Change my mind.

Right now you are at, in my opinion, a huge disadvantage if:

1). You go into a recruiting session with only 1 open scholarship. Your ability to only put 40 AP per cycle on a recruit makes it risky to go after recruits that you would normally go after because someone is likely going to be dropping 80 AP every cycle. And 800 AP vs. 400 AP for example is a huge difference when it's all said and done. Should teams really be punished for having filled out their roster?

2.) You have multiple open scholarships, but you sign guys early. If you're targeting someone with a late preference cycle after signing most of your openings, again, you are being punished for filling out your roster as the AP gap starts to widen as the battle lingers on.

If we're looking at a single recruit...two teams with the exact same prestige, exact same distance away, exact same preferences should have the exact same chance at landing this one recruit if they both play it the same. However, if one has 5 openings vs. 2 openings, it's not an equal playing field. Isn't that a problem?

It would be different if AP wasn't so powerful, but with my A prestige teams I feel like I am constantly having to go Start/25 and max HV/CV against low C/high D prestige teams just because the other guy is putting max AP every cycle.

I like this idea a lot. It’s another good idea to the nerf the ridiculous walk-on strategy that is so dominant now.

I like the idea, if they made the max maybe 320/400 or something. I think a max would help. But it should be a max that you have to commit to.

i don't know, i think this makes sense coming from your fb/fcp perspective to some extent. its already easier for a lot of folks, recruiting on small classes. if you need 10 players for full depth, 1-2 openings is basically a 'any decent signing is a win' situation.

we already get 20 AP and 5k base resources for 0 scholarships. its not like the old game where a small effort advantage makes it a 100/0 and its all about your max all in potential. i personally feel like this would make small classes too powerful. its kinda already the case where there are only so many close recruits, and the more you target, the more they each cost on an absolute basis. i feel like the 2 scholarships where we get 11k and 60 ap is one of the most powerful starting hands in this game. i'm pretty reluctant to make that hand even stronger against the larger classes.

what I think makes sense for the greater good of HD very rarely aligns with what I am trying to accomplish with any given team or experiment.

maybe I misunderstood things. I though he was saying to limit total AP per reruit to 80 spent. Right now I can spend as much AP as I have on any given recruit. I dont think limiting AP is a bad Idea. But I think it should be higher than the 80 mentioned.

Sorry, I meant that if you have 1 open scholarship, you should at minimum have 80 AP. 2 scholarships could be 100 , 3 scholarships 120, etc. I would not be opposed to upping it either (1 = 80, 2 = 120, 3 = 160, etc.) or just a full on 80 AP per scholarship. I also would not be opposed to capping AP either at like 400 points per recruit or something.

I don't think it provides any advantage to having 1 or 2 open scholaships, it just makes things even. Your risk of battling for a recruit is still pretty great, as if you lose you're out of recruiting cash. Definitely not advocating for more cash. I hate to apply a IRL example to HD, but if Duke and Kentucky are both going after a recruit who values them equally, Duke doesn't get an advantage over Kentucky just because they have more open scholarships.

I don't think it's a rich get richer idea either as it helps the little guys when they only have a few openings as well.

I generally don’t like the idea of increasing the overall amount of resources floating around out there. I also don’t love caps, but it would be necessary if they did some kind of increase like this, I think. My preference is 1) diminishing returns after you’ve unlocked the bigger recruiting actions (loses effect as recruit tires of hearing the same thing from you), and 2) negative recruiting impact after the scholarship offer when there is a bad preference match.

All that said, I usually don’t have much problem recruiting one or two scholarships. Even getting a late guy when I expect one EE, or want to cut a guy is not really a problem, as long as choosing a good preference match and know how high I can reasonably reach. 3-4 stars, even modest 5 stars are reasonable in those cases with good prestige and a good preference match.

That doesn’t seem fair. I took over a team with seven sophomores. It’s going to take a long time to balance out the classes. I’m hoping to get closer to balanced though.

If you have 1 scholarship, you have 40 AP and $8k to spend. I really don't see how that's disadvantageous. Especially when you can take a shot at a higher-tier recruit and still be fine if you miss out on him.

Conversely, if you have 6 openings, you have a lot more resources, but you need to sign several players or you're screwed for the next season.

In my opinion, the current resource per scholarship is perfectly fine, but I'm always open to hearing a good argument.

Posted by mlitney on 6/24/2022 2:10:00 AM (view original):
If you have 1 scholarship, you have 40 AP and $8k to spend. I really don't see how that's disadvantageous. Especially when you can take a shot at a higher-tier recruit and still be fine if you miss out on him.

Conversely, if you have 6 openings, you have a lot more resources, but you need to sign several players or you're screwed for the next season.

In my opinion, the current resource per scholarship is perfectly fine, but I'm always open to hearing a good argument.

+1

It feels like the unintended consequences of this change would be for prestige to matter even more in recruiting and to disadvantage teams who need to fill 4 or 5 slots, which as Gil points out can be a disaster if you don't get 2-3 guys. Count me out.

I'd rather have the opportunity to implement different strategies based on my class size/resource allotment.

I guess I'm not sure how you can aruge it's not disadvantageous to only have 40 AP even with 8K?

20HV/1CV Start/25 + 400AP vs 20HV/1CV Start/25 + 800AP

It's not like you can use that extra bit of money to offset someone else putting more AP on a single recruit. If you are going up against someone you are perfectly equal in prestige/preferences with, they are able to drop 2x as many AP just because they have more open scholarships? Sure there are plenty of ways to strategize around this and I'm not really complaining, I just think it makes no sense from a game mechanic standpoint.

Right now, I have 1 open scholsarhip on my A prestige team and 1 open scholarship on my D- prestige team, and in both cases, I have to choose to go after lesser recruits (relative to my prestige) or choose to try and win a roll with a recruit I could realisitcally land, but most likely at reduced odds compared to if I had 5 open scholarships.

If you isolate to that person who can dump 80AP into a recruit, sure it seems pretty disadvantageous. But that person dumping 80AP into one player has other players with a lot less AP investment. Those are the players you target with only one scholarship.

I personally don't think it needs to be changed. Having only 1 scholarship also means you are probably stacking your classes to have an IQ advantage in your dominant seasons. This is just one factor you have to deal with if you go that team building route. Everything has negatives and positives which is nice.