Posted by mullycj on 5/16/2018 10:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 5/16/2018 12:01:00 AM (view original):
Removing caps is as bad an idea as it was in beta. The caps were set (far too high, actually) for a reason. They improve gameplay. This suggestion is actually a poison pill, and Benis knows it. With unlimited caps, people would feel like they would *have to* devote even more resources to those top targets, which inevitably increases frustration and dissatisfaction and rage quitting over “dice rolls” that don’t go their way.
Recruits dont choose school A over school B because school A’s coach visited him 35 times during the season instead of just 20. Recruits make choices based on preferences, prestige, and promises. If anything, the cap should be set lower, with each successive visit unlocked through attention, and cash should just be removed altogether. Since, you know, actually giving money to recruits is kind of illegal and stuff, and that’s basically what HV cash is proxying.
1st - lets try to take "realism" out of this discussion. There is nothing about the recruiting in this game that mirrors NCAA recruiting.
2nd - removing caps increases choices for the users. Do I go all in and have NO backups or spread the wealth over a few? Why should WIS dictate how we spend our funds? This isn't the federal government.
3rd - I would think you would advocate no caps since you don't go after EE caliber recruits anyway. The pickings would be easy for you.
4th - I don't mind the current caps, I do mind the reason they were put in.
1. No. Realism matters to a lot of players. We want it to feel real, but compressed, and with the tedious stuff taken out. We are not playing poker to distribute players.
2. Poison pill. The choice about going all in or preparing contingencies already exists in the current game, and you know this, because we’ve had this discussion a dozen times. Removing the cap limits the choice. People will think they have to do it, because they’re afraid everyone does it, so you end up with *more* instances of people wasting all their resources on a single lost “dice roll”. *More* instances of high prestige D1 teams being unable to fend off lower level schools with only AP for backups. So then you and Benis can come back and say “look how broken the game is!” No thanks. The game, as it exists, is fine, and if anything, the caps are too high. Make the visits more in line with real life - you can visit the kids home when he says you can, and you can come back again when he says you can - and remove cash altogether. Much better game, many more viable strategies, and now we are rewarding coaches who scout, prepare, and take calculated risks, rather than reward coaches who know how to count.
3. I go after an EE caliber player or two every season on my D1 squads. I just don’t buy the notion that I can’t compete unless I only have EE caliber players on my team. It’s beside the point anyway, because I value competitiveness, not just a system that will benefit me.
4. The reason they were put in is what chap is talking about in the OP. It wasn’t to stop poaching, and it wasn’t so WIS could be a nanny-state federal government. It was to reduce the competitive advantages of superclasses, and ensure that teams could legitimately go after good recruits with fewer scholarships. Tarvolon and Seble and I had this discussion explicitly in the beta forums (honestly, I thought you were a part of that too, mully, so I’m surprised you seem to think otherwise).
5/16/2018 10:40 AM (edited)