D2 talent. If the game were anywhere near full, the amount of refuse that teams would have to grab to fill out D3 rosters would be appalling.

Nope, there are the same number of recruits created. That was verified in one of the chats. It can look different, because in the previous version, higher prestige teams had more "vision". Recruits appearing as D1 for a lower prestige D2 team would appear as D2 for higher prestige teams.

Really? Was that a dev chat or a post? Because I could have sworn we had people running numbers beta vs. "real" worlds and determined there were fewer recruits being generated. Also vaguely remember seble saying he was cutting the pool down slightly.

9/27/2016 Dev chat, 7 questions down. I was the one who asked. :)

another dev chat would be very nice

Right now, I am seeing that D1 sims feel like a D2 human is too powerful to compete with for D1 recruits. If you get ahead of a D1 sim as a D2 team, they don't seem to put more effort in. If D1 sims would have a better realization that they could beat D2 humans, that would also solve the issue. It would make D1 sims more competitive and D2 and D3 humans more in line with reality. This will also happen as more humans reach D1.