Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2016 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/21/2016 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 8/21/2016 4:44:00 PM (view original):
To be clear, the pain is mostly going to be felt in the first season or two of 3.0. After that, it will likely be rare for teams to be able to recruit more than 2 EE candidates in a single season anyway, so in the long run, most teams won't run into this problem. And planning for one or two isn't much of a problem in beta, unless you don't have any scholarships to work with (in that case, you really are sh!t out of luck).

For some, this is a deal-breaker. For me, I think it's a fun and realistic challenge. Early entries are all reward in 2.0, there's not much risk of having to scramble, and that risk makes the game better, IMO. I do think it would make sense to have the first cycle of the late period be signing free so programs with EEs can "catch-up", especially for players with a late signing preference. I don't think that idea is off the table.

early entries are all reward in 2.0? no way. people sit around praying for a lucky EE roll (as in not having any) so they have a championship caliber team the next season. people sit around after the EE roll cursing their average-to-terrible luck that preventing them from having a very good/great/insane team. definitely not all reward. but, you are correct that there aren't additional massive penalties on top of those inherent in losing key players early.

All reward, in that there is no downside to going after them. In real life, there is absolutely a risk of needing to scramble to re-assemble a top-tier team if multiple players leave early. The new two-period setup is not a "massive penalty". It's a removal of a specific privilege that only very top-level teams benefitted from. It's the recruiting equivalent of moving from a game of winner's ball - where the team who made the shot gets the ball - to a game of regular basketball. There's a simple way to avoid EEs, if you can't tolerate that risk. Just don't recruit players who look like they"ll be EE's.

I can can understand reluctance to "fix" the "problem" from a developers standpoint, because it only affects the very top prestige programs, and will only affect them for a season or two (not to mention that a number of these guys are already very vocal that they hate 3.0 and intend to leave). 5 or 6 seasons from now, the players who remain will have adjusted, and any "fix" that affects gameplay will run the risk of skewing the balance back toward winner's ball.

how often do teams in real life lose multiple EEs and find themselves unable to bring in some strong replacements?

not often

the way the new game appears to work, one will be lucky to replace surprising or shocking EEs (meaning suprising or shocking based on the big board) or replace EEs generally if you have 3-4) with players of DI quality. Not elite players, even playable players will be very hard to sign with the first phase done and a late start on recruits. Often, one will be unable to do a campus visit at all under the rules of the nuHD. Teams will be ravaged.

Some people may think thats fine. I dont. But thats just my opinion on how a game can be enjoyable and well balanced.

it's not just your opinion...

Posted by mullycj on 8/21/2016 9:57:00 PM (view original):
Love when coaches who haven't sniffed an EE think they know the effects of losing them. Your post is quite Spudlike.

Mully, I've always respected you, from our days in the WVIAC on. But this is douchey. I've got teams in big 6 conferences who compete for EE caliber players every year. This affects me, and even if it didn't, my preferences are every bit as valid as yours. The fact remains, this "problem" affects only the very top-tier teams of D1, and will only really affect them for 3 seasons at most, at which point remaining players will have adjusted to the new normal of having those elite caliber players spread out amongst more teams (i.e., fewer instances of multiple EEs). As they say, that's a feature, not a bug. You don't like it, and I understand why. I also understand why WIS is reluctant to "fix" something that may well not be an issue 3 seasons from now, especially if the "fix" moves the game back toward winner's ball. Ive argued, here and elsewhere, for tweaks that would improve chances for teams dealing with EEs - like more elite players with late preferences, no signings in the first late cycle, and even creating new jucos specifically for the late session. I hope one, or a few of those options ends up in the final product. But I'm not the one with the big picture view, and I'm not the one whose job it is to make the game more appealing to more players.

So what's the douche part?

Posted by mullycj on 8/22/2016 12:29:00 AM (view original):
So what's the douche part?

Quite literally the entire response I quoted.

It's a bad decision by Seble.

koopy - here are two specific "Spudlike" quotes from the poster that warranted my "douche" response.

"All reward, in that there is no downside to going after them."
(Glad to know that when my roster is gutted by 3 graduating Srs and 3 EEs that went from "on the fence" to GONE that there was no downside. Especially whenequally good teams that had no EEs)

"The new two-period setup is not a "massive penalty". It's a removal of a specific privilege that only very top-level teams benefitted from."
(Didn't know that coaches (who started in DIII) that worked their way up to DI and created an elite program that have the ability to battle for and sign EE caliber players have been granted some mystical "privilege" from WIS.)

YOU, on the other hand at least can witness, and maybe even experience EEs firsthand and provide a more informed opinion.
In Naismith I finally moved to DI (Arkansas) and, in the old world, there would have been several more seasons till I could recruit EE caliber players. It would also be several seasons before I can compete with the top 2 teams in the SEC. I consider that a challenge and I didn't want need or want Seble's socialistic welfare program to achieve that goal.

"I didn't want need or want Seble's socialistic welfare program to achieve that goal."

Good point, one that all the guys asking for a socialistic welfare program for EE's should remember.

Posted by mullycj on 8/22/2016 9:40:00 AM (view original):
koopy - here are two specific "Spudlike" quotes from the poster that warranted my "douche" response.

"All reward, in that there is no downside to going after them."
(Glad to know that when my roster is gutted by 3 graduating Srs and 3 EEs that went from "on the fence" to GONE that there was no downside. Especially whenequally good teams that had no EEs)

"The new two-period setup is not a "massive penalty". It's a removal of a specific privilege that only very top-level teams benefitted from."
(Didn't know that coaches (who started in DIII) that worked their way up to DI and created an elite program that have the ability to battle for and sign EE caliber players have been granted some mystical "privilege" from WIS.)

YOU, on the other hand at least can witness, and maybe even experience EEs firsthand and provide a more informed opinion.
In Naismith I finally moved to DI (Arkansas) and, in the old world, there would have been several more seasons till I could recruit EE caliber players. It would also be several seasons before I can compete with the top 2 teams in the SEC. I consider that a challenge and I didn't want need or want Seble's socialistic welfare program to achieve that goal.

At least now you're dealing with the arguments and not using ad hominems. :)

As I said, if the risk of losing EEs is too much for you, just don't recruit them. Teams do that in real life, and you and I currently do that (by necessity) in Naismith. But obviously, when we are able to go after the EE caliber players, we likely will (I may be able to after this season, we'll see; of course I jumped a couple seasons ahead of you in that world). The "downside" of possibly losing an elite player before he graduates isn't nearly enough to make us think twice about it, and I doubt it will be in the new game. The "privilege" is that since the old system is a straight deterministic eBay bidding system, losing an early entry benefits your recruiting even as it hurts your team in the immediate season, because the scholarship is an asset, and the EE helps your prestige (which is still going to be true). The part of the privilege removed is that the scholarship is less of an asset, since it can only be used late - so the risk of "downside" is a little higher now. On the other hand, there are ways to utilize that as a weapon in 3.0, since you can target late guys and get them considering you without offering a scholarship.

If if you really are up for a challenge, I would think you'd be embracing this as I am. I am not interested in building a bulletproof program via winner's ball. I like and look forward to the strategy sessions of navigating early entries without the benefit of extra scholarships and a deterministic bidding system. I've done it in beta, and planning for and replacing an early entry, even with only one regular scholarship, is really not that big a deal. Class balance becomes more important (which I'd have thought you would also like), and those 3 and 4 star guys are going to be a little more valuable now, too.

quit trying to make "winner's ball" happen.

At the very least, Seble should make all transfers, especially seniors, immediately visible to any team hit with an early entry, rather than only the specific teams in the 500 mile radius (or whatever it is) contacted by that transfer.

pkoopman, you have a good perspective on all this. Nice to see that in these forums.

Seems like one thought would be to be sure you are really solid on a late player, while still getting some early guys with high potential to sign early using mostly attention points. I have not tried this strategy in beta yet. But I have gotten some really nice players in Beta with just attention points, so if you could do that, while suing attention points on late players, followed up by 20 HVs, that might be a strategy.

Posted by chapelhillne on 8/22/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Seems like one thought would be to be sure you are really solid on a late player, while still getting some early guys with high potential to sign early using mostly attention points. I have not tried this strategy in beta yet. But I have gotten some really nice players in Beta with just attention points, so if you could do that, while suing attention points on late players, followed up by 20 HVs, that might be a strategy.

20 HVs would take more than 1 openings worth of resources (even at 10 miles). $200 per HV = 4K and at 300 miles its more like $300 which makes it $6K (2 openings) which makes replacing all your openings kind of difficult (and that assuming your 20 HV would even help against another team which has already sunk in 20 HVs and a boat load of AP since the very beginning of period #1).

agree that one can play the early/late game to plan ahead and protect - and that seems to me to be reasonable where one has reasonably expected EEs and not too many of them

when a school has 3 or 4 EEs or when a guy who the big board suggests is unlikely to go EE, its very hard to imagine a successful strategy like that.

we'll see how it goes, but I expect some very unhappy participants whose teams will be gutted in a way that dooms the following season