Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/15/2018 9:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:15:00 PM (view original):
I do find it strange that nobody challenged. Literally the first thing I do is see how many scholarships a competitor may have (relative to my own team.) One scholarship is still a flashing beacon (IMHO) to take that coach to task...I don't care what the school's prestige is.

8 grand is enough to go all in if he's less than 200 miles (something like that).

5K should be enough. Still, somebody else in the Northeast with 4+ schollies should have seen the vulnerability and made a run...unless a lot of DI coaches are simply avoiding EE types .

The A+ scared them away. Guaranteed.

looks like not many good teams up there... BC is A+ but also only had 1 opening. Cuse is only C prestige.

Posted by Benis on 5/15/2018 9:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/15/2018 9:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:15:00 PM (view original):
I do find it strange that nobody challenged. Literally the first thing I do is see how many scholarships a competitor may have (relative to my own team.) One scholarship is still a flashing beacon (IMHO) to take that coach to task...I don't care what the school's prestige is.

8 grand is enough to go all in if he's less than 200 miles (something like that).

5K should be enough. Still, somebody else in the Northeast with 4+ schollies should have seen the vulnerability and made a run...unless a lot of DI coaches are simply avoiding EE types .

The A+ scared them away. Guaranteed.

looks like not many good teams up there... BC is A+ but also only had 1 opening. Cuse is only C prestige.

A+ was truly intimidating in 2.0...not so much in 3.0. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that way.

Another thing is once you have used ap on cycles, it's tough to change and mix it up elsewhere. You have no momemtum going ...

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.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 8:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 5/15/2018 8:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/15/2018 6:51:00 PM (view original):
I'm probably all alone on this one...

But I don't see how this is necessarily a good thing for the game. Sure, it worked out great you Chapel so of course you love it. And you're obviously one of the best coaches on here but what exactly did you do in this scenario? Just click the button to set it to 40 and then click the HV button 20 times and click the CV button once? How is that a fun, exciting and strategic system?

I don't see why having caps on HVs is a good thing. They should set budget with the bulk coming from a lump sum and a small % based upon open openings and remove the HV cap. It limits choices and decision making in the current set up.

In your scenario all you had to do was say - yup, I can afford to go all in and preferences look good so I'll do that and sit back and wait for the dice roll. But what about the other teams? They can look at you and know exactly how much money you have to spend and know exactly how much effort you can put in and exactly how much effort they can put in and what both of your preferences are.

Instead of thinking "hmm, should I try to outspend him here and risk losing out on my 2nd and 3rd player" he's thinking "Okay I have enough money to match his effort exactly and still have enough to spend 20 HVs 1 CV on player 2 with enough leftover to send 5 more HVs to player 3". It's basically just a set the max amount and kick back and wait for the roll.

I tend to agree. Sometimes, it's just hit it up and wait for the roll. It's most of the recruits in D1

That's exactly what it is. Lower divisions require great strategic decisions. DI is just put your money down and wait for the river card.

I think D2 has the best balance and fewest flaws of all the divisions. A couple tweaks and it could be even better.

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.

I generally like how 3.0 is working, and I've been on both ends of the die rolls.

On the "realism" front, I can't imagine a recruit getting visited more than 3 or 4 times without becoming annoyed. There's only so much face time you could actually do. There's only so much attention you could devote without starting to **** off the recruit.

On the "gameplay" front, I view APs as the coaching staff's time and the budget as the school's monetary resources for outreach (travel expenses, number of staff, etc...), although not as outright giving money to recruits. I think both are necessary abstractions that give the game strategic complexity. Could there be tweaks? Obviously.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/15/2018 9:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/15/2018 9:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:15:00 PM (view original):
I do find it strange that nobody challenged. Literally the first thing I do is see how many scholarships a competitor may have (relative to my own team.) One scholarship is still a flashing beacon (IMHO) to take that coach to task...I don't care what the school's prestige is.

8 grand is enough to go all in if he's less than 200 miles (something like that).

5K should be enough. Still, somebody else in the Northeast with 4+ schollies should have seen the vulnerability and made a run...unless a lot of DI coaches are simply avoiding EE types .

The A+ scared them away. Guaranteed.

looks like not many good teams up there... BC is A+ but also only had 1 opening. Cuse is only C prestige.

A+ was truly intimidating in 2.0...not so much in 3.0. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that way.

I agree not as much in 3.0 but it is still useful in scaring teams away. I've noticed in Allen in particular that a few of the A+ teams signing players in the Midwest with absolutely no one contesting them.

I don’t think cash adds anything to strategic complexity, and I don’t think removing it would lessen strategic complexity. Chess isn’t any less a strategy game for being cashless, and adding an option to buy armor wouldn’t improve the game. Attention points would be fine on their own.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/15/2018 9:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/15/2018 9:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/15/2018 9:15:00 PM (view original):
I do find it strange that nobody challenged. Literally the first thing I do is see how many scholarships a competitor may have (relative to my own team.) One scholarship is still a flashing beacon (IMHO) to take that coach to task...I don't care what the school's prestige is.

8 grand is enough to go all in if he's less than 200 miles (something like that).

5K should be enough. Still, somebody else in the Northeast with 4+ schollies should have seen the vulnerability and made a run...unless a lot of DI coaches are simply avoiding EE types .

The A+ scared them away. Guaranteed.

looks like not many good teams up there... BC is A+ but also only had 1 opening. Cuse is only C prestige.

A+ was truly intimidating in 2.0...not so much in 3.0. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that way.

The big difference is in 3.0, it’s perception. In the previous version, it was a structural reality. It used to be really dumb to challenge those teams for high value recruits. Now it’s kind of dumb to let them go.

3.0 has changed valuation a bit, though, which plays into it. 4-5 star recruits who are obviously going to be EE candidates after a season or two have less actual value than they used to, when they were much easier to replace. Some of the toughest battles now are for 2-3 star (or lower) recruits with potential, who project to be 4 year players. Potential barely mattered at all at the high levels of D1 in the previous version. Player evaluation matters more now.

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.

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).

I'm with shoe on this. I always disliked the 2.0 superclass strategy. $96k with 6 openings, vs $16k with 1 opening... no way the 1 opening team could battle. AP's and caps guard against that. Big improvement in my opinion.

Posted by npb7768 on 5/16/2018 12:45:00 PM (view original):
I'm with shoe on this. I always disliked the 2.0 superclass strategy. $96k with 6 openings, vs $16k with 1 opening... no way the 1 opening team could battle. AP's and caps guard against that. Big improvement in my opinion.

And that's why you create the budget off a set amount and not by openings.

Boom fixed.

Posted by Benis on 5/16/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 5/16/2018 12:45:00 PM (view original):
I'm with shoe on this. I always disliked the 2.0 superclass strategy. $96k with 6 openings, vs $16k with 1 opening... no way the 1 opening team could battle. AP's and caps guard against that. Big improvement in my opinion.

And that's why you create the budget off a set amount and not by openings.

Boom fixed.

No, that’s why you get rid of the budget altogether. Then it’s actually fixed.