Posted by CoachSpud on 2/12/2023 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 2/11/2023 8:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/10/2023 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/9/2023 9:25:00 PM (view original):
Just recruit crappier players so you don't have to battle or lose them to EEs

I don't know if it's in jest or not, but yeah. That's literally how it's supposed to work. I think folks forget or never understood in the first place how rare it is to see college teams in real life with more than 2-3 future NBA players. It's insane to think that a competitive and well-balanced simulation of college basketball would feature teams only recruiting 3* players and better - in other words, likely future NBA players. Part of the game has to be figuring out how many of those elite guys you can afford to go after, and the ones you land need to be a risk for leaving. Lose that, and it's not a good simulation of college basketball.

Now all that said, I'm certainly sympathetic to guys going through long losing streaks, and it's pretty absurd that there's this *enormous* dropoff of talent available after you get through the top tier of un-starred players. There should be a very large pool of replacement level D1 guys, low potential, starting around 650 OVR or so, who will always choose juco over dropping levels; and/or that should pop up as second session only juco players in the first place. This is a no-brainer that would make the game a ton more functional and realistic, and probably stop a lot of rage quitting as well. But the game has to maintain a nice wide window within which teams can reasonably compete with each other for elite recruits.

So I get OP's frustration. I've been there, as I've said. But for coaches only going after the best of the best, these are natural consequences you should have to manage to stay at a high level. I'm critical of many parts of this game, but this is an aspect it generally gets very right, post 3.0.

I’ve lost 87.5% of rolls where I had 70% odds to win. How is that possibly a natural consequence?

I can think of a couple of solutions.
1.) Complain in the forums.
2.) Put a little more into the recruits you want so no other team has a shot at them. You won't lose any 100-0 decisions if you are the 100.

I would not suggest #1. I don't think it would improve your teams much.

Any advice on how to put more than 80 AP, 25 Pomised minutes, a promised start, 20 HV, and 1 CV? I am prioritizing recruits just as you advised, and consistently losing to teams that did not prioritize the recruit and barely made it into the dice roll.

Then, as discussed already, you may be shooting too high or shooting for the wrong guys.

Shoe makes me laugh so much with these posts

Posted by CoachSpud on 2/13/2023 10:43:00 AM (view original):
Then, as discussed already, you may be shooting too high or shooting for the wrong guys.

I am at an A+ top D1 program. Am I not supposed to target one 5* recruit with excellent preference matches when I have 6 openings? Am I not supposed to prioritize the recruit with maximum effort? What can I do when another team comes in late and gets to 21% odds and I lose every time? I am not over reaching, I am prioritizing recruits, I am putting myself in an overwhelming position to win. But I keep losing because dice roll.

Posted by snafu4u on 2/12/2023 9:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/11/2023 10:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 2/11/2023 8:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/10/2023 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/9/2023 9:25:00 PM (view original):
Just recruit crappier players so you don't have to battle or lose them to EEs

I don't know if it's in jest or not, but yeah. That's literally how it's supposed to work. I think folks forget or never understood in the first place how rare it is to see college teams in real life with more than 2-3 future NBA players. It's insane to think that a competitive and well-balanced simulation of college basketball would feature teams only recruiting 3* players and better - in other words, likely future NBA players. Part of the game has to be figuring out how many of those elite guys you can afford to go after, and the ones you land need to be a risk for leaving. Lose that, and it's not a good simulation of college basketball.

Now all that said, I'm certainly sympathetic to guys going through long losing streaks, and it's pretty absurd that there's this *enormous* dropoff of talent available after you get through the top tier of un-starred players. There should be a very large pool of replacement level D1 guys, low potential, starting around 650 OVR or so, who will always choose juco over dropping levels; and/or that should pop up as second session only juco players in the first place. This is a no-brainer that would make the game a ton more functional and realistic, and probably stop a lot of rage quitting as well. But the game has to maintain a nice wide window within which teams can reasonably compete with each other for elite recruits.

So I get OP's frustration. I've been there, as I've said. But for coaches only going after the best of the best, these are natural consequences you should have to manage to stay at a high level. I'm critical of many parts of this game, but this is an aspect it generally gets very right, post 3.0.

I’ve lost 87.5% of rolls where I had 70% odds to win. How is that possibly a natural consequence?

A string of 16 battles seems significant to us, but the sim processes thousands of battles every season, in every world. Many of us who have played a bit have gone through such stretches with teams - I've gone through 2 myself, 3 if you count my experience in beta for 3.0 - and know they (generally) work themselves out eventually. That's not to say these rolls are all 100% straight RNG. I don't think they are. I think there's probably a luck modifier that attaches to coaches and/or programs and moves up and down and affects both recruiting and games. But that's controversial and kind of a separate issue.

What I mean by natural consequence is that when you are recruiting guys you know you will end up in battles for, of course you will lose some of those battles. That will flow up and down, and you can't really control that. What you can control is what you're prepared to deal with. So sustained success becomes a matter of how well you are preparing your team for those losses. If you only recruit those guys, you have to be prepared to play very tall some years, relying on only a few players, rather than depth. Another option, though, is to be recruiting 4 year backups and role players to go along with the elites, not just as emergency options, but as low-cost replacements for the losses you'll inevitably take. Guys you don't mind cutting if recruiting goes miraculously well for you next season (which also happens sometimes).

Have you looked at my roster? I’m not only targeting 5* recruits. You make a lot of confidently incorrect assumptions.

I’m not making any assumptions about your roster, I don’t care about it. (For example, I said “If you only recruit” not “since you only recruit” - in other words, I’m speaking generally here, not personally.) I’m talking about why the system works the way it does, and what we can do to work with it instead of against it. You don’t have to take my posts as a personal indictment against your playstyle, whatever that may be.

Posted by R0pey on 2/13/2023 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Shoe makes me laugh so much with these posts

I’m almost embarrassed for you. But if you feel confident in this assertion, you should check with CS. Maybe you can be famous like deputy Benis, catch some nefarious secret dual-account wielders in the act.

Posted by poncho2799 on 2/12/2023 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/10/2023 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/9/2023 9:25:00 PM (view original):
Just recruit crappier players so you don't have to battle or lose them to EEs

I don't know if it's in jest or not, but yeah. That's literally how it's supposed to work. I think folks forget or never understood in the first place how rare it is to see college teams in real life with more than 2-3 future NBA players. It's insane to think that a competitive and well-balanced simulation of college basketball would feature teams only recruiting 3* players and better - in other words, likely future NBA players. Part of the game has to be figuring out how many of those elite guys you can afford to go after, and the ones you land need to be a risk for leaving. Lose that, and it's not a good simulation of college basketball.

Now all that said, I'm certainly sympathetic to guys going through long losing streaks, and it's pretty absurd that there's this *enormous* dropoff of talent available after you get through the top tier of un-starred players. There should be a very large pool of replacement level D1 guys, low potential, starting around 650 OVR or so, who will always choose juco over dropping levels; and/or that should pop up as second session only juco players in the first place. This is a no-brainer that would make the game a ton more functional and realistic, and probably stop a lot of rage quitting as well. But the game has to maintain a nice wide window within which teams can reasonably compete with each other for elite recruits.

So I get OP's frustration. I've been there, as I've said. But for coaches only going after the best of the best, these are natural consequences you should have to manage to stay at a high level. I'm critical of many parts of this game, but this is an aspect it generally gets very right, post 3.0.

I'd just like to point out this is an argument that was had multiple times that each division's recruits should be locked to their division. If you want to make the argument a D1 can pull up, I can understand, but DIIs should not be able to successfully recruit D1 recruits and should prefer a low end sim team or juco route. If your argument is a low end DI recruit wasn't good enough to sign to a DI school, then chances are they were improperly labeled a DI recruit or you could even leave it to where only DII sims can recruit those to help them maintain competitive balance.

As you know, I have always, and still argue vehemently against locking all recruits into their given division. It would be much better to eliminate division pools altogether and completely re-do scouting than to cap the existing pools. What I’m talking about is more of a recruit gen issue, and has to do with the dysfunctional scarcity economic model this game is built on. That’s why my answer has always been to just add a bunch of replacement level second session players, and make the existing preferences - especially around playing time and success - more intelligent.

Ultimately, competition should remain high for elite recruits, and the game should maintain a wide prestige window for that competition, including inter-division at the low ends of D1 pool; but we should be able to have that without A level D1 teams looking at 4-5 walkons because of crappy recruiting luck for a couple seasons in a row.

Posted by shoe3 on 2/13/2023 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/13/2023 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Shoe makes me laugh so much with these posts

I’m almost embarrassed for you. But if you feel confident in this assertion, you should check with CS. Maybe you can be famous like deputy Benis, catch some nefarious secret dual-account wielders in the act.

I am actually embarrassed for you

The advice to plan accordingly and lower target expectations is fine, but sometimes that isn't enough. With the increase in coaches playing D1, I'm having all-in battles at A prestige schools for 1 and 2 star guys just as much as I am 5 star guys. Hell, I took a D2 player the other day. Bad luck happens in both scenarios and I'm still stuck with a bunch of walk-ons. So I sympathize with those who are in a rut. Having to recruit a D2 player at Michigan St. is objectively not fun.

I know how statistics work, and I know that it will eventually even out, but the difference between losing a string of games in Apex Legends or COD lasts a few hours. Having 2 or 3 seasons of bad rolls lasts 6 months in this game. That's why people lose it and quit and I totally understand.

Would love to see RS2 actually mean something and have specific recruits for that period.

Posted by Basketts on 2/13/2023 2:21:00 PM (view original):
The advice to plan accordingly and lower target expectations is fine, but sometimes that isn't enough. With the increase in coaches playing D1, I'm having all-in battles at A prestige schools for 1 and 2 star guys just as much as I am 5 star guys. Hell, I took a D2 player the other day. Bad luck happens in both scenarios and I'm still stuck with a bunch of walk-ons. So I sympathize with those who are in a rut. Having to recruit a D2 player at Michigan St. is objectively not fun.

I know how statistics work, and I know that it will eventually even out, but the difference between losing a string of games in Apex Legends or COD lasts a few hours. Having 2 or 3 seasons of bad rolls lasts 6 months in this game. That's why people lose it and quit and I totally understand.

Would love to see RS2 actually mean something and have specific recruits for that period.

I don’t know, I think it’s *kind of* fun to have D2 pool players on my A+ teams (I don’t currently, but I have in the past, including Michigan St., lol). But yeah, there is a balance here, and they’re not getting it exactly right yet. Like I said, we should be able to keep the competition for the elite recruits - which we absolutely need - but lose the absurd and unrealistic high stakes for losing out on those battles due to bad luck stretches.

Posted by R0pey on 2/13/2023 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/13/2023 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/13/2023 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Shoe makes me laugh so much with these posts

I’m almost embarrassed for you. But if you feel confident in this assertion, you should check with CS. Maybe you can be famous like deputy Benis, catch some nefarious secret dual-account wielders in the act.

I am actually embarrassed for you

Are you still here? You can go now. Let us know what you find out from CS though.

Posted by snafu4u on 2/13/2023 8:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 2/12/2023 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 2/11/2023 8:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/10/2023 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/9/2023 9:25:00 PM (view original):
Just recruit crappier players so you don't have to battle or lose them to EEs

I don't know if it's in jest or not, but yeah. That's literally how it's supposed to work. I think folks forget or never understood in the first place how rare it is to see college teams in real life with more than 2-3 future NBA players. It's insane to think that a competitive and well-balanced simulation of college basketball would feature teams only recruiting 3* players and better - in other words, likely future NBA players. Part of the game has to be figuring out how many of those elite guys you can afford to go after, and the ones you land need to be a risk for leaving. Lose that, and it's not a good simulation of college basketball.

Now all that said, I'm certainly sympathetic to guys going through long losing streaks, and it's pretty absurd that there's this *enormous* dropoff of talent available after you get through the top tier of un-starred players. There should be a very large pool of replacement level D1 guys, low potential, starting around 650 OVR or so, who will always choose juco over dropping levels; and/or that should pop up as second session only juco players in the first place. This is a no-brainer that would make the game a ton more functional and realistic, and probably stop a lot of rage quitting as well. But the game has to maintain a nice wide window within which teams can reasonably compete with each other for elite recruits.

So I get OP's frustration. I've been there, as I've said. But for coaches only going after the best of the best, these are natural consequences you should have to manage to stay at a high level. I'm critical of many parts of this game, but this is an aspect it generally gets very right, post 3.0.

I’ve lost 87.5% of rolls where I had 70% odds to win. How is that possibly a natural consequence?

I can think of a couple of solutions.
1.) Complain in the forums.
2.) Put a little more into the recruits you want so no other team has a shot at them. You won't lose any 100-0 decisions if you are the 100.

I would not suggest #1. I don't think it would improve your teams much.

Any advice on how to put more than 80 AP, 25 Pomised minutes, a promised start, 20 HV, and 1 CV? I am prioritizing recruits just as you advised, and consistently losing to teams that did not prioritize the recruit and barely made it into the dice roll.

If you feel this way is not working for you, maybe give another way a try?

If you see the battle coming (so not like a late bomb in), pull back the effort, find/add another recruit (or two or three or whatever you can afford -and I see you play zone so you should have those extra walk on resources-), and get to ~30-50% on a bunch of guys. Theoretically, because of how promises work, you gain slightly more effort using this method.

It's also quite nice to bomb your project player early and if no one wants to challenge you then that frees up resources to circle back to the top/second-tier guys that were always gonna be a battle anyways.

Finally, it's useful to learn other coaches' recruiting styles, team openings, and other battles. Those are important things to consider when picking your spots.

Posted by shoe3 on 2/13/2023 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/13/2023 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/13/2023 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/13/2023 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Shoe makes me laugh so much with these posts

I’m almost embarrassed for you. But if you feel confident in this assertion, you should check with CS. Maybe you can be famous like deputy Benis, catch some nefarious secret dual-account wielders in the act.

I am actually embarrassed for you

Are you still here? You can go now. Let us know what you find out from CS though.

Didn't cs already confirm it's some losers alt but wouldn't say who's it is.

Why are you still here?

Posted by bpielcmc on 2/13/2023 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 2/13/2023 8:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 2/12/2023 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 2/11/2023 8:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/10/2023 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/9/2023 9:25:00 PM (view original):
Just recruit crappier players so you don't have to battle or lose them to EEs

I don't know if it's in jest or not, but yeah. That's literally how it's supposed to work. I think folks forget or never understood in the first place how rare it is to see college teams in real life with more than 2-3 future NBA players. It's insane to think that a competitive and well-balanced simulation of college basketball would feature teams only recruiting 3* players and better - in other words, likely future NBA players. Part of the game has to be figuring out how many of those elite guys you can afford to go after, and the ones you land need to be a risk for leaving. Lose that, and it's not a good simulation of college basketball.

Now all that said, I'm certainly sympathetic to guys going through long losing streaks, and it's pretty absurd that there's this *enormous* dropoff of talent available after you get through the top tier of un-starred players. There should be a very large pool of replacement level D1 guys, low potential, starting around 650 OVR or so, who will always choose juco over dropping levels; and/or that should pop up as second session only juco players in the first place. This is a no-brainer that would make the game a ton more functional and realistic, and probably stop a lot of rage quitting as well. But the game has to maintain a nice wide window within which teams can reasonably compete with each other for elite recruits.

So I get OP's frustration. I've been there, as I've said. But for coaches only going after the best of the best, these are natural consequences you should have to manage to stay at a high level. I'm critical of many parts of this game, but this is an aspect it generally gets very right, post 3.0.

I’ve lost 87.5% of rolls where I had 70% odds to win. How is that possibly a natural consequence?

I can think of a couple of solutions.
1.) Complain in the forums.
2.) Put a little more into the recruits you want so no other team has a shot at them. You won't lose any 100-0 decisions if you are the 100.

I would not suggest #1. I don't think it would improve your teams much.

Any advice on how to put more than 80 AP, 25 Pomised minutes, a promised start, 20 HV, and 1 CV? I am prioritizing recruits just as you advised, and consistently losing to teams that did not prioritize the recruit and barely made it into the dice roll.

If you feel this way is not working for you, maybe give another way a try?

If you see the battle coming (so not like a late bomb in), pull back the effort, find/add another recruit (or two or three or whatever you can afford -and I see you play zone so you should have those extra walk on resources-), and get to ~30-50% on a bunch of guys. Theoretically, because of how promises work, you gain slightly more effort using this method.

It's also quite nice to bomb your project player early and if no one wants to challenge you then that frees up resources to circle back to the top/second-tier guys that were always gonna be a battle anyways.

Finally, it's useful to learn other coaches' recruiting styles, team openings, and other battles. Those are important things to consider when picking your spots.

If you're looking for a legitimate change in strategy, this can be considered snafu. Just trying to provide different approaches. Do you try to fully claim your 5* first then move onto other recruits? Or do you try to protect your roster filler before you look for your stars? Are you going after a lot of early/EOP1 recruits or do you have several lates/whenever recruits in there? Do you track what other teams are doing to understand what recruits are uncontested vs. which you need to keep protecting? If you're going after a 5* early, maybe look for late roster filler OR get a few roster filler players with a late 5* you can pour into during RS1.

I'm sure a lot of that isn't new BUT just trying to get you thinking. Seems like this thread is dwindling down into an off-topic debate so I wanted to just re-direct it a bit.

Posted by R0pey on 2/13/2023 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/13/2023 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/13/2023 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/13/2023 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by R0pey on 2/13/2023 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Shoe makes me laugh so much with these posts

I’m almost embarrassed for you. But if you feel confident in this assertion, you should check with CS. Maybe you can be famous like deputy Benis, catch some nefarious secret dual-account wielders in the act.

I am actually embarrassed for you

Are you still here? You can go now. Let us know what you find out from CS though.

Didn't cs already confirm it's some losers alt but wouldn't say who's it is.

Why are you still here?

I don’t know, but if really you think it’s me, you should report your suspicion, then tell us all what you find out. I can’t wait to hear back!

Why am I still here in this conversation specifically? Mostly to see you weakly retread an insult and attempt to toss it back at me like hot potato, at this point. It’s amusing. What can I say? I’m a bit of a masochist.