For a while now I have enjoyed HD 3.0, I find it challenging and fun even though I have yet to win a Natty across 5 worlds at any level. I am still chasing that. I wanted to share with the community some random musings I have had. Kind of thought it would be fun to hear some of the community push back or other ideas as well. These are mostly recruiting related, anyway, here we go:

1) Make the "rebuild" recruit preference matter more. This basically boils down to the serious prestige and preference challenges in recruiting of A) mid-major/low-major program and B) rebuilds in power conferences. Generally, it's hard to find recruits that want a rebuild. I have the musing of limiting how many prefers rebuild recruits are generated, but making that preference matter more.

2) More strongly weight the "at home" preference under...100 miles. Similar to the above the theory basically being if a recruit wants to stay home, I have the musing those schools in the backyard should have a stronger advantage.

3) Incorporate a 6th Man feature. The thought here would be a game plan and recruiting nuance. Yes you can basically do this with the current depth chart already, I have this musing it could override depth chart in certain circumstances beyond having to use target minutes or stamina level and also provide an additional promise in recruiting.

4) Add a defense or two. This musing is really just kind of silly but what about a full court trap that falls into a 1-3-1. I have a musing it could be fun to run a PG-SF-SF-SF-C set...right? Or what about the classic junk defense box and 1? Ironically we have seen this in the NBA Playoffs in recent years.

These were just musings, feel free to rip em, no offense taken :)

After being away for a few years, I'd have loved to seen an update to more currently-used offenses during my absence.

Before I respond to OP, I must mention something related that ties into the original thread topic..... 1) I've said in other topics, preferences as a whole need to be revamped. To make more of an impact. If a situation has 3 Very Goods from one team, and 3 Very bads from another, this should not even be a roll situation. No matter the prestige. The team with 3 very goods should win this 100% of the time. Making preferences IMPORTANT. And not just one of multiple factors.

That leads me to 2) in order to make that work, effort should NOT trump preferences. Just because i want a player really bad (full effort) doesn't mean I doesn't mean I should get him, if the player has different interests for his career. As is, it's ridiculous.



Now to respond to OP the rebuild preference and distance preference would be corrected if preferences were revalued entirely. So I agree. The 6th man feature I won't rip it but I'm just not much interested in it. Your last point about more defenses...... more options is normally better. So I would welcome that as well

Need more nuanced preferences

want academic excellence

want party school

want skiing

want beaches

AND then add pipelines - for internationals its by country - recruit a kid from Serbia - you have an edge next cycle with kids from serbia - domestically, big edge if you sign a guy from a specific high school with that school the next cycle - beyond same school, need to define some local area (not a state because those range from RI to TX etc - some local area of roughly equal recruiting size - sign a kid from an area, get an edge in that area next cycle.

What are the realistic chances that this game gets any kind of update in the near future? What would it take to get them to make that happen? I will continue playing either way, just curious if I should hold out any real hope for changes and advancement.

Very realistic. Once Adam took over, lots of changes and adjustments started to happen. Then additional members were hired to the staff. Soon firings are going to kick in if you haven't read some of the info on it. There's changes happening. And it just takes time to get the ball rolling. But it's moving in a positive direction already

Yes, I hope realistic also, To TopDogggs point on preferences, I'd call it out that preferences are very broken. A re-tool is really needed. The dice roll is maddening but we all deal with it, however, the sides on the dice should more strongly correlate to preference in my opinion. It's too easy for effort and prestige to conquer preference. I was mainly suggesting the two I did for the specific purpose of making the lower/mid major jobs and Power 6 rebuilds more competitive. However, once the firing logic kicks in I tend to believe that it will lead to a resurgence of the mid-majors in worlds where they aren't already booming.

While we are on the re-tool. What about...

Incorporating an NIL component, that could be spicy.

As is, preferences make no sense...

Wants rebuild - UCLA very bad. IUPUI very good.
Offense - UCLA neutral flex. IUPUI very good triangle.
defense - UCLA neutral Man. IUPUI very good press.

UCLA A+ and IUPUI D+ prestige. Max effort from both..... UCLA wins without a roll even happening.

Looking at that thru common sense eyes, a school that has everything a player wants, gets blown away by a school that just had a much higher prestige and power. And to ME, preferences should be almost EVERYTHING to recruiting. UCLA should not even be able to get into a roll in that situation. The player doesn't WANT anything the school has to offer. Why should he end up there?

I know some will argue that it limits options entirely that schools can pick from. And AS IS NOW, that's probably true. But if preferences were redone, that wouldn't necessarily be true. Wants to play, wants success, long term coach, that stuff would still be roughly the same. But rebuild should be stronger. "Play for a new coach" should be there. Maybe some sort of secondary preferences could be added, or combination preferences...... "wants close to home. But would consider far from home if long term coach". Options like that would add a layer,

Many ideas are out there. But right now, preferences suck

Yeah, in my first scouting runs, I've definitely concluded that the "Coach Longevity" preference is a negative for newer coaches (genius conclusion, I know). As you pointed out, it's either bad or neutral...no chance for a good preference. I'm sure it's somewhat of a little thing in the grand scheme of preferences that can offset, but it's a bit annoying as a returning coach in my first seasons that I'm already behind the 8-ball a bit on one preference.

Let's put some of these suggestions to work.

In HD, Hawaii struggles in recruiting and often needs to go the international route. In a few worlds they have been successful, often making the NT, occasionally even a deep run in the tourney.

Then one magic season, the top player in the country is found living in the basement of a University of Hawaii building. But he has a preference to play in a rebuild far from home. Which results in the recruit ignoring Hawaii, no matter the recruiting effort that is invested.

Posted by ja_tbfl on 1/18/2022 8:37:00 PM (view original):

Yeah, in my first scouting runs, I've definitely concluded that the "Coach Longevity" preference is a negative for newer coaches (genius conclusion, I know). As you pointed out, it's either bad or neutral...no chance for a good preference. I'm sure it's somewhat of a little thing in the grand scheme of preferences that can offset, but it's a bit annoying as a returning coach in my first seasons that I'm already behind the 8-ball a bit on one preference.

its not a very important one though. Wants rebuild/success and near home/far home matter about 2/3x as much IMO.

Posted by topdogggbm on 1/18/2022 8:03:00 PM (view original):
As is, preferences make no sense...

Wants rebuild - UCLA very bad. IUPUI very good.
Offense - UCLA neutral flex. IUPUI very good triangle.
defense - UCLA neutral Man. IUPUI very good press.

UCLA A+ and IUPUI D+ prestige. Max effort from both..... UCLA wins without a roll even happening.

Looking at that thru common sense eyes, a school that has everything a player wants, gets blown away by a school that just had a much higher prestige and power. And to ME, preferences should be almost EVERYTHING to recruiting. UCLA should not even be able to get into a roll in that situation. The player doesn't WANT anything the school has to offer. Why should he end up there?

I know some will argue that it limits options entirely that schools can pick from. And AS IS NOW, that's probably true. But if preferences were redone, that wouldn't necessarily be true. Wants to play, wants success, long term coach, that stuff would still be roughly the same. But rebuild should be stronger. "Play for a new coach" should be there. Maybe some sort of secondary preferences could be added, or combination preferences...... "wants close to home. But would consider far from home if long term coach". Options like that would add a layer,

Many ideas are out there. But right now, preferences suck

I don't agree with your statement that IUPUI wouldn't be able to get in a roll here. Rowle has gotten to VH-VH as a D+ vs a 20 HV/CV/start/minute A+ in the past.

But anyway, I would be fine with increasing the power of the wants rebuild preference to where it effectively eliminates prestige. It's very rare, so something this radical would work out well. But I think a human coach should only get credit for wants rebuild in their first 4 seasons. No recruit wants to go to a place A LOT where a coach has sucked for a long time... and that wouldn't be a rebuild anymore, just a bad team. I think the other preferences are plenty strong though, especially near home or far from home. It's very very powerful IMO.

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/18/2022 10:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ja_tbfl on 1/18/2022 8:37:00 PM (view original):

Yeah, in my first scouting runs, I've definitely concluded that the "Coach Longevity" preference is a negative for newer coaches (genius conclusion, I know). As you pointed out, it's either bad or neutral...no chance for a good preference. I'm sure it's somewhat of a little thing in the grand scheme of preferences that can offset, but it's a bit annoying as a returning coach in my first seasons that I'm already behind the 8-ball a bit on one preference.

its not a very important one though. Wants rebuild/success and near home/far home matter about 2/3x as much IMO.

Yeah, that's why I said I was under the impression it could be offset from what I've been able to find in the forums. I'm still trying to get a handle on the rank order of preferences, but to hear from your extensive experience that rebuild/success and distance have that much higher value....that's the information I'm here for!

i think wants rebuild, wants success, and far from home should all get a boost. i don't agree preferences should just 'trump' effort because completely lopsided cases (full effort vs min, for example), should still trump everything, in my view. and i think changing the simple points accumulation / multiplier scheme (prefs / prestige), would be tough, and i think that scheme is sufficient, personally. but i think just making preferences a little more impactful would be good.

i do think this would make prefs swamp prestige a bit much. i wouldn't want to see prestige buffed really, but perhaps, more guys should want success, that doesn't seem common enough. also the wants rebuild with long time coach pair is dumb and should be removed. i don't really think m2m and triangle etc, should be buffed. do those even make sense as preferences - maybe - but i think it makes sense they stay minor. probably, the game should clearly distinguish major and minor prefs, and leave the misc crap low in a little bottom section, with the major stuff (playing time, distance, success) grouped up top and more impactful to the final decision than it is now.

perhaps they could even enhance the 'window' logic, so that basically a significant preference advantage of the leader (or perhaps of any very high team) reduces the range where lower preference folks can get rolls. i wouldn't necessarily make the window bigger for a preference disadvantage though.

Posted by cubcub113 on 1/18/2022 10:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 1/18/2022 8:03:00 PM (view original):
As is, preferences make no sense...

Wants rebuild - UCLA very bad. IUPUI very good.
Offense - UCLA neutral flex. IUPUI very good triangle.
defense - UCLA neutral Man. IUPUI very good press.

UCLA A+ and IUPUI D+ prestige. Max effort from both..... UCLA wins without a roll even happening.

Looking at that thru common sense eyes, a school that has everything a player wants, gets blown away by a school that just had a much higher prestige and power. And to ME, preferences should be almost EVERYTHING to recruiting. UCLA should not even be able to get into a roll in that situation. The player doesn't WANT anything the school has to offer. Why should he end up there?

I know some will argue that it limits options entirely that schools can pick from. And AS IS NOW, that's probably true. But if preferences were redone, that wouldn't necessarily be true. Wants to play, wants success, long term coach, that stuff would still be roughly the same. But rebuild should be stronger. "Play for a new coach" should be there. Maybe some sort of secondary preferences could be added, or combination preferences...... "wants close to home. But would consider far from home if long term coach". Options like that would add a layer,

Many ideas are out there. But right now, preferences suck

I don't agree with your statement that IUPUI wouldn't be able to get in a roll here. Rowle has gotten to VH-VH as a D+ vs a 20 HV/CV/start/minute A+ in the past.

But anyway, I would be fine with increasing the power of the wants rebuild preference to where it effectively eliminates prestige. It's very rare, so something this radical would work out well. But I think a human coach should only get credit for wants rebuild in their first 4 seasons. No recruit wants to go to a place A LOT where a coach has sucked for a long time... and that wouldn't be a rebuild anymore, just a bad team. I think the other preferences are plenty strong though, especially near home or far from home. It's very very powerful IMO.

As far as IUPUI, sure it's possible. I was just generalizing. I'm not saying never. I just made up two teams and two examples of how things can go in this game.

As far as "far from home", I agree. Plenty strong. "Near home"? Not at all tho. It IS in fact strong. But not strong enough in the perspective of the way I personally feel preferences should be. And the intent of my discussion. Let's say a player has near home preference, but DOESN'T have success preference. Then in my opinion, a kid 2 miles away from B+ Virginia, should NOT be in a roll for with an A+ Michigan St team that's 500 miles away (that is not an exact measurement. Again, just painting a picture). Why? Because a B+ school is still an elite program for the most part. And the kid does not want to play 500 miles away AND for a successful school necessarily (if he wants to play for a successful school, he needs to have the preference. But that's another can of worms itself). He wants to play near home and he has an offer from 2 miles away! He should be going to that school in that situation if that is his preference! Again, along with all this, preferences as a whole would have to be "fixed". If they stayed as is, it shouldn't/wouldn't necessary play out that way. But that's the vision I have for the game.

As far as rebuild preference only being 4 seasons, I can agree with that. Maybe "rebuild" should be linked to the time a coach joins a school somehow.

All these are ideas based around an entirely new system. So if we think in terms of what we have now, there's always going to be arguments against some things.