Does't seem like offering a scholarship or promised starts or minutes means that much in terms of early credit.

I think offering 1 AP while being on their considered list should be revisited. I also think HV's and CV's should be added to early credit.

I think my main issue is someone that is targeting a "late" guy at D-1, puts 60-80 APs per cycle, early start and minutes. Team B with close to same prestige puts in 1 AP. Then doesn't put in effort until 2nd recruiting period and gets to high when they probably shouldn't have a shot.

or

Team B doesn't offer scholarship/start or minutes in 1st cycle, while accumulating APs. Team A is sitting at VH for the whole first recruiting period, not aware that Team B is battling for a recruit.

Seems like early credit is almost nonexistent.

There is no considering credit for players that don’t have the “wants to play” preference. That’s been true since 3.0 rollout.

Essentially, you have to bid what the player is worth to you.

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/13/2018 6:00:00 PM (view original):
I think my main issue is someone that is targeting a "late" guy at D-1, puts 60-80 APs per cycle, early start and minutes. Team B with close to same prestige puts in 1 AP. Then doesn't put in effort until 2nd recruiting period and gets to high when they probably shouldn't have a shot.

or

Team B doesn't offer scholarship/start or minutes in 1st cycle, while accumulating APs. Team A is sitting at VH for the whole first recruiting period, not aware that Team B is battling for a recruit.

Seems like early credit is almost nonexistent.

And the game is better now than it was when it encouraged coaches to wildly overspend early.

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/14/2018 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/13/2018 6:00:00 PM (view original):
I think my main issue is someone that is targeting a "late" guy at D-1, puts 60-80 APs per cycle, early start and minutes. Team B with close to same prestige puts in 1 AP. Then doesn't put in effort until 2nd recruiting period and gets to high when they probably shouldn't have a shot.

or

Team B doesn't offer scholarship/start or minutes in 1st cycle, while accumulating APs. Team A is sitting at VH for the whole first recruiting period, not aware that Team B is battling for a recruit.

Seems like early credit is almost nonexistent.

And the game is better now than it was when it encouraged coaches to wildly overspend early.

They don't have to overspend early, but the VH vs H needs to go.

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/15/2018 12:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/14/2018 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/13/2018 6:00:00 PM (view original):
I think my main issue is someone that is targeting a "late" guy at D-1, puts 60-80 APs per cycle, early start and minutes. Team B with close to same prestige puts in 1 AP. Then doesn't put in effort until 2nd recruiting period and gets to high when they probably shouldn't have a shot.

or

Team B doesn't offer scholarship/start or minutes in 1st cycle, while accumulating APs. Team A is sitting at VH for the whole first recruiting period, not aware that Team B is battling for a recruit.

Seems like early credit is almost nonexistent.

And the game is better now than it was when it encouraged coaches to wildly overspend early.

They don't have to overspend early, but the VH vs H needs to go.

I agree with that, but the battle has been fought and lost. Choose a different battle.

it is painful when you lose when very high 65% ish.....but that is now the system

Posted by mamxet on 10/15/2018 8:44:00 AM (view original):
it is painful when you lose when very high 65% ish.....but that is now the system

Recruiting should never be that random. Relying on that dice roll, or whatever you want to call it, is probably at least 75-80% of your success. There are a lot of good things about 3.0, but this isn't one of them.

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/15/2018 11:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 10/15/2018 8:44:00 AM (view original):
it is painful when you lose when very high 65% ish.....but that is now the system

Recruiting should never be that random. Relying on that dice roll, or whatever you want to call it, is probably at least 75-80% of your success. There are a lot of good things about 3.0, but this isn't one of them.

Yeah it is. In fact it’s the only change that really matters. The “roll” simulates a choice that coaches don’t make. When 50.1 beats 49.9 for recruits 100% of the time, the end result is that no one battles; instead, people feel compelled to spend stupid amounts of time and energy on things that should never matter in a recruiting simulation, like trying to figure out how much all their rivals can spend.

Bid what he’s worth to you. Move on to other guys if you need to. That’s how recruiting works in real life, it’s how it should work in a simulation.

The ghost town of a site since 3.0 would argue differently..

Posted by mullycj on 10/16/2018 1:17:00 PM (view original):
The ghost town of a site since 3.0 would argue differently..

I play in full or mostly full D1 conferences. Tell us more.

Don't be ignorant. World populations are trackable. They are down something frighteningly close to 50% since the announcement of 3.0. You can try to use anecdotal evidence all you want, but the gutting of the player population is a verifiable fact.

Per Benis' data from June, it's 33%. So not quite 50%, but still a massive number.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/16/2018 4:42:00 PM (view original):
Don't be ignorant. World populations are trackable. They are down something frighteningly close to 50% since the announcement of 3.0. You can try to use anecdotal evidence all you want, but the gutting of the player population is a verifiable fact.

It affects my enjoyment of the game 0%. I have no problem finding conferences as full as I want them. A dip in population doesn’t affect the quality of the game. The argument is simply a red herring, and a boring one at that. Game developers are not obligated to make games that will attract a maximum amount of users. In most cases, actually, that’s not the idea. This is true of any creative production. Taylor Swift sells way more albums than The National, and she draws far more fans to her shows. I give exactly no sh!ts about those facts, and I hope the same is true for the band.

Talk about red herrings. This is an utterly nonsensical metaphor. Taylor Swift is more popular than The National because her music is generally inoffensive enough that nobody is going to hate it. The National is basically the exact opposite of that. And everything about them - the band, the musical style, the nature of the concerts - bear absolutely no resemblance to one another.

Here we're comparing HD to HD. Just at different times. If a band tried changing their music and lost 1/3 of their fans, they might care. They might also not, if they could afford to not care. Lots of musicians just want to make music primarily for themselves and are thrilled if they manage to make a living off of it and avoid a day job. But it would generally be fair to say that the general consensus was that their music had become less desirable if they lose fans. And by the same token, it's fair to say that HD has become less desirable since the switch to 3.0. That is objectively true. Whether the game is "better" or "worse" is an incredibly subjective question. I think it's less fun. That has very little to do with the probabilistic nature of new recruiting and virtually everything to do with the extended nature of it. I hate recruiting, always have, it is by far my least favorite part of the game. I like trying to unpack how the engine works, design an image of what I would like my team to look like, and then build team and player game plans. If I could autopilot recruiting I would. So this drawn-out recruiting is an absolute nightmare to me. Whenever I run out of free play I'm going to quit. But because world populations are so abysmally low, that may never happen. Until the lack of customers bankrupts the game.