Posted by zorzii on 1/12/2018 6:35:00 PM (view original):
What if you stop putting ap one or more cycles, like you cut contact. You drop?

Depends on what the other guys are doing. That’s why I think prioritization is the most important part of the recruiting side of the game.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/12/2018 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Battles between humans come down to the choices they’ve made. You choose how high to reach for top targets, how low to reach for backups (if you even want to bother) and how to efficiently use the resources to secure either. It’s clear in the OP that diddy could have won the recruit with no roll, had he offered promises first. Lesson learned, hopefully.

As regards the second situation, we’d need a lot more information to make an intelligent argument about what “should have” happened.

As a group, we really should be doing more of these battle analyses. It’s important for new and returning players to get a feel for how to set expectations and priorities. It’s probably the hardest and most important part of the game.

You and I agree on a lot but not this. "We" are trying to turn this game into the old game by sharing information on what value each recruiting action has. To me, that's just setting up another "Plant your flag or cut and run" game. IMO, that game sucked.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2018 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/12/2018 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Battles between humans come down to the choices they’ve made. You choose how high to reach for top targets, how low to reach for backups (if you even want to bother) and how to efficiently use the resources to secure either. It’s clear in the OP that diddy could have won the recruit with no roll, had he offered promises first. Lesson learned, hopefully.

As regards the second situation, we’d need a lot more information to make an intelligent argument about what “should have” happened.

As a group, we really should be doing more of these battle analyses. It’s important for new and returning players to get a feel for how to set expectations and priorities. It’s probably the hardest and most important part of the game.

You and I agree on a lot but not this. "We" are trying to turn this game into the old game by sharing information on what value each recruiting action has. To me, that's just setting up another "Plant your flag or cut and run" game. IMO, that game sucked.

*gasp*

Does this mean you guys are breaking up?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2018 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/12/2018 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Battles between humans come down to the choices they’ve made. You choose how high to reach for top targets, how low to reach for backups (if you even want to bother) and how to efficiently use the resources to secure either. It’s clear in the OP that diddy could have won the recruit with no roll, had he offered promises first. Lesson learned, hopefully.

As regards the second situation, we’d need a lot more information to make an intelligent argument about what “should have” happened.

As a group, we really should be doing more of these battle analyses. It’s important for new and returning players to get a feel for how to set expectations and priorities. It’s probably the hardest and most important part of the game.

You and I agree on a lot but not this. "We" are trying to turn this game into the old game by sharing information on what value each recruiting action has. To me, that's just setting up another "Plant your flag or cut and run" game. IMO, that game sucked.

This was definitely a concern in the old game. The difference now is that 50.1 doesn’t always beat 49.9. So “we” are not hampering competitiveness, at least not to a significant degree. Battle analyses just help people understand how wide the range is, and how different strategies can be used to give yourself a shot in different scenarios.

I’m sure *some* people are out there diligently tracking all the information they can find, trying desperately to come up with exact relative values of each action in each scenario. To each her own. I suspect we’ll still see them stumble into the forums after their target signs with someone else on the 5am cycle with some more whining thread, or another.

As a D2, I just went after 5 D1 recruits and none of the D1 sims or 2 humans who tried could touch me on any of them. This year I picked targets I liked specifically for their preferences. I got as many nearby recruits as I could find to level 2, then switched to the preferences view and didn't scout anyone to level 3+ unless their preferences were at least over 50% favorable in my direction. Some of the guys I won battles for had 4 very goods. I know one season is a small sample size but I think the 3.0 multiplier for preferences is the key to understanding these battles.

I suppose it also helped having a lot of attn points from those 6 openings.

One thing I hated about 2.0 is that high prestige D2 and D3 teams could see players on their recruiting lists new users couldn't. Seemed unfair to me and I had a high prestige D3 team.

For example in 2.0 Lets say I had my A+ prestige FHSU team (D2 Iba) and coach B has C prestige Colorado School of Mines. We both use only the scouting service to find recruits in the same states. Since I have an A+ prestige I might get 50-200 more recruits on my D2 list than Coach B can see. These 50-200 recruits I see on my D2 scouting list are listed on the D1 list for Coach B and inaccessible to him.

IMO Each team at the same division level should have access to the same players regardless of prestige. Hard caps for the divisions was the least popular idea in Beta. Coaches still wanted their extra recruits/ "pull downs" from 2.0. Other coaches wanted a free for all with everyone being able to recruit every recruit equally.

I like 3.0 in the fact that unrecruited players with D1 talent do drop to other levels, and some players who have D1 talent want to play right away instead of sitting on a bench in D1. However a real life D1 team that promises a start and playing time will not lose a player to a D2 player unless there are variables that do not apply to HD (like going to his dad’s alma matta or not wanting to leave his hometown)

Posted by tdiddy3 on 1/12/2018 8:02:00 PM (view original):
I like 3.0 in the fact that unrecruited players with D1 talent do drop to other levels, and some players who have D1 talent want to play right away instead of sitting on a bench in D1. However a real life D1 team that promises a start and playing time will not lose a player to a D2 player unless there are variables that do not apply to HD (like going to his dad’s alma matta or not wanting to leave his hometown)

I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, but that’s how it would have happened if you had offered the promises before the visits. Some A and A+ D2 teams would probably be able to run with you if they had preference advantages (which, in practice, is what you talk about at the end), but a B- would normally be hopeless against you, with maintenance of a moderate amount of AP investment, had you gotten the full value of those promises.

Posted by tdiddy3 on 1/12/2018 8:02:00 PM (view original):
I like 3.0 in the fact that unrecruited players with D1 talent do drop to other levels, and some players who have D1 talent want to play right away instead of sitting on a bench in D1. However a real life D1 team that promises a start and playing time will not lose a player to a D2 player unless there are variables that do not apply to HD (like going to his dad’s alma matta or not wanting to leave his hometown)

Another thing about promises, I wish whatif would hold coaches a little more accountable for breaking them. If I promise a guy 15 mins, he prob won't transfer away unless I give him less than half of that. Sure he'll lose a little WE but if it was high to begin with, there's not much down-side. If coaches were more gun-shy on these promises then I bet recruiting battles would be a helluva lot more realistic.

The simplest solution would be to just modify the prestige modifier between divisions to be greater. That would still allow folks who want the absurd experience of all DI players in DIII to get them, but also avoid the craziness of DII schools regularly beating out DI Big 6 programs for recruits. It isn't my preferred solution, but an easy one.

One set of changes I would support in this regard, because I think it would be better and more competitive gameplay, not because it would be an extra advantage to anyone in particular, or any situation:
1) make the number of attention points a team gets static and constant, say 120 regardless of scholarships, because everyone has the same number of hours in the week; and
2) diminish the value of all APs after unlocking recruiting actions for a recruit; and
3) negative value for pestering, you start losing credit for bugging a recruit with a bad preference match

I’m not in favor of specifically changing any of the preference parameters, or increasing the division bump. But I do suspect this change would make it harder for teams to overwhelm via AP.