Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 1:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/3/2017 12:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 12:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/2/2017 5:15:00 AM (view original):
The broader point here is that a player like Singletary is fairly easy to get for a high level program - sometimes with no fight whatsoever - if he's a target from the start.

I'm a proponent of realism, too. I want the game to feel as real as possible, with allowances made for good, competitive and non-tedious gameplay. Because gameplay is the real priority for me, and I think for the game developers. And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is.

I think the game wants you to adjust your gameplay - or at least to think harder about it.

All that said, I do think there's an argument to be made for making job changes a little less harrowing. A few new jucos appearing in the second session would be a start, and I'd also like to see a new coach preference to counter the long term coach preference, and maybe a separate prestige factor that follows the coach success instead of the school.

It's absolutely ridiculous that any interest from a top level DI school would not immediately trump almost anything from any DII school. In real life, late interest from an elite school from Duke or UK can often steal a recruit from lower level Power Conference schools, let alone DII schools. An elite DII school should be able to compete with the bottom tier of DI, but that's about it.
The division weight should be massively increased, an extra day added before signings resume where actions are allowed before starting session 2 (unless you go the better route and just go back to one session post-EE), and the SIM AI AI improved so that they actually, you know, go after and win decent players rather than letting them fall all the way to DIII.

In real life, Duke and UNC plan intelligently and line up realistic targets early on, so they don't have to demean themselves by lifting recruits from Western New Mexico and Rollins College at the last minute.

HD's upper tier coaches like chapelhillne don't want to have to plan intelligently. They think they should both be able to maximize their first-round odds AND get charity help at other coaches' expense when their initial gambles fail. Fortunately, HD is no longer designed solely for the enjoyment of the elite, long-established few at the top of the chain.

Viva 3.0!

No, but they do sometimes lift players from baseline B- level teams like Purdue or Arizona State or the like, because that's where the second tier of players should be going. In 3.0, they go to DII schools, which is insane.

I agree too many Sim D1s take walk-ons while human D2s get ranked players... but this is addressed by making SimAI a better recruiter, not by making D1 A+ teams more powerful.

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/2/2017 10:10:00 PM (view original):
Yes, but the problem is, let's say you are in a battle over the #1 Point Guard in the country. Diverting that 10 AP per cycle could cause you to lose the recruit, so the way the system is set up is the main problem. If there were a lower limit on the APs, like 20 per player per cycle, then each team could spread their APs around more. Or if it took fewer APs to unlock a player - like maybe 5-10, these things would also solve the problem.

The problem with limiting APs to 20 per player per cycle is that it basically kills any ability for lower prestige teams to compete for the better recruits. Pouring 80 AP into a recruit where a higher prestige team might only be willing to put in 40 or 60 AP per cycle is how lower prestige teams are able to neutralize the prestige advantage. Strip that away by limiting APs per cycle so higher prestige teams can spread their AP around is simply a way to kill off competition and we're back to an HD 2.0 player distribution system.

FWIW I do think the inability to effectively spread AP around to multiple recruits is a problem. No team, regardless of prestige, should be limited in it's ability to competitively recruit multiple payers per opening but that can't come at the expense of eliminating competition from lower prestige schools. I think there are ways to accomplish this but it's not simply reducing the AP Cap.

Posted by johnsensing on 10/2/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2017 2:28:00 PM (view original):
"real life" and "realism" arguments make me laugh. Most of you only want "realism" when it works for you. You know when schools contact recruits in "real life"? One answer is "Not a month before signing day." Which is pretty much what contacting a guy for the 1st time in 2nd session equates to.

This is a pretty good argument for changing the game so that we have only 1 recruiting session. Good thinking -- thanks, mike.

I agree with Mike - let's just move back to just 1 session.

One session is enough. It would solve D3 boredom and EES at the same time.

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/3/2017 1:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 1:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/3/2017 12:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 12:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/2/2017 5:15:00 AM (view original):
The broader point here is that a player like Singletary is fairly easy to get for a high level program - sometimes with no fight whatsoever - if he's a target from the start.

I'm a proponent of realism, too. I want the game to feel as real as possible, with allowances made for good, competitive and non-tedious gameplay. Because gameplay is the real priority for me, and I think for the game developers. And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is.

I think the game wants you to adjust your gameplay - or at least to think harder about it.

All that said, I do think there's an argument to be made for making job changes a little less harrowing. A few new jucos appearing in the second session would be a start, and I'd also like to see a new coach preference to counter the long term coach preference, and maybe a separate prestige factor that follows the coach success instead of the school.

It's absolutely ridiculous that any interest from a top level DI school would not immediately trump almost anything from any DII school. In real life, late interest from an elite school from Duke or UK can often steal a recruit from lower level Power Conference schools, let alone DII schools. An elite DII school should be able to compete with the bottom tier of DI, but that's about it.
The division weight should be massively increased, an extra day added before signings resume where actions are allowed before starting session 2 (unless you go the better route and just go back to one session post-EE), and the SIM AI AI improved so that they actually, you know, go after and win decent players rather than letting them fall all the way to DIII.

In real life, Duke and UNC plan intelligently and line up realistic targets early on, so they don't have to demean themselves by lifting recruits from Western New Mexico and Rollins College at the last minute.

HD's upper tier coaches like chapelhillne don't want to have to plan intelligently. They think they should both be able to maximize their first-round odds AND get charity help at other coaches' expense when their initial gambles fail. Fortunately, HD is no longer designed solely for the enjoyment of the elite, long-established few at the top of the chain.

Viva 3.0!

No, but they do sometimes lift players from baseline B- level teams like Purdue or Arizona State or the like, because that's where the second tier of players should be going. In 3.0, they go to DII schools, which is insane.

I agree too many Sim D1s take walk-ons while human D2s get ranked players... but this is addressed by making SimAI a better recruiter, not by making D1 A+ teams more powerful.

I think that would not be a bad idea, though you don't want to make them too good. But right now if you just get enough ahead of them, they give up, often against a team from a lower division.

I see B and greater prestige teams come in and win the guys I am recruiting at high D2 ALL. THE. TIME. Not sure what the problem is.

Target some whatevers or lates, throw in enough AP to unlock the scholarships, rinse and repeat.

Posted by zorzii on 10/3/2017 7:59:00 AM (view original):
One session is enough. It would solve D3 boredom and EES at the same time.

How would it solve EEs though?

Posted by zagsrulez on 10/3/2017 8:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/3/2017 7:59:00 AM (view original):
One session is enough. It would solve D3 boredom and EES at the same time.

How would it solve EEs though?

Basically be like the old days when EEs would leave and you get funds at beginning right before recruiting starts.

Biggest benefit in my mind is that its better for taking over a rebuild and for 1st time coaches getting to recruit their own players right away.

I was supportive of 2 sessions initially but I see now that it was a mistake.

Posted by Benis on 10/3/2017 7:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 10/2/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2017 2:28:00 PM (view original):
"real life" and "realism" arguments make me laugh. Most of you only want "realism" when it works for you. You know when schools contact recruits in "real life"? One answer is "Not a month before signing day." Which is pretty much what contacting a guy for the 1st time in 2nd session equates to.

This is a pretty good argument for changing the game so that we have only 1 recruiting session. Good thinking -- thanks, mike.

I agree with Mike - let's just move back to just 1 session.

If you two clowns think I've ever argued for two sessions, pile back into your clown car with 17 other clowns and think again.

One session, before the start of the season, is what I'd like as it let's new coaches recruit their own players. If not that, one session, at the end of the season, is my preferred option.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 1:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/3/2017 12:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 12:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/2/2017 5:15:00 AM (view original):
The broader point here is that a player like Singletary is fairly easy to get for a high level program - sometimes with no fight whatsoever - if he's a target from the start.

I'm a proponent of realism, too. I want the game to feel as real as possible, with allowances made for good, competitive and non-tedious gameplay. Because gameplay is the real priority for me, and I think for the game developers. And in basically 2 years of arguments about 3.0, I haven't seen a compelling argument for changes needed to make it easier for high level programs to stay at a high level in perpetuity. That's essentially what this is.

I think the game wants you to adjust your gameplay - or at least to think harder about it.

All that said, I do think there's an argument to be made for making job changes a little less harrowing. A few new jucos appearing in the second session would be a start, and I'd also like to see a new coach preference to counter the long term coach preference, and maybe a separate prestige factor that follows the coach success instead of the school.

It's absolutely ridiculous that any interest from a top level DI school would not immediately trump almost anything from any DII school. In real life, late interest from an elite school from Duke or UK can often steal a recruit from lower level Power Conference schools, let alone DII schools. An elite DII school should be able to compete with the bottom tier of DI, but that's about it.
The division weight should be massively increased, an extra day added before signings resume where actions are allowed before starting session 2 (unless you go the better route and just go back to one session post-EE), and the SIM AI AI improved so that they actually, you know, go after and win decent players rather than letting them fall all the way to DIII.

In real life, Duke and UNC plan intelligently and line up realistic targets early on, so they don't have to demean themselves by lifting recruits from Western New Mexico and Rollins College at the last minute.

HD's upper tier coaches like chapelhillne don't want to have to plan intelligently. They think they should both be able to maximize their first-round odds AND get charity help at other coaches' expense when their initial gambles fail. Fortunately, HD is no longer designed solely for the enjoyment of the elite, long-established few at the top of the chain.

Viva 3.0!

No, but they do sometimes lift players from baseline B- level teams like Purdue or Arizona State or the like, because that's where the second tier of players should be going. In 3.0, they go to DII schools, which is insane.

This isn't real life. It's a simgame.

When that D1 takes a player from a D2 user, it could wreck his off-season just as much, if not more, as if the D1 user didn't get the player. So, in short, somebody(a paying customer) is disappointed. You tell me which one it should be:

1. User who dumped 75% of his resources into a player beginning with the first cycle in RS1.
2. User who used 3% of his resources on a player late in RS2.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/3/2017 7:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 10/2/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2017 2:28:00 PM (view original):
"real life" and "realism" arguments make me laugh. Most of you only want "realism" when it works for you. You know when schools contact recruits in "real life"? One answer is "Not a month before signing day." Which is pretty much what contacting a guy for the 1st time in 2nd session equates to.

This is a pretty good argument for changing the game so that we have only 1 recruiting session. Good thinking -- thanks, mike.

I agree with Mike - let's just move back to just 1 session.

If you two clowns think I've ever argued for two sessions, pile back into your clown car with 17 other clowns and think again.

One session, before the start of the season, is what I'd like as it let's new coaches recruit their own players. If not that, one session, at the end of the season, is my preferred option.

No one ever said you argued for 2 sessions.

I sensed sarcasm from JSS. And you just like to pile on.

That said, I think I prefer one session at the end of the season with EE declaring halfway thru. So we can still enjoy the "I'M QUITTING IF EE ISN'T FIXED!!!!" threads.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
I sensed sarcasm from JSS. And you just like to pile on.

That said, I think I prefer one session at the end of the season with EE declaring halfway thru. So we can still enjoy the "I'M QUITTING IF EE ISN'T FIXED!!!!" threads.

For the record, I was sincere that your comment was a good argument for a single recruiting period -- if you think that the goal should be to make the game as realistic as possible (as I do), the artificial split of 2 recruiting sessions does not further that goal. As we've also spent lots and lots of time discussing, it also causes significant problems. To me, the fact that session 2 screws over coaches moving into new jobs is far more significant than the EE issue, and I say that as someone who thinks that the EE issue has been horribly botched in 3.0.

I'm for a single session because of job change/new coaches. The first season under the current system is a waste. You probably have a bad team full of players you didn't recruit. You can't gain an "attachment" to the team that way and I believe that's one of the reasons a lot of users don't have Season 2. If you go 5-22 with players you didn't bring in, there's little incentive to re-up. If you go 5-22 with 4 guys you recruited, maybe you see light at the end of the tunnel. Or maybe you just like developing the guys you recruited. And it's entirely possible you recruit 4 piles of steaming garbage but they're your steaming garbage and you learned something. You gain no knowledge in recruiting and don't develop "your" guys. It's just not fun.

Posted by tkimble on 10/2/2017 11:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/2/2017 10:10:00 PM (view original):
Yes, but the problem is, let's say you are in a battle over the #1 Point Guard in the country. Diverting that 10 AP per cycle could cause you to lose the recruit, so the way the system is set up is the main problem. If there were a lower limit on the APs, like 20 per player per cycle, then each team could spread their APs around more. Or if it took fewer APs to unlock a player - like maybe 5-10, these things would also solve the problem.

It's a tradeoff -- are you willing to sacrifice 2-3% chance of landing a top player in order to have a backup for if a 50-50 situation goes against you? What are the marginal returns on APs 77, 78, 79, and 80 on the #1 PG in the country?

This is it, right here. Nothing more I can add.

As for the tangent on going back to one session... it isn't happening. There'd be too much to cram. Better to talk about reasonable fixes that could positively affect gameplay overall.

1. There should be more "late" signing recruits in the top 100.
2. No "late" player should sign with anyone until the last 8 cycles, which means 2 non-signing cycles for late recruits.
3. Some players, especially late signees, should view new coaches positively. Right now, the only preference is "wants long time coach".
4. Insert a prestige factor that follows the coach, not just the program.
5. Allow a coach to siphon off some APs to try to convince a player on the big board to stay another year.
6. Add a few dozen jucos to the pool for the second session, consider them diamonds in the rough, players with breakout years, big growth spurts, etc.
7. Lower sim teams standards for recruiting. Move everyone down the ladder a bit, so their effort is more effective, and the high prestige teams are less likely to take multiple walkons.