At D3 I hold a camp, do an Assistant Coach search and FSS some nearby states. From there I categorized all the recruits from the ones I like to the ones not so much. The extra clicks are bothersome, in my opinion. I used to HATE it. Not so much anymore, but I'm not in love either. I guess if I want to continue I'll adapt...simple as that.

it's definitely more labor intensive and definitely more complex. I really don't think it takes a dramatic increase in time though. you certainly CAN put in way more time now if you really want to scout everywhere and find perfect preference matches, but you don't really have to in order to do a competent job. i have been using chapel's 5-minute scouting guide as my basis. in at least one instance, HD3 is superior in terms of the time burden--in HD2 you'd send sometimes dozens of scouting trips and comb through the messages for information (often repeat info) you now get in a simpler format! (i really hated that "feature" in HD2)

but as with any complex system, the more you familiarize yourself with it, the more than complexity becomes second nature and doesn't seem so tedious and time-consuming. i am by no means saying HD3 is perfect here, but i just don't think it's the monstrous time sucking disaster that it seemed like when i first tried it out.

re: RNG. this is a completely fair point. I don't know how the odds go into determining that. it does seem like an unusual amount of 'HIGH' teams win. that's something that should have been sorted out better in beta testing...like a lot of this stuff honestly. WIS should have given every user their first season in HD3 for free.

I like it much better. I like having to 'find the information' and that some guys can fall through the cracks.

I absolutely love that 50.1% vs 49.9% effort gives both teams a solid chance to get a recruit.. I also love that recruits sign at random times.

i would think that 50.1 v 49.9 is 2 "very high" teams though, and I'm also in favor of that. it just makes sense when it's that close. but is "high" a 45% or a 5% chance? what's the window there? I'm not necessarily against this but it is something everybody should know so they can determine if it's worth pumping more recruiting effort in for a situation.

not sure if there are ways to really say this in abstract, but does anyone know the ballpark % you would roughly have to win a recruit if you were barely "high" against someone else who was "very high"? i would assume you don't hit "high" at all if your chance could be only 1% or something. it's probably discussed in the beta forums but i don't have that bookmarked on this laptop.

From memory I thought high was 25% chance

I think the actual probability depends on the actual amount of effort credit the teams have. Very highs aren't equal, they're just close. I don't know that it was ever stated what the percentages were, although I think someone did an analysis at one point and found highs winning around 30% of the time. I think it was also adjusted a little between seasons as well, because there were too many highs winning recruits, at least more than intended.

Posted by mullycj on 9/23/2016 1:46:00 PM (view original):
From memory I thought high was 25% chance

Yes.. I think all Highs split 25 percent chance and all Very Highs split 75 percent (could be 80/20). But my point was that you don't always loose at 49.9%. Which I very much like.

Posted by crickett13 on 9/23/2016 7:42:00 AM (view original):
Ok don't want this to be a bash 3.0 thread but so far I am not a fan. I have another season reserved because I want to enjoy it . My feeling is that now it is more complicated and perhaps it didn't need to be. What I am hearing is that it was done to help DI smaller schools be more competitive which could have been accomplished by lowering the effect of prestige. I also heard it was about the effect of a last moment rush on a player, which some call poaching, which might have been accomplished by limiting the effort that could be put into a player in any one cycle,

Edit: What I would like to ask is if you do like it why was a more complicated scouting and recruiting system needed?

What does it do to enhance the game that could not have been accomplished with a simpler system?

I haven't finished a 3.0 season yet but have started recruiting for a D1 team and a D3 team and am loving it. I feel like the scouting at D3 is much more involved than in 2.0, and it presents more interesting decisions (do you try to go after D1 talent or stick with the safer D2/D3 guys?).

At D1, I like it because there are way more battles in the new game and the decision-making process isn't solely about money and prestige (I've been recruiting from an A prestige school).

I do have a suspicion that the importance of prestige has been scaled back too far. I'm hoping to get some battle info through sitemails with other coaches so that I can have some real data to formulate a question at the next DevChat.

Posted by mullycj on 9/23/2016 1:46:00 PM (view original):
From memory I thought high was 25% chance

10% of Highs beat very Highs.

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/23/2016 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/23/2016 1:46:00 PM (view original):
From memory I thought high was 25% chance

10% of Highs beat very Highs.

Let's make sure this gets asked in dev chat. We don't have to know the specifics of the programming, but they should be watching the results, and I think that's something we should know. Someone just reported that it was 50% high beating very high in the first cycle of wooden, though I don't know if that's true or how representative that sample size is. That would be way too high, if it held up. I'd expect something around the 20-30% range, and I'd be ok if it was a little lower than 20% on occasion.

Obviously everyone pretty much knows I really like it as well. You can still do it quickly if you want to, but you can also spend a lot more time if you want to. Since I enjoy the game a lot, I like the fact that I can spend more time on it. It is a better value for the money I spend. I have actually increased my teams, and will be in all 10 worlds once Rupp starts again.

I also like the fact that you can recruit at longer distances, and I like the fact that top players do not get a free pass to the top teams on the first cycle of recruiting, and there is never a challenge for them.

I like the 20 HV limit - it puts more teams on an even footing and makes it possible for a team that has one opening to compete with a team that has 6, since they can both do the same number of HVs. The 6 opening team would probably win if that was a prized recruit because they could pile on many more attention points, but if that happens, they still have 5 other spots to fill and with so much invested in one recruit it is not easy.

I love no longer sending a scout to China 8 times to find out if a PG has high potential in Ball Handling, and having the scout come back talking about how he cannot grow any more in rebounding, but not mentioning the one thing I sent him to China to find out about.

I love not having to cram my scouting into 36 hours if I have no carry over.

I love having 9 hours instead of two to place my initial recruiting.

I love that if I miss a cycle, my attention points are still out there doing something.

I like some degree of randomness in signing, as long as it does not turn out to be too much, which remains to be seen to some degree.

I like that if I blow my entire budget, I can still sign good players with just attention points and a scholarship, which are both free.

I love seeing a team like Cal Santa Barbara being able to sneak in and grab a 5 star guy.

I love that promises of playing time are very important in 3.0

I love (maybe most) the fact that I can battle for a recruit and not have to worry about someone looking at my team page and seeing I have 5 openings and am in 3 battles, then looking att the other two guys that I am not in a battle for and going after them because I am "weak". Battling for a recruit should not make you "weak".

I also like the fact that recruiting is way more challenging now. Often, in 2.0, by 8 PM on the first night I have the players I want considering only me, and there is no challenge the rest of recruiting. It's nice to land a great class like that, but it's not as interesting as having to try to figure out how to outsmart 3-4 other A+ programs for a top recruit

I love being able to see the High-Highs up front.

I also really love new challenges. There are so many more moving parts in this version. You have to try to figure out which players you have the best shot at by taking into account preferences, then come up with there right combination of recruiting tools.

I hope that some of the coaches that say they are going to run out their credits will change their minds after a season or two. Really, if I was in that camp, and was someone that has gotten a lot of enjoyment out of the game, I would give it like 4 seasons. Like anything new, it takes a little time to get used to.

I don't need 4 seasons to know how I feel about the new game. It fundamentally changes many things I liked about the old game and it feels punitive. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but that's how I feel. I also believe developer was disingenuous at best about some information (prestige, recruit generation #s), and I've long believed (and it's clearly confirmed by anyone looking around and seeing who is leading the charge for some kind of guide on this new system - hint: its not the developers) that there is very little overall support and care for this community from the admin, and this is my final nail.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 9/23/2016 1:05:00 PM (view original):
i would think that 50.1 v 49.9 is 2 "very high" teams though, and I'm also in favor of that. it just makes sense when it's that close. but is "high" a 45% or a 5% chance? what's the window there? I'm not necessarily against this but it is something everybody should know so they can determine if it's worth pumping more recruiting effort in for a situation.

not sure if there are ways to really say this in abstract, but does anyone know the ballpark % you would roughly have to win a recruit if you were barely "high" against someone else who was "very high"? i would assume you don't hit "high" at all if your chance could be only 1% or something. it's probably discussed in the beta forums but i don't have that bookmarked on this laptop.

Based on what seble said in one of the threads in beta on July 22nd, a team listed at "H" vs. a team at "VH" had an approximate chance of winning of between 25% and 40%. So a team at the lowest range of "H" had a 25% chance and a team that was at the highest range of "H" had a 40% chance.

Then on July 28th he posted the following to the Change Log:

Adjusted signing odds to give the leading team a little bit higher odds.

So the odds of a team on "H" are now less than what they were previously.

What's important to remember is something else seble mentioned:

the odds aren't based on the interest levels, but on the total recruiting credit. That's because the difference between the lowest Very High and the highest High could be only a few points of credit.

The example he gave after adjusting the odd was this one on August 6th:

An example is that a breakdown of 52% to 48% credit would generate odds around 62% to 38%. This skewing was increased based on the feedback from you guys a few weeks ago. Previous to that, the odds would be 58% to 42%.

+1 on everything chapel said.

The one thing I don't like right now is that the value of prestige seems to have been scaled back too much. I hope that it can be bumped back up. If so, we're going to have an awesome game on our hands.

Well, I guess two things--EEs are still a bit of a mess. There are a couple easy changes that could mitigate some of the problems that haven't been made (unless I missed something).

I'm most disappointed in the impending drop in customers and competition due to 1) lack of tutorials/intuitive feel of 3.0 2) lack of/poor communication from seble 3) a beta dominated by a few folks with nothing to do but constantly derail every productive thread 24/7, hence derailing possible improvements to the product.

I've also never seen the threads here be more negative and irrational. The forums are nearly intolerable.

I think 3.0 is a fine game. I don't hate it. I plan to continue playing it. I don't think it's a remarkable improvement either. I enjoy that recruiting is more than just a math equation. I don't think deepening scouting was ever necessary to begin with, but I've come around a bit.