Yes. I do agree with Top and Wedgeva that 3.0 isn't really built or intended for 50% capacity D1. We probably need to create a new world to fix this.

On the other hand, I don't think HD has had an issue where we have complained about *overconcentration* is so long. This is 100x better than a ghost town, so we should be careful what we wish for.

Posted by craigaltonw on 4/24/2022 10:58:00 AM (view original):
If you’re burning out at D1 isn’t that what the other divisions are there for? The solution seems simple.

Exactly. Plenty of credits sitting there at D2/3 if D1 is just too competitive for you now.

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/24/2022 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Yes. I do agree with Top and Wedgeva that 3.0 isn't really built or intended for 50% capacity D1. We probably need to create a new world to fix this.

On the other hand, I don't think HD has had an issue where we have complained about *overconcentration* is so long. This is 100x better than a ghost town, so we should be careful what we wish for.

This community is so strange sometimes. Folks cite certain features and changes as the reason population drops; then when population increases, it’s a problem, as though they didn’t want the population in the first place. I really don’t get it.

There’s really no reason D1 can’t hold 180+ coaches. The power conferences can have 10 each, the 7 mid majors can have 8 each, and the other 14 conferences can have 6 each, and that puts you at 200. In the current structure, that should be fine, because the game features so much upward mobility now - precisely because of those recruiting “rolls”. The question, as always, is price. Getting up past 180 or so probably stretches the limits of the price point, given there are only 64 tournament slots available at D1; if the coach population finds the game engaging and fun, as I’ve said before, most coaches just need to feel they are close to being competitive. But if advancing looks hopeless, if the top teams look like they have those tourney (and credit) spots on lockdown, it will be less appealing to be the 4-8th team in a mid-major, or the 3-6th team in a small conference. This is the same growth issue the game ran into before 3.0 of course, the same one it will always wrestle with. Really no way around it. Even opening a new world is only a short term fix, and if the world is the same as all the other worlds, it will just be eating away at the population of the rest.

I, for one, really enjoy the high populations and the competitive environment. I love building up smaller programs and challenging top flight coaches and teams. And it’s fine that other folks have different preferences, but as has been pointed out, lower levels exist. I really don’t see any point to them at all, if not to provide a place for coaches with less competitive preferences.

It is fine. Sure, you don't get to have every player on your team be All-American quality. Everyone competing has the same options. It does cause parity. That is not necessarily bad.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/24/2022 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/24/2022 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Yes. I do agree with Top and Wedgeva that 3.0 isn't really built or intended for 50% capacity D1. We probably need to create a new world to fix this.

On the other hand, I don't think HD has had an issue where we have complained about *overconcentration* is so long. This is 100x better than a ghost town, so we should be careful what we wish for.

This community is so strange sometimes. Folks cite certain features and changes as the reason population drops; then when population increases, it’s a problem, as though they didn’t want the population in the first place. I really don’t get it.

There’s really no reason D1 can’t hold 180+ coaches. The power conferences can have 10 each, the 7 mid majors can have 8 each, and the other 14 conferences can have 6 each, and that puts you at 200. In the current structure, that should be fine, because the game features so much upward mobility now - precisely because of those recruiting “rolls”. The question, as always, is price. Getting up past 180 or so probably stretches the limits of the price point, given there are only 64 tournament slots available at D1; if the coach population finds the game engaging and fun, as I’ve said before, most coaches just need to feel they are close to being competitive. But if advancing looks hopeless, if the top teams look like they have those tourney (and credit) spots on lockdown, it will be less appealing to be the 4-8th team in a mid-major, or the 3-6th team in a small conference. This is the same growth issue the game ran into before 3.0 of course, the same one it will always wrestle with. Really no way around it. Even opening a new world is only a short term fix, and if the world is the same as all the other worlds, it will just be eating away at the population of the rest.

I, for one, really enjoy the high populations and the competitive environment. I love building up smaller programs and challenging top flight coaches and teams. And it’s fine that other folks have different preferences, but as has been pointed out, lower levels exist. I really don’t see any point to them at all, if not to provide a place for coaches with less competitive preferences.

you really think d1 can hold 180 coaches in the long term? 30 programs (minimum!) are going to be making the NT every year. That's pretty much 35 spots for the 150 other coaches...how long do you think that is going to last!

And then recruiting is tough, when it's tough to get quality guys at B- or so prestige that can lead you to the NT for free people have to roll for pretty much everyone, and we know how that can go sometimes.

I think we really risk a lot of coaching rushing to D1 under the new job system then getting frustrated and quitting the game.

Posted by craigaltonw on 4/24/2022 10:58:00 AM (view original):
If you’re burning out at D1 isn’t that what the other divisions are there for? The solution seems simple.

Yes I agree actually. I'm not saying "it's too competitive" as shoe made it seem tho. I'm competing just fine. And your response is good really...... D2 and D3 are there to be played if D1 is not ideal for a coach. But I'm not talking about ME specifically or YOU specifically. I'm kinda saying what cub said in that 3.0 isn't built will for 350 D1 coaches (exaggeration obviously). I'm actually not complaining at all. I'm just stating a few things. One is that I've discussed this type of things with others, and others see it as well. And two, my point about the talent pool.

To address ME specifically, had I not played D2 for a long portion of my career, I'd definitely go back to D2. I love it! I've just always been very clear with everyone here, I'm not a lifer in HD. I'll play my desired time and then hang em up and move on. I've been saying that since the day I began HD. Nothing else impacts that decision as far as the game really. Sure the game could speed up or slow down my choices. I've already passed most/all the goals I wanted to accomplish. So going back to D2 isn't an option I'm really interested in. But it's a viable option for others who may be interested

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/24/2022 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/24/2022 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/24/2022 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Yes. I do agree with Top and Wedgeva that 3.0 isn't really built or intended for 50% capacity D1. We probably need to create a new world to fix this.

On the other hand, I don't think HD has had an issue where we have complained about *overconcentration* is so long. This is 100x better than a ghost town, so we should be careful what we wish for.

This community is so strange sometimes. Folks cite certain features and changes as the reason population drops; then when population increases, it’s a problem, as though they didn’t want the population in the first place. I really don’t get it.

There’s really no reason D1 can’t hold 180+ coaches. The power conferences can have 10 each, the 7 mid majors can have 8 each, and the other 14 conferences can have 6 each, and that puts you at 200. In the current structure, that should be fine, because the game features so much upward mobility now - precisely because of those recruiting “rolls”. The question, as always, is price. Getting up past 180 or so probably stretches the limits of the price point, given there are only 64 tournament slots available at D1; if the coach population finds the game engaging and fun, as I’ve said before, most coaches just need to feel they are close to being competitive. But if advancing looks hopeless, if the top teams look like they have those tourney (and credit) spots on lockdown, it will be less appealing to be the 4-8th team in a mid-major, or the 3-6th team in a small conference. This is the same growth issue the game ran into before 3.0 of course, the same one it will always wrestle with. Really no way around it. Even opening a new world is only a short term fix, and if the world is the same as all the other worlds, it will just be eating away at the population of the rest.

I, for one, really enjoy the high populations and the competitive environment. I love building up smaller programs and challenging top flight coaches and teams. And it’s fine that other folks have different preferences, but as has been pointed out, lower levels exist. I really don’t see any point to them at all, if not to provide a place for coaches with less competitive preferences.

you really think d1 can hold 180 coaches in the long term? 30 programs (minimum!) are going to be making the NT every year. That's pretty much 35 spots for the 150 other coaches...how long do you think that is going to last!

And then recruiting is tough, when it's tough to get quality guys at B- or so prestige that can lead you to the NT for free people have to roll for pretty much everyone, and we know how that can go sometimes.

I think we really risk a lot of coaching rushing to D1 under the new job system then getting frustrated and quitting the game.

I've always agreed with this as well. I'm the butthole that others scorned for trying to convince new coaches to stay at lower divisions longer than a lot of people do. Keeping coaches long term is CRUCIAL for this game. And unless you're a veteran that has dug in and has experienced every angle of the game, it's not "as likely" that going back to D2 and D3 will happen often. Sure, it will happen in some cases. Me, benis, cub, shoe, gil, (I just picked guys that talk here) and dozens of other veterans that play the game and aren't necessarily ascending anymore, picking up a D2/D3 team isn't all that odd. But a coach that has 20 seasons played, and 15 of those are in D1 after rushing thru the lower divisions, if he struggles and gets frustrated while trying to figure out D1, we aren't likely keeping him long term.

I agree with that! Building up a D prestige D1 team is brutal. Get some fun NT success at D2/D3 first… oh, and with your own recruits!

HD took a while to click for me. I would have hated losing every season at D1. And from experience, rebuilds are more simple to accomplish at the lower divisions. I get everyone wants to coach the big name schools… I just would not love this game had I jumped right into D1.

New players are only new once. Advocate for taking your time all you want - it’s good advice - but that is fundamentally a different conversation than forcing all coaches to spend a long time and lots of money (or credits) in every new world they think about starting. That’s what kept populations so low, that’s what I’ve been saying for many years, and I think that’s exactly what we are seeing. Taking away choices for paying customers is not good policy.

As for Cubs question of whether I actually think the game can support 180 long term? Yes, absolutely, if other conditions are right, which I already talked about. The question here, like I said, is really more about price point than anything else. The game right now is very credit dependent for retention, and that’s pretty unhealthy. If the game cost $5 per season, even with very minimal credits, they could probably get up over 200 in D1. For most coaches, they don’t need to be winning every season, but they do need to feel like there’s a chance to be competitive on the horizon. Where the game is going to lose players to attrition, as in the prior version, is where coaches feel like there’s no upward mobility, so even if they can get to a low D1 school or a power conference doormat, they’re looking at a steep price in terms of time and dollars, before they can feel competitive. When it’s $12+ per season, until the credits are flowing, multiple teams are cost prohibitive for many.

Posted by topdogggbm on 4/24/2022 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 4/23/2022 12:22:00 PM (view original):
the balance in d1 is on several axes, IMO its the best its ever been. there is a really nice healthy mix of different sets and approaches, deep teams, short teams. recruiting is freaking nuts competitive, perhaps too much for a lot of folks long term, but it is nice to be really excited about signing a great guy instead of where anything less than a slate of 5*s is a failure. the parity between the big confs and the little confs is the best its been as a result, too.

I'm gonna go the opposite here. I do not think its the best it's been. In fact, I've seen a LOT of coaching fatigue/frustration across the landscape. A couple of comments that stood out, one is that pushing all these coaches to D1 has unintended consequences. Getting the population in D1 up is a good idea, and competition is great. But now recruiting is crappy at times. Not enough mid tier players in the pool that can fill the void of roll losses. Obviously this is a game and not real life, but a top tier school can aim for a dozen elite players in real life, and when they miss, they don't have to take a D3 player talent. Too many 8 and 9 man rosters.

I don't need to hear shoe's version of "it's a game of choices". No shiiitt. I know how to play. But I just feel the D1 push ended up "too much" as it stands. And I believe that it's starting to have a negative effect. And it might continue going forward. I know some people are burning out. My number of teams is down. I know of others that are seeing this as well.

This isn't really a complaint comment. Although some will see it that way. It's more of a "you heard it here first" comment. I don't feel like "the master plan" long term, is going to work out the way that new developers expected it to. But it's always possible I could be wrong. I hope I am actually.

i don't disagree with any of this. i don't really think any of this directly discounts the point i was trying to make either, though, which was about the balance of the sets (press vs man/zone) and elite BCS teams vs others.

but anyway, i agree that recruiting is probably a bit too competitive long term. i also agree that d2/d3 are supposed to be more casual affairs, for folks looking for such a thing. but i think the recruiting down there is too intensive, and d3 just absurd in so many ways... that i don't really feel that purpose is being well served. but i also have to defer to folks who actually play and like today's d2/d3 to some extent.

also, i think the discussion around NT spots is important. this is something i've felt pretty strongly about for a long time. a decade+ ago, when i thought of quitting HD and making my own version, i had actually planned to split d3 in half, so every other world would have half the teams, and for d1, to have all the BCS confs and split the rest in half. now, i wasn't 100% sold on this, there's some unfortunate ramifications and some tricky balance issues to deal with. but the point is, i always wanted fuller worlds personally - but when looking at things less personally, from a game design, or what is best from the community standpoint - i just can't see it working. you can't have 300 teams in d1, because 30 teams are going to be in the NT year and you'll never find 270 people satisfied to squabble over the remaining 30 spots.

i personally have felt that roughly 2*NT spots on the lower end, up to about 2.5*NT spots, is where the world balance should be aimed (so about 130 to about 160 humans, although i personally felt 100-110 wasn't really far off, and have been in 175 worlds that seemed pretty good too, not necessarily ideal though). the low divisions today fall woefully short, but that wasn't the case - i think d2 tark was at least 150 when i started, with a fuller d3/d1. it worked pretty well. but i was also in worlds with like 180-200, and i could feel the churn in the community, the angst - it was just a bit higher than i felt it should be. of course, personally, i was all about competition, and i just wanted more. the toughest conferences in the game with ridiculous non conference slates, where i was #1 sos by a mile, were barely enough for me. but i would also not enjoy this game with all sims, so i want other humans... and i think the current d1 population is just a bit high, competitive balance wise. pre-jobs change 3.0 d1 recruiting, was a pretty nice balance IMO. it was competitive and tough, but its just a little over-amped for the general population, in my opinion, now. although in fairness, when i came back to 3.0 before jobs change, i quit after 3 or 4 seasons because it was too easy, so maybe i'm wrong here?

opening up d1 jobs was good - they should have opened the D prestige jobs more - IMO you should be able to walk into a world and go straight to d+ d1 and down, zero requirements (or you have to have a d1 team resume in some other world?). so i am not for tamping that down. the requirements for like A baseline schools, it does feel a little low, but mostly that is only a problem when nobody applies (the resume comparison logic is still complete ****, but that is a bit of a different issue). i think SOMETHING is called for, though, to bring the intensity down a tad. i know other people's preference isn't always for this - and i personally have no problem with the way it is. i kinda really like it. i just don't think there's enough crazy folks out there like myself and shoe to keep d1 populated at these levels with this level of competitiveness.

It's been my observation that the newer coaches who jump to D1 as quickly as possible are also the same coaches who don't have the patience to rebuild a D1 team. They generally spend a few seasons trying to battle for top recruits and then quit after 2-3 seasons. Some may go back down to D2/D3, and some may quit the game completely. Either way, I don't know if it's good for the long-term health of the game. The brutality of D1 recruiting probably leaves a bad taste for them. It's fine if a coach chooses to jump to D1 after a few seasons, but they should be aware that a legit D1 rebuild could take a year or more in real life. It takes time to build recruiting preferences like Wants Success and Long-Term Coach.

And I'm not trying to single anyone out or say that all new coaches struggle in D1. But it sure seems like the vast majority. It's harder to gain a real connection to this game if you hop around different jobs, going back and forth between D3, D2, and D1. Maybe this game isn't made for those types of people? I don't know. I've enjoyed the increased D1 population, but I don't think it was done in a healthy manner. And I won't pretend to have all the answers.

I think if you hate dice rolls and believe it's a bad system (I personally believe the big board and EEs are far worse) then a high d1 population is going to make it an even worse experience for you. Constantly losing dice rolls and having bad beats will probably wear on you after awhile and I think that's what most people will become frustrated by.

I feel like this "competitiveness" (if you want to even call it that) could be adjusted as user populations change. Seems pretty silly to me that the same # of recruits generated are exactly the same with 50 users or 300 users. Or the criteria to get in a dice roll is the same for 50 users or 300 users. If the game was smart enough, you could have an automatic adjustment to meter this "competiveness" based upon populations. As populations increase, it's a little stricter and less likely you'll get into a 3 or 4 way roll. Or you don't have 25% min chance of winning a roll and it's now 40%. Maybe something like that.

The alternative is to just let it all balance out organically which is fine way of doing it...but you have to ask yourself, at cost? I think we'd all prefer coaches who fail at d1 to just trickle down to d2 or d3 but I'd wager quite a few just stop playing completely, which isn't good.

Also, the comments about the ratio of coaches to tourney slots is spot on. I don't see how the game is sustainable with 200+ users because then you will have the vast majority of users not making the tourney and then becoming frustrated. I think the sweet spot for all levels is probably around 100ish.

I hate dice rolls, but I've learned to push the anger down and hold it deep, deep within my soul. I'm also considering a job with the US Postal Service.

What would be easier? Adding more mid-tier recruits to the D1 pool or changing the way potential works? Or even going back to the days when potential didn't exist? It would give coaches more choices through practice planning, and some of those garbage recruits could actually contribute to a winning team. Or would that make WE too overpowered?

Is there some better way to limit rating growths that allows almost all recruits to at least be useful? What if a player has an overall limit on growth (say 50, 100, etc), but the coach could choose (through practice plan) where to place it? So instead of seeing a potential for each rating, you just saw the potential for the recruit.

For example, Guard A has starting ratings of:
Ath: 45
Spd: 75
Def: 60
Per: 60
BH: 55
Pas: 80
Sta: 65

With an overall potential of 50-75. Where would put it? Well if you run fb/fcp, you'd have to assume that stamina will need at least 15. If you need a shooter, then 30 could go to perimeter. Need a pure PG? 50 points in BH/Pass/Spd would help. Probably need a few points in ath. But I think you get the idea. It's all about adding choices while making most recruits at least playable in a role.

Player growth potentials are still color-coded and represent a range.
Green (100+)
Blue (60-99)
Black (40-59)
Yellow (10-39)
Red (0-9)
Or whatever numbers work.

5-stars would need to be capped at Black potential or lower so we don't end up with a bunch of players that are 100 in every rating. Maybe all D+ recruits could be green. They wouldn't be playable until their junior/senior season, but they'd be highly moldable.

New coaches starting D1 with a D- rebuild could at least field a coherent team within a few seasons without having to get extremely lucky on rolls.