Zorzii-I'll humor you for a second-how would your "caps" system work? There are kids that start with an overall rating of 440 loaded with potential we'd both rather have on our D3 teams than a D1 kid rated 610 that is 99 in WE, DU, and ST but maxes at 25 in ATH and DEF. Potential is the key factor here. How can you possibly artificially cap guys based on their overall rating that have hundreds of points of growth left?

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 7/16/2017 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I hate this "cap D3" nonsense. It's never been capped. In 2.0 you could recruit both D2 and D1 recruits at D3. Why cap it now? The only hindrance I see at D3 is lack of a scouting budget.

Wow! Just tuned in to this Whopper of a lie. What the hell are you talking about. Completely and obviously false.

Which part is the lie? As an A+ prestige D3 school, you could absolutely pull down D1 kids that were within 70 miles of campus. Unless you mean the "cap" part which, yeah, there were artificial caps on how high you could reach. But it was random-I could pull down kids rated 510 that were on my D1 list but kids rated 480 and on my D2 list wouldn't talk to me. Or you could mean the budget constraint part, which is just mine (and several others') opinion.

So, "It's never been capped" really meant... excepting that even the best D3 schools could only recruit about a 515 intial rated player. In fact, most above ~485 would reject recruiting effort.

We can go back and find threads discussing the D2 top rated recruits. What were they ~550 intial rating?

Is there anything equivalent to that in place now?

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 7/16/2017 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I hate this "cap D3" nonsense. It's never been capped. In 2.0 you could recruit both D2 and D1 recruits at D3. Why cap it now? The only hindrance I see at D3 is lack of a scouting budget.

Wow! Just tuned in to this Whopper of a lie. What the hell are you talking about. Completely and obviously false.

Which part is the lie? As an A+ prestige D3 school, you could absolutely pull down D1 kids that were within 70 miles of campus. Unless you mean the "cap" part which, yeah, there were artificial caps on how high you could reach. But it was random-I could pull down kids rated 510 that were on my D1 list but kids rated 480 and on my D2 list wouldn't talk to me. Or you could mean the budget constraint part, which is just mine (and several others') opinion.

Yeah exactly. Only D1 kids within 70 miles of campus and it wasn't a guarantee. I'm not sure of success rate for pulling down D2 players with an A+ prestige but it was something like 50-75%.

But here's the other thing. These limits had a cascading effect. D2 teams couldn't get ANY D1 player, they'd have to be pulled down too and there was a success rate there. So, you had more D2 teams going for D2 rated players which made it even harder for D3 teams to pull down D2 players.

The whole system has been flipped around.

I think on this whole capping issue - a little bit is just semantics of what we would each call a 'cap'. Zorzii has been very persistent about wanting a cap and Mike says he doesn't want to cap it.

But then Mike has also said he'd be okay limiting how high of a rating a D3 team could recruit but that recruit would flat out reject any effort (much like it was in 2.0). In my eyes, that's what capping means. But others want to call it something else and that's okay.

Posted by rogelio on 7/16/2017 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 7/16/2017 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I hate this "cap D3" nonsense. It's never been capped. In 2.0 you could recruit both D2 and D1 recruits at D3. Why cap it now? The only hindrance I see at D3 is lack of a scouting budget.

Wow! Just tuned in to this Whopper of a lie. What the hell are you talking about. Completely and obviously false.

Which part is the lie? As an A+ prestige D3 school, you could absolutely pull down D1 kids that were within 70 miles of campus. Unless you mean the "cap" part which, yeah, there were artificial caps on how high you could reach. But it was random-I could pull down kids rated 510 that were on my D1 list but kids rated 480 and on my D2 list wouldn't talk to me. Or you could mean the budget constraint part, which is just mine (and several others') opinion.

So, "It's never been capped" really meant... excepting that even the best D3 schools could only recruit about a 515 intial rated player. In fact, most above ~485 would reject recruiting effort.

We can go back and find threads discussing the D2 top rated recruits. What were they ~550 intial rating?

Is there anything equivalent to that in place now?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting Zorzii's cap...I guess I'm not sure if he's advocating for an overall rating cap or a division specific cap.

Posted by Benis on 7/16/2017 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 7/16/2017 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I hate this "cap D3" nonsense. It's never been capped. In 2.0 you could recruit both D2 and D1 recruits at D3. Why cap it now? The only hindrance I see at D3 is lack of a scouting budget.

Wow! Just tuned in to this Whopper of a lie. What the hell are you talking about. Completely and obviously false.

Which part is the lie? As an A+ prestige D3 school, you could absolutely pull down D1 kids that were within 70 miles of campus. Unless you mean the "cap" part which, yeah, there were artificial caps on how high you could reach. But it was random-I could pull down kids rated 510 that were on my D1 list but kids rated 480 and on my D2 list wouldn't talk to me. Or you could mean the budget constraint part, which is just mine (and several others') opinion.

Yeah exactly. Only D1 kids within 70 miles of campus and it wasn't a guarantee. I'm not sure of success rate for pulling down D2 players with an A+ prestige but it was something like 50-75%.

But here's the other thing. These limits had a cascading effect. D2 teams couldn't get ANY D1 player, they'd have to be pulled down too and there was a success rate there. So, you had more D2 teams going for D2 rated players which made it even harder for D3 teams to pull down D2 players.

The whole system has been flipped around.

I would say 6-8 players on any given A+ D3 team were from the D2 pool, so 50%-66%, and same for an A+ D2 team from the D1 pool. Then again, that's a crappy way to look at it because my A+ D2 pool used to have more guys it in than a C prestige's D2 pool, so it was all relative.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Zorzii-I'll humor you for a second-how would your "caps" system work? There are kids that start with an overall rating of 440 loaded with potential we'd both rather have on our D3 teams than a D1 kid rated 610 that is 99 in WE, DU, and ST but maxes at 25 in ATH and DEF. Potential is the key factor here. How can you possibly artificially cap guys based on their overall rating that have hundreds of points of growth left?

Dunno what zorzii thinks, but I'll answer. There is not going to be a perfect way to do it. The easy way is the one that WIS chose the first time the caps we're introduced.

It could be done by rankings. Those are even worse predictions of player quality at the margins, but that's going to be true regardless. I suppose it would be easy enough to adjust the rankings or change to a cap on total potential (without respect to intitial ratings), but even I'm not arguing for that.

This could be an internet form problem...everyone that isn't simply trolling, is in basic agreement. If D1 population in worlds we're close to 200, then the system would work fine on its own. Since that isn't the case, there needs to be some limit on how good a recruit a D3 team can land.

Same with D2, but I don't think there is a perfect.

Posted by rogelio on 7/16/2017 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2017 8:49:00 AM (view original):
I disagree. Many like D3 just fine. Let's not pretend that HD population is down because D3 recruiting isn't capped. That's nonsense.

There's first class point missing involved here.

The issue is whether new users are being added in 3.0. I recall Mike theorizing that, once enough seasons were passed in 3.0, there'd be new user growth.

There are no new users, but...I mean... obviously...that couldn't have anything to do with the buy-in cost to be competitive actually GROWING substantially since D3 users have been allowed to field D1 teams.

Are there no new users because some D3 teams are really good?

Or are there no new users because of no advertising?

I get confused on which argument is being made. Mostly because I believe both are bullshit.

Human population for division 3 world 7
CRUM, currently in Season 91.
These are D-3 numbers.

In November 2015, Season 78 in Crum D-3 had 77 humans. Season 82 spiked to 113 due to March Madness and free seasons, i think.

In October 2014, Season 72, Crum D-3 had 85 users.

Season: 82 humans: 113 (April 2016).
Season: 81 humans: 97 (HD 3.0 announced)
Season: 80 humans: 84
Season: 79 humans: 82 (December 2015)
Season: 78 humans: 77
Season: 77 humans: 82
Season: 76 humans: 85
Season: 75 humans: 94
Season: 74 humans: 116 (March 2015)
Season: 73 humans: 84
Season: 72 humans: 85
Season: 71 humans: 85 (October 2014)
Season: 70 humans: 102
Season: 69 humans: 108 (July 2014)
Season: 68 humans: 112
Season: 67 humans: 135
Season: 66 humans: 119
Season: 65 humans: 107
Season: 64 humans: 103
Season: 63 humans: 115 (mid-September 2013, when i first signed up in HD)

Posted by Benis on 7/16/2017 3:34:00 PM (view original):
I think on this whole capping issue - a little bit is just semantics of what we would each call a 'cap'. Zorzii has been very persistent about wanting a cap and Mike says he doesn't want to cap it.

But then Mike has also said he'd be okay limiting how high of a rating a D3 team could recruit but that recruit would flat out reject any effort (much like it was in 2.0). In my eyes, that's what capping means. But others want to call it something else and that's okay.

I suggested to 50 at each position is D1 only.
I suggested 51-125 at each position be D1/D2 only.

Truth is, my suggestion doesn't change much. I've snagged a few 102ish but, for the most part, it's 130-170 ranked.

I agree that there are a lot of semantics going on here and most agree on the same general issue and form of solution, but let me thrown out an idea I've mentioned before.

Why not just make it harder to recruit up a division and much harder to recruit up 2 divisions? More AP should be required to unlock the scholarship offer as you go up Divisions. D3 coaches would only be able to unlock offers for 2 or 3 D1 guys and that would be at the expense of recruiting more heavily at the lower divisions. As opposed to the current scenario where D3 can just unlock a bunch of D1 players and wait around to see which ones don't get scooped up. This would equate to more risk/reward in going after higher division players and fewer D1 players on D3 teams.

world 1 d3.

This is D-3 Naismith, typically the most populated HD D-3 World.

Like in Crum, a spike in March 2015 due to i think a free season giveaway and March Madness.

You have to go back to June 2014 for Naismith D-3 to be at 150+. Three freakin years ago. Each year it's dropped by around 10.

Season: 88 humans: 138 (April 2016)
Season: 87 humans: 127 (HD 3.0 announced)
Season: 86 humans: 126
Season: 85 humans: 128 (December 2015)
Season: 84 humans: 124
Season: 83 humans: 123
Season: 82 humans: 138
Season: 81 humans: 140
Season: 80 humans: 192 (March 2015)
Season: 79 humans: 146
Season: 78 humans: 129
Season: 77 humans: 115 (October 2014)
Season: 76 humans: 129
Season: 75 humans: 145 (July 2014)
Season: 74 humans: 159
Season: 73 humans: 196
Season: 72 humans: 179
Season: 71 humans: 149
Season: 70 humans: 146
Season: 69 humans: 156 (September 2013)

Posted by rogelio on 7/16/2017 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 7/16/2017 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/16/2017 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I hate this "cap D3" nonsense. It's never been capped. In 2.0 you could recruit both D2 and D1 recruits at D3. Why cap it now? The only hindrance I see at D3 is lack of a scouting budget.

^^^ This.

"Nonsense" is the right word for it. And I agree the D3 budgets are a bit too small.

Is this Spud? Champion of the unbalancing of the game for the benefit of...? Wait...why would adding D3 budgets improve things? That would just make it D2.

Yeah l80r20 is Spud. He's still denying it like a weirdo though.

this population thing... i feel like you guys are just talking past each other, only hitting semantics. the old timers may be a bit off on the timeline, but the reality is, not long ago (for long timers, meaning a couple years back or so), was the first time we started seeing 2 digit populations become a "thing" for d2/d3. we were all used to low triple digits being the floor. in a very short time, things dropped where suddenly double digits is the norm for d2/d3 in general (with very few exceptions now, it appears), and you started seeing freaking 60s and 70s. it was insane how quick it happened, from this end. we definitely saw the decline hitting pre-3.0 being announced, but it wasn't much before - i think a lot of the 2.0 problems basically really started to show, and then they went to do 3.0, and people really strongly disagreed about what the causes were and how to reverse them. so a lot of that got tied together, in a sense.

this game has been pretty broken for pretty long. its impossible to argue is it reason A or reason B, because there are many. lack of advertising, or more appropriately, lack of meaningful efforts to attract and retain new coaches on really any front, is obviously a contributing factor. how much? who knows, but its certainly one factor of many. the problem to me is, people come to this game to coach Kentucky or North Carolina. they get here, and most either 1) get wrecked, are hopelessly lost, and leave before they really give it a shot (too hard to get a basic grip on this game), or 2) they get the basics, join the community enough to hear just how tough and how long a road it is, to get to a+ d1, and they aren't up for the long haul. a small remainder stays. in that kind of setting, advertising is probably not going to be that cost effective. i suspect WIS has run sample ads and seen little returns, and drawn the same conclusion. when i joined (10? years ago), i felt the road to high d1 was far too long for the average player, and it has gotten *far* longer. that is clearly going to cause problems.

until this game is more accessible, it will remain an extremely niche game. i hate the soccer mom-ization of more "hardcore" type games, personally, so i kind of hate what i'm saying here - but there is a huge difference between my personal preference and what is good business. and truth be told, if you asked me to pay 20x more for a game that targeted people with my personal preferences for gaming, so that a game could be supported on a much smaller base - i probably wouldn't really want to do that, either.