Posted by Benis on 10/3/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):

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.

This is too close-minded for me: "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."

IF you can make the game better, for EVERYONE, you make the game better. You don't slam doors shut with "it isn't happening." I like 3.0. I also know, with TWO 1st seasons, that 1st seasons suck. I'm a WifS vet so I get it. I sucked it up and waited for Seasons 2. But new users aren't WifS vets and shouldn't be expected to suck it up. The experience needs to be enjoyable from Day 1 to have a successful product.

Why use a band aid? Make the game better for new users.

It's funny that the main reason Seble chose to change the recruiting timeline was for the BENEFIT of new users. He thought that new people would have a better idea of who to recruit after playing through an entire season. I think the vast majority of us disagree and I can't see how the population data supports it being an improvement.

Do you think there will be a massive overhaul so soon after a massive overhaul?

Small changes that make the game better for everyone is what we'll get. 4.0 is not right around the corner.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/3/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/3/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):

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.

This is too close-minded for me: "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."

IF you can make the game better, for EVERYONE, you make the game better. You don't slam doors shut with "it isn't happening." I like 3.0. I also know, with TWO 1st seasons, that 1st seasons suck. I'm a WifS vet so I get it. I sucked it up and waited for Seasons 2. But new users aren't WifS vets and shouldn't be expected to suck it up. The experience needs to be enjoyable from Day 1 to have a successful product.

Why use a band aid? Make the game better for new users.

It's funny that the main reason Seble chose to change the recruiting timeline was for the BENEFIT of new users. He thought that new people would have a better idea of who to recruit after playing through an entire season. I think the vast majority of us disagree and I can't see how the population data supports it being an improvement.

Do you think there will be a massive overhaul so soon after a massive overhaul?

Small changes that make the game better for everyone is what we'll get. 4.0 is not right around the corner.

I think small changes are just as likely as big changes since nothing has happened in over a year. If we believe Seble is getting a team together and has resources to work on HD then I say just invest in the extra time to make it right.

not that I have much hope anything will happen. Just my 2 cents on what Benis would do.

I should say "Small changes that make the game better for everyone is what I HOPE we'll get." If seble thinks the long-time users are the drivers of the game, he'll address EE. If he wants to expand the population base, he'll makes Season 1 more enjoyable for new users.

The latter should be the focus.

Posted by johnsensing on 10/3/2017 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 10:59:00 AM (view original):
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.

I disagree with mike on a lot of things, but this post is dead on. Agree 100%.

I also agree with this 100%.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 9:07:00 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.

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.

I know this is a sim game, and that often times things that aren't 100% realistic make for a better game than trying to emulate reality as closely as possible (for instance, moving further away from reality by moving recruiting to be all post-season is one of these times). However, when there are DII teams good enough to not only make, but win multiple games in the DI NT, while there are ACC schools with 9 walkons, it has veered so far off the path that it has become a farce.
My point is that a DI top tier team should never be in a situation where they would be even interested in the same players that a DII team has the opportunity to sign. Top DI fallback options should be players for which lower-middle prestige DI teams are currently the leaders. And if you had a decent Sim AI, then none of those top recruits would be falling to DII teams. Personally, I would love the challenge of Sim AI teams that had excellent AI, though I understand that making it too intelligent would be discouraging to players and bad for business. As such, a Duke team with run by Sim AI shouldn't produce one of the top recruiting classes in the country, but it should still be producing a top 50 or so class.

The cool thing about this game is that every coach in the ACC could choose to exit the conference and pick up teams in, let's say, the WCC. The ACC is an elite conference in this game only because the users made it that... and it remains a strong conference because of its reputation in real life.

"WHAT IF sports"... Duke coached by Sim AI is just another Sim. In real life, Duke with an idiot coach will still land some top recruits, because Duke. But in this game, WHAT IF all the Duke fans decided they'd rather imagine coaching on a beach in California?

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/3/2017 6:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 9:07:00 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.

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.

I know this is a sim game, and that often times things that aren't 100% realistic make for a better game than trying to emulate reality as closely as possible (for instance, moving further away from reality by moving recruiting to be all post-season is one of these times). However, when there are DII teams good enough to not only make, but win multiple games in the DI NT, while there are ACC schools with 9 walkons, it has veered so far off the path that it has become a farce.
My point is that a DI top tier team should never be in a situation where they would be even interested in the same players that a DII team has the opportunity to sign. Top DI fallback options should be players for which lower-middle prestige DI teams are currently the leaders. And if you had a decent Sim AI, then none of those top recruits would be falling to DII teams. Personally, I would love the challenge of Sim AI teams that had excellent AI, though I understand that making it too intelligent would be discouraging to players and bad for business. As such, a Duke team with run by Sim AI shouldn't produce one of the top recruiting classes in the country, but it should still be producing a top 50 or so class.

You used a lot of words to NOT answer the question. I'll ask again:

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 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I should say "Small changes that make the game better for everyone is what I HOPE we'll get." If seble thinks the long-time users are the drivers of the game, he'll address EE. If he wants to expand the population base, he'll makes Season 1 more enjoyable for new users.

If HD moved back to single session recruiting, before the season began, wouldn't that solve both problems?

Posted by grimacedance on 10/3/2017 11:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I should say "Small changes that make the game better for everyone is what I HOPE we'll get." If seble thinks the long-time users are the drivers of the game, he'll address EE. If he wants to expand the population base, he'll makes Season 1 more enjoyable for new users.

If HD moved back to single session recruiting, before the season began, wouldn't that solve both problems?

It would.

Posted by craigaltonw on 10/3/2017 6:52:00 PM (view original):
The cool thing about this game is that every coach in the ACC could choose to exit the conference and pick up teams in, let's say, the WCC. The ACC is an elite conference in this game only because the users made it that... and it remains a strong conference because of its reputation in real life.

"WHAT IF sports"... Duke coached by Sim AI is just another Sim. In real life, Duke with an idiot coach will still land some top recruits, because Duke. But in this game, WHAT IF all the Duke fans decided they'd rather imagine coaching on a beach in California?

This is partly true.

However, the big limiting factor in this is the baseline prestige that exists at only D1. So it's MUCH easier for a high baseline prestige to get to and maintain an A prestige than a low baseline prestige. I don't think anyone has ever gotten to A+ prestige from a D baseline.

Baseline prestige list

Posted by Benis on 10/4/2017 8:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by craigaltonw on 10/3/2017 6:52:00 PM (view original):
The cool thing about this game is that every coach in the ACC could choose to exit the conference and pick up teams in, let's say, the WCC. The ACC is an elite conference in this game only because the users made it that... and it remains a strong conference because of its reputation in real life.

"WHAT IF sports"... Duke coached by Sim AI is just another Sim. In real life, Duke with an idiot coach will still land some top recruits, because Duke. But in this game, WHAT IF all the Duke fans decided they'd rather imagine coaching on a beach in California?

This is partly true.

However, the big limiting factor in this is the baseline prestige that exists at only D1. So it's MUCH easier for a high baseline prestige to get to and maintain an A prestige than a low baseline prestige. I don't think anyone has ever gotten to A+ prestige from a D baseline.

Baseline prestige list

Meaning - right now you could have say 5 ACC teams with A+ prestige. But if those same coaches all moved to the WCC or Horizon or w/e, they'll never get 5 teams to A+ at the same time. The baseline prestige prevents it.

As much as I want a more elegant fix, I have come around to the belief that the right solution is to go back to a single session of recruiting right after coach signups. Fixes job change and EE problem without shifting the benefit too much to the better programs.

Mike, say your obnoxious piece, and then go away. I'm not responding to you.

I'm crushed. Maybe just don't respond to anyone because I said that about 4 pages ago. And it was discussed, and agreed upon, for a couple of pages.

I don't think there needs to be a fix just a adjustment on the player base. You need to plan ahead its really that simple. We all know which players have a chance to leave early. The only players that make it to the 2nd phase are players with late preference. If you are going to consider those players then you need to give them attention points in the first phase. If you wait til the 2nd phase to give AP to players you are highly unlikely to get those players..

PS-I am not saying that the system cannot be improved. I just dont think you should expect to be in the hunt for recruits in the 2nd phase if you never gave attention to those recruits in the 1st phase.