at this point there is a tension between what reflects the real life behavior and what is workable for good game play in a what if context....

i could see some kids having a really strong preference, but i don't think all kids should have that, and i definitely don't think all preferences should be really strong. also, when they are really strong, it shouldn't completely dominate every other factor - but i do think it should materially change the scenario.

i think it would be cool to have major and minor preferences. minor preferences could work just like they do now, they aren't insignificant but are mostly expressed as a simple % modifier on effort, none really fundamentally alters the situation.

i think it would be cool if some kids could also get 1 major preference, like maybe 25-35% or something of kids. if it was a close to home preference, maybe you'd get 75% more effort within 100 miles and 40% within 200, something along those lines - something major, but not like where a local school can beat someone else just by putting in some promises. something like where a local Bish school would be close to or maybe even would have an advantage on a non-local A+. i don't think it should be so extreme where like a d+ local school is crushing the a+ though.

wanting a rebuild could give 2 prestige grades of penalty to a+, 1.5 to a, 1 to a-, something like that, then a-/b+/b would have an advantage over a/a+ but it wouldn't get ridiculous.

wanting a long time coach might give a 50% advantage at 8 seasons, something like that. i kind of think it would be better if WIS would just say what the major preferences would be and how exactly they'd work - so we'd know like, yeah the 8 season guy gets that 50%, and everyone is on the same page about it. i think its fine to obfuscate minor factors, they don't need to say exactly how the seasons thing works when its a 5% advantage or something. but major mechanics are better off disclosed IMO, and in this case i think it would cause a lot of frustration if they didn't. its just way too subjective what the magnitude of a 'major preference' would/should/could be.

While we are on this topic, it cracks me up when recruits have the "wants rebuild" preference and also the "wants long-time coach" preference. Are they admitting they want to play for a below average coach?

Posted by metsmax on 7/23/2019 4:24:00 PM (view original):
at this point there is a tension between what reflects the real life behavior and what is workable for good game play in a what if context....

Agreed. I don't expect all aspects of the game to be comparable to real life. It's just an easy go to, when trying to get a point across. However, i don't think my ideas such as rebuild preference being stronger, is unrealistic for game play. Gillispie's ideas about making 1 preference stronger for each recruit, is basically a similar idea as what I'm proposing. I also think that if far fewer recruits had the 'wants rebuild' preference, it would effectively make it "more powerful"