the 80 limit seems to have two major risks of unintended consequences

1. Miss the first cycle or first couple and harder to catch up

2. Get hit with multiple and or surprising EEs, harder to try to catch up

Making EE problem worse is especially worrisome given that it already seemed very difficult to get a DI caliber replacements for surprising or multiple EEs

Also, much of this argument seems to relate to human v. human recruiting which I believe already works fairly well under HD 3.0.

I will reiterate that what needs to be addressed by the developers is the recruiting programming for SIMs!
Yes, I understand that not all recruits that the system has labelled "D1" are truly top-notch quality...but there is still no reason for it to be so easy (from what I have experienced) for D3 schools to land these players without being contested by at least a few lower-level D1 and/or some D-2 programs!

Posted by bfflcommish on 10/29/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Also, much of this argument seems to relate to human v. human recruiting which I believe already works fairly well under HD 3.0.

I will reiterate that what needs to be addressed by the developers is the recruiting programming for SIMs!
Yes, I understand that not all recruits that the system has labelled "D1" are truly top-notch quality...but there is still no reason for it to be so easy (from what I have experienced) for D3 schools to land these players without being contested by at least a few lower-level D1 and/or some D-2 programs!

+1

Posted by mamxet on 10/29/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):
the 80 limit seems to have two major risks of unintended consequences

1. Miss the first cycle or first couple and harder to catch up

2. Get hit with multiple and or surprising EEs, harder to try to catch up

Making EE problem worse is especially worrisome given that it already seemed very difficult to get a DI caliber replacements for surprising or multiple EEs

They have made multiple changes in the past week or so now that have only heightened the magnitude of how bad it is to have an early entry in 3.0.

1) Changing it so more "whenever" guys sign earlier. There are now only 20 Top-100 recruits available heading into 2nd period in Crum. Meanwhile, in Smith which started recruiting earlier has 49 Top-100 recruits available heading into 2nd period. So there are now less recruits available for coaches hit by an EE or multiple.

2) To compound, if you have more than 3 openings going into the 2nd period due to EE's or whatever you are limited to only 80 AP's on guy even though you have more available than that. This makes it harder to unlock actions and from my experience trying to recruit in 2nd period already it is hard to unlock guys in the 2nd period before they decide to sign since the 2nd period is much shorter and there are far fewer cycles.

This game is wearing thin on me at this point. I liked the concept for the most part during the beta and thought I'd be into it but the changes recently have made it worse imo. At least at DI.

Posted by skinzfan36 on 10/29/2016 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 10/29/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):
the 80 limit seems to have two major risks of unintended consequences

1. Miss the first cycle or first couple and harder to catch up

2. Get hit with multiple and or surprising EEs, harder to try to catch up

Making EE problem worse is especially worrisome given that it already seemed very difficult to get a DI caliber replacements for surprising or multiple EEs

They have made multiple changes in the past week or so now that have only heightened the magnitude of how bad it is to have an early entry in 3.0.

1) Changing it so more "whenever" guys sign earlier. There are now only 20 Top-100 recruits available heading into 2nd period in Crum. Meanwhile, in Smith which started recruiting earlier has 49 Top-100 recruits available heading into 2nd period. So there are now less recruits available for coaches hit by an EE or multiple.

2) To compound, if you have more than 3 openings going into the 2nd period due to EE's or whatever you are limited to only 80 AP's on guy even though you have more available than that. This makes it harder to unlock actions and from my experience trying to recruit in 2nd period already it is hard to unlock guys in the 2nd period before they decide to sign since the 2nd period is much shorter and there are far fewer cycles.

This game is wearing thin on me at this point. I liked the concept for the most part during the beta and thought I'd be into it but the changes recently have made it worse imo. At least at DI.

In actual gameplay, capping APs is going to help teams with EEs, not hurt them. You're no longer at as much of a disadvantage to teams with more open scholarships who were amassing insurmountable leads on late signees. If you're planning for possible EEs, you need to be unlocking effort on late recruits before you get those resources anyway. Waiting until after they announce to start unlocking is not advisable.

To be fair, the change to whenever was a correction since it wasnt working correctly. its now working like seble intended.

Posted by Benis on 10/29/2016 3:51:00 PM (view original):
To be fair, the change to whenever was a correction since it wasnt working correctly. its now working like seble intended.

Well maybe the change was to correct it but they need to change more players to "Late" because there are few actual playable guys available in the 2nd cycle now.

There are 4 designations: early, end of period 1, whenever, late. If they are all equal there should be around 35-40 Top-100 players available heading into the 2nd recruiting period with the correction to "Whenever".

However, Crum has 20 Top-100 and someone else said another world only had 18 Top-100 recruits unsigned going into the 2nd period. SO, something is off.

Is HD being run solely by the millenials who have never dealt with win/loss, or success/fail? I know none of my kids ever got "Winners" trophies. Just participation trophies. And some of your actions seem to be to make everybody a .500 win percentage team. Look at how EE's have been screwed up, and it takes me only two seconds to think you do not want top programs to have back to back good season's (and thank God I have never had a player leave to the draft...your 3.0 process stinks!).

That it seems is what you are turning this into! If I want to recruit ONE GUY and take five walk ons, I should be allowed to do so. It is my game too! And if I want the best player in the game to play with four dud's, let me spend that 140 AP on him. If you make top recruits programmed to look for success in the quality of team mates, that makes more sense then capping recruiting actions

If you do not want us to play a game, but merely rely on chance like a coin flip, just admit it! I love most of 3.0, but with every update you are dumbing the process down! Come on already, we beta tested and you said it was ready. Let us play a few cycles without you making any more changes...PLEASE.

Posted by vandydave on 10/29/2016 10:21:00 AM (view original):
might just be easiest to have a sign-up sheet for each recruit and interested schools put their name down, then at a given cycle the dice roll happens and wis announces the winners.

This is the direction we are headed I am afraid.
Overall, I could accept the 80 cap....I still think you adding caps to anything should be after a few years (cycles). Unless you are going to Cap Sim Class size! I HATE the fact that you allow Sims bigger class size then human. I faced a Sim Team with 11 Seniors, and thought why would you EVER allow this!

Posted by bfflcommish on 10/29/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Also, much of this argument seems to relate to human v. human recruiting which I believe already works fairly well under HD 3.0.

I will reiterate that what needs to be addressed by the developers is the recruiting programming for SIMs!
Yes, I understand that not all recruits that the system has labelled "D1" are truly top-notch quality...but there is still no reason for it to be so easy (from what I have experienced) for D3 schools to land these players without being contested by at least a few lower-level D1 and/or some D-2 programs!

I agree.

You especially see this during part two recruiting. D1 guys with NOBODY except human D3 and D2 guys! Sim logic should put Sim teams all over these guys to start Part Two. During beta, I was recruiting nothing but D1 ineligibles for my D3 school. And up through beta season 6, I never saw Simmy on any of them. SEBLE changed something in season seven, and I saw Sim on these guys, but only hit and miss. D1 Sim's should get the bulk of all players not being pursued by D1 humans.

The problem with these forums is that most people don't seem to look very far past their own noses. The game is too random. It's a coin flip, no strategy at all. No, it's too tough. Where's my manual? It's too hard to find players I want. No, it's too easy for other guys to find players that are too good. Just tell me what to do. Let me play the way I want. We need more resources. No, we need to cap resources so other teams don't have an advantage. Sims are too aggressive, why am I getting beaten by a sim? Why aren't any sims on that D1 guy I didn't want that some D3 program just signed? I have a dynasty, why are you punishing success? Mid-majors are a black hole. I don't want to play this game for 3 years to get to a big 6 program. You've ruined 3.0! Fix it! Just leave it alone for a while so we can get used to it!

This is a mess, and I am not talking about the game. Outside of a couple minor flaws, 3.0 is playing great.

If # of AP per cycle is restricted, it only exacerbates the problem that it takes too much effort to unlock schollys/other actions. This will hurt teams playing catch up. The threshold to unlock schollys is way too high and is one of the biggest sources of un-realism in the recruiting process.

Posted by jcfreder on 10/29/2016 7:20:00 PM (view original):
If # of AP per cycle is restricted, it only exacerbates the problem that it takes too much effort to unlock schollys/other actions. This will hurt teams playing catch up. The threshold to unlock schollys is way too high and is one of the biggest sources of un-realism in the recruiting process.

Start unlocking sooner. Tons of D1 players unlock scholarships in the 50-60 AP range. Even if you don't have any scholarships to start with, you can generally unlock scholarships for 4-5 guys in the first session, with no problem.

Posted by chapelhillne on 10/29/2016 9:56:00 AM (view original):
I am not sure if I like the change or not. Kind of neutral to it. I see arguments for both sides.

I like the fact that a team with 3 openings is now on equal footing with a team with 6 openings in terms of AP. Why should a team with more scholarships have an advantage in how much they can recruit. They still have some advantage in that they are a little more able to promise starts and playing time.

From my personal strategy perspective, I have often used the max AP on a player that I think I will have competition for, and I have used them to try to build up a ton of credit on a player I want to make a late play for. But 80 AP is still a lot of points. I guess if I gad 6 openings, and wanted to use this strategy, I'd put 80 on one guy, and 60 on my second choice

I think it will further increase battles a bit, and it may force coaches to have more backup options, which is not a bad thing. But, I don't see this as a huge change that will really have much of an impact.

I do appreciate the fact that the developers are still working on the game.

I hate the fact that a team with 3 openings is now on equal footing with a team with 6 openings in terms of AP. Why shouldn't a team with more scholarships have an advantage in how much they can recruit?

If I choose to place all 140 APs on a single player, I gain an advantage with that player and subsequently fall behind everyone else for my other 5 openings. What the hell...the more varied lines of strategy the better. This move limits strategy and therefore makes the game worse...and before anyone jumps on my post, class distribution IS (or should I say always was) a strategic decision.

If I have 3 open spots and you have 6, the only advantage you should have is flexibility to promise a start and minutes. If I promise a start and minutes, then your extra open scholarships should have absolutely no bearing on his decision. The fact that it always has was probably the most asinine part of 2.0, and I couldn't be more happy that it is (almost) dead.