Posted by joeykw18 on 9/22/2016 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by franklynne on 9/22/2016 12:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/21/2016 11:43:00 AM (view original):
First off I've never been a fan of the term "poaching" in HD, but I am 100% for realism in the game.

Call it sour grapes or whatever, but if I'm Indiana (A prestige) and am 'Very High' on a recruit for every cycle and no other school being higher than 'Moderate' in what universe does a player wake up and say "Hey I'm going to go to Valparaiso" who is a C prestige. This kind of randomness is the crap that will more than likely drive me out of the game.

Maybe I have misunderstood while reading these forums, but I thought 3.0 was created to eliminate that? Now any school can jump in on any school?

Do I have a valid point or am I out of line and this is what coaches wanted from the game?

i may have been c prestige, but when that pg signed with us i was at `high` on his considering list..i offered a start+minutes, kept some attn pts on him..my guess he signed with valpo because of distance also..i'm happy..guess you're not

The cycle before you were 'Low' or I would have put more into him to knock you back to at least moderate. As for distance I was considered "Very Good" as well.

I think the best way to sustain success is to be in a conference alone. I had fairly low expectations for 3.0 and it's pretty much exactly what I expected. I'll probably drop my Indiana team. I'll keep Vermont for a season and re-evaluate.

Bold prediction: Memphis will be a contender in almost every world, every year.

It's becoming pretty obvious pretty early that being in a conference by yourself is the way to go. A remote spot might be even better (besides Alaska and Puerto Rico). Even Hawaii might be okay now since they get D1 money. It's really a shame that those conferences who were full because of competitive friendship or for whatever reason are now at a disadvantage. That was a great deal of fun and a huge part of why I play the game, for the competition and for the camaraderie. Now conferences like those are places to stay away from unless you choose to be at a disadvantage right off the rip. Oh sure, there's always the "strong conference" preference. But there's way more than enough other players who don't have that preference to recruit. And besides, one negative preference isn't the end of the world and doesn't necessarily mean you can't sign the player anyway.

It's a terrible shame what this game has been turned into. A crying *** shame.

Posted by dacj501 on 9/21/2016 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/21/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):
"What's the red light? I've seen the reference as spud's red light, but I can't find what it actually means."

Seble's red light (certainly not mine) refers to an arbitrary and unnecessary barrier that Seble put in to protect D1's. For the entire recruiting period 1 a D2/D3 cannot get above Moderate on a recruit designated as deserving to be a level up, no matter how much recruiting effort they put in and no matter the merits of that effort. Not getting above Moderate also means not being able to sign the recruit. My position has always been that any artificial and arbitrary barrier to a recruiting result being based on the merits of the recruiting effort is bad for the game.

I'm outed - this is really what drove me away - not enough "protection" from D2 and D3 geniuses like spudhole.

He really gets annoying quickly, doesn't he?

Coach	Division	Prestige	Int Level	Scholarship Offer?
Valparaiso	franklynne	DI	C	Very High	Yes
Indiana	joeykw18	DI	A	High	Yes
Charleston So.	Sim AI	DI	B-	Very Low	No
Coppin St.	Sim AI	DI	C+	Very Low	Yes
Georgia	Sim AI	DI	B-	Very Low	No
La Salle	Sim AI	DI	B	Very Low	No
Monmouth	Sim AI	DI	B-	Very Low	No
W. Virginia	droussel4	DI	B	Very Low	No

the final consideration results on my team when lefebre signed with valpo..sorry i'm so late with this..don't know what shows on the other teams..

Right, but the cycle prior to that I was VH ad you were Low. At you been moderate or better I would have dumped more effort into him. Bad luck for me he chose to sign when he did. In no universe does this situation play out like it did in the real world.

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/26/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Right, but the cycle prior to that I was VH ad you were Low. At you been moderate or better I would have dumped more effort into him. Bad luck for me he chose to sign when he did. In no universe does this situation play out like it did in the real world.

I'm actually not totally sure about your last statement.

I've definitely seen people who are solidly committed to one school who take a CV the week before signing day, just for the heck of it, and then ending up switching their commitment out of the blue. It happens.

I liked the single-cycle delay after a lead-change in 2.0, but with the switch to six-hour cycles, it seems like you could hold recruits hostage the entire first signing period if that were in effect in 3.0.

But in 3.0, attempted poaching is pretty high risk (with the possible exception of recruits with an "early" signing preference) because there's a pretty small chance that the recruit actually signs in the cycle that you go heavy.

Could be worse. You could have lost him to a D2 school.

Posted by npb7768 on 9/21/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/21/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):
"What's the red light? I've seen the reference as spud's red light, but I can't find what it actually means."

Seble's red light (certainly not mine) refers to an arbitrary and unnecessary barrier that Seble put in to protect D1's. For the entire recruiting period 1 a D2/D3 cannot get above Moderate on a recruit designated as deserving to be a level up, no matter how much recruiting effort they put in and no matter the merits of that effort. Not getting above Moderate also means not being able to sign the recruit. My position has always been that any artificial and arbitrary barrier to a recruiting result being based on the merits of the recruiting effort is bad for the game.

In all the discussions on this, I don't know of any other human that agrees with you on this. In my opinion and everyone else's, the restriction is considered to be an excellent idea.

i actually was with spud on this one, although obviously not because of anything he said on the matter. the existing advantages between d1 and d2/d3 were so severe, to place a further restriction, it just seemed like gross overkill. besides, if nobody but a d3 school goes for the #17 pf (i think it was) bc they suck so bad, until a few days in, i have no qualms with that d3 school signing them.

the problem is, the EE situation and general situation with sniping still allowed, and the random nature of signings, it makes it hard to project, which means there is substantial value in decent d1 players "waiting around" for d1 schools to fail in their other efforts, to the point where they would pursue that d1 player. in light of the reality of the game today, i think the red light is probably an improvement, but also its an arbitrary hack that really would have no place in a well balanced system. also, it turns out the advantages between d1 and d2/d3 were brought down by other changes seble made, so some compensatory change is probably required. but again, the red light is not really a graceful fix there - evidenced by the complaints along the lines of the d2 school beating the bcs school. in the 2 months ago game, a BCS school might have had 80k on 3 openings to the d2 school's 18k, which is over 10 times the purchasing power with prestige. today's game, it is clearly less, and the red light just doesn't really help that. the problem with hacks like the red light is, they ultimately make things worse - it makes it harder to actually fix it. so IMO, the red light type hacks are best left for times when the alternative is no fix for a substantial period. i'd prefer to see a real fix, and we all hack out some annoying edge cases, but this isn't an edge case here, this is a fundamental balance issue that really should have been addressed in its own right.

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/21/2016 11:43:00 AM (view original):
First off I've never been a fan of the term "poaching" in HD, but I am 100% for realism in the game.

Call it sour grapes or whatever, but if I'm Indiana (A prestige) and am 'Very High' on a recruit for every cycle and no other school being higher than 'Moderate' in what universe does a player wake up and say "Hey I'm going to go to Valparaiso" who is a C prestige. This kind of randomness is the crap that will more than likely drive me out of the game.

Maybe I have misunderstood while reading these forums, but I thought 3.0 was created to eliminate that? Now any school can jump in on any school?

Do I have a valid point or am I out of line and this is what coaches wanted from the game?

all i can say is, within 1 hour of the first signing period of the first recruiting session in beta, i highlighted this issue on the beta forums, and said that sniping was the #1 must-fix issue in the game. i'm sure others prioritized things differently, but generally speaking, nobody really disagreed that it was a major problem - frankly, it was one of very few topics where there wasn't wild dissent. going from winning to having lost in a 2 minute window is insane, that just seems so obvious, so i think everyone was on board. yet seble fought a real fix for this issue the entire way, which is partly what turned me off to the whole thing. granted, a lot of seble's changes along the way made the situation better than it was, before, most players could have been attacked in this manner, and now most can't (supposedly). but to me, 1 instance of this is still too many, its poaching on steroids, and we all know how much trouble poaching caused.

this goes to what I think of as the balance between effort, frustration and fun

In my view - the new scouting scheme requires a bunch more effort. Lots more. Maybe I was exceptionally facile at scouting in the old scheme. Maybe I am inefficient at the new game. But, it takes me several times more time to scout in 3.0. Effort way up.

Frustration - the enhanced ability to poach, the recruiting resolution scheme that lets a high, lesser school beat a very high elite school, the failure to address EEs - enhanced frustration.

Fun - the game itself is still fun. But the extra drudge work and frustration makes the game resemble jobs I have disliked. At least they paid me.

Posted by tarvolon on 9/26/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/26/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Right, but the cycle prior to that I was VH ad you were Low. At you been moderate or better I would have dumped more effort into him. Bad luck for me he chose to sign when he did. In no universe does this situation play out like it did in the real world.

I'm actually not totally sure about your last statement.

I've definitely seen people who are solidly committed to one school who take a CV the week before signing day, just for the heck of it, and then ending up switching their commitment out of the blue. It happens.

I liked the single-cycle delay after a lead-change in 2.0, but with the switch to six-hour cycles, it seems like you could hold recruits hostage the entire first signing period if that were in effect in 3.0.

But in 3.0, attempted poaching is pretty high risk (with the possible exception of recruits with an "early" signing preference) because there's a pretty small chance that the recruit actually signs in the cycle that you go heavy.

I agree with you, but from a pretty good Indiana team, to an average small school team? That's the point I was trying to make....never seen it.

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/27/2016 1:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/26/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/26/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Right, but the cycle prior to that I was VH ad you were Low. At you been moderate or better I would have dumped more effort into him. Bad luck for me he chose to sign when he did. In no universe does this situation play out like it did in the real world.

I'm actually not totally sure about your last statement.

I've definitely seen people who are solidly committed to one school who take a CV the week before signing day, just for the heck of it, and then ending up switching their commitment out of the blue. It happens.

I liked the single-cycle delay after a lead-change in 2.0, but with the switch to six-hour cycles, it seems like you could hold recruits hostage the entire first signing period if that were in effect in 3.0.

But in 3.0, attempted poaching is pretty high risk (with the possible exception of recruits with an "early" signing preference) because there's a pretty small chance that the recruit actually signs in the cycle that you go heavy.

I agree with you, but from a pretty good Indiana team, to an average small school team? That's the point I was trying to make....never seen it.

Yeah, agreed. That part is not so realistic. I really would appreciate a one-cycle extension if a big change happens right when he wants to sign. There doesn't have to be an extension every time the lead changes, but the first time it happens would work--that's six hours to let people know there's a fight. I don't know how difficult it would be to program, but I think it would really improve things.

That said, having an unknown signing cycle does a lot of good here, because it makes these cases relatively rare and nearly impossible to plan.

This wasn't a case of poaching... plain and simple.