Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):
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.

So you dont like people having varying opinions?

Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 7:51:00 PM (view original):

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.

Smith - 2 EEs . Went after a late recruit who was only considering a SIM. He signed with SIM 1st cycle 2nd session. How am I supposed to compete with that?

Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 8:26:00 PM (view original):
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.

None of this is personal, pkoopman.

If I have 6 and you have 3, then I should have every advantage possible. 6 > 3. Next season, you will have 3 and I will have 0. Now the advantage lies with you. My main issue with this change is that WIS stated the reason for the change is that it was "unfair." Class distribution is a choice we all get to make. The only way it would be "unfair" is if some teams were allowed to have max openings and other teams were not. However, we ALL can choose to have 0-6 openings in any given season. That decision comes with positives and negatives but it is a choice. Anything that limits choice and strategic richness is bad for the game.

Posted by Benis on 10/29/2016 8:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):
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.

So you dont like people having varying opinions?

I don't like people expecting to have their opinions catered to, but what I like or don't like wasn't the point. The point is that people at once want and don't want a "problem" fixed. Hilariously, some people now think that reducing the power of APs is an example of WIS wanting to harm teams with EEs.

A lot of people get into the forums and share their snap judgments without any evidence of foresight. I hope WIS treats their opinions with exactly the amount of weight they deserve.

Posted by mullycj on 10/29/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 7:51:00 PM (view original):

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.

Smith - 2 EEs . Went after a late recruit who was only considering a SIM. He signed with SIM 1st cycle 2nd session. How am I supposed to compete with that?

Had you offered a scholarship? Unlocked visits for the first cycle? The idea is to be able to extend your effort and have it considered before he signs. If you had unlocked visits for the start of the second session, then I agree with you, it's a problem if they sign without considering your effort. That's why there should be a signing-free cycle at the start of the second period.

But if you didn't get the visits unlocked before the late session, then you didn't play your best game.

I think with the CAP this eliminates any chance schools with EE's have an opportunity to actually catch up on a player in the shortened 2nd session. If you have the 80 AP cap I think the 2nd period should be extended (I already think that, but this makes it more necessary).

Posted by gomiami1972 on 10/29/2016 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 8:26:00 PM (view original):
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.

None of this is personal, pkoopman.

If I have 6 and you have 3, then I should have every advantage possible. 6 > 3. Next season, you will have 3 and I will have 0. Now the advantage lies with you. My main issue with this change is that WIS stated the reason for the change is that it was "unfair." Class distribution is a choice we all get to make. The only way it would be "unfair" is if some teams were allowed to have max openings and other teams were not. However, we ALL can choose to have 0-6 openings in any given season. That decision comes with positives and negatives but it is a choice. Anything that limits choice and strategic richness is bad for the game.

Honestly, I think running with a 6-6 class structure is bad for 3.0. Kinda like how fast break/press powerhouses at division 3 were cream of the crops the real deal. Having to recruit early and recruit 6 out of 6 players is not ideal and I wouldn't recommend it to anybody who thinks they are going to forget about recruiting. I honestly think class structure has a lot to do with recruiting potential and recruiting effort and fast break/ press teams are now unreliable unless unless you fix the class structure.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 10/29/2016 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 8:26:00 PM (view original):
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.

None of this is personal, pkoopman.

If I have 6 and you have 3, then I should have every advantage possible. 6 > 3. Next season, you will have 3 and I will have 0. Now the advantage lies with you. My main issue with this change is that WIS stated the reason for the change is that it was "unfair." Class distribution is a choice we all get to make. The only way it would be "unfair" is if some teams were allowed to have max openings and other teams were not. However, we ALL can choose to have 0-6 openings in any given season. That decision comes with positives and negatives but it is a choice. Anything that limits choice and strategic richness is bad for the game.

I agree it's not personal. My use of the term asinine is simply a reflection of my distaste for the system that used to exist, not for the people who enjoyed it. :)

If you have 6 and I have 3 in real life, the only advantage you would have is feeling less conflicted about offering more promises. That's exactly how this system should work. Recruits should make decisions based on preferences, promises, and prestige. That's all. Nobody chooses Duke over Kansas because Duke has fewer scholarship players that season.

Regarding strategy, not every strategy needs to be rewarded. Rewarding class structure choices doesn't make any intuitive sense. Reward good, efficient scouting, reward recruiting prioritization, reward finding under-appreciated value, reward game planning and reward team structure. There's no reason to reward being able to lump 6 scholarships into two classes. It's not rewarded in real life, it doesn't make the game better, it's not a better simulation of basketball, nor does it tell us who plays the game with the most skill. Let that strategy die with 2.0.

Posted by gvsujulius on 10/29/2016 9:24:00 PM (view original):
I think with the CAP this eliminates any chance schools with EE's have an opportunity to actually catch up on a player in the shortened 2nd session. If you have the 80 AP cap I think the 2nd period should be extended (I already think that, but this makes it more necessary).

It does the opposite. As long as you actively recruit in the first session with your EE possibilities in mind, it prevents other schools from burying you. I'd prefer APs just be used to unlock scholarships and recruiting actions, but a cap is better than nothing. If I have a team with expected EEs, I'd rather my rivals be capped, than get to spend unlimited APs that actually have recruiting weight in that first session.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 9:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 10/29/2016 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 8:26:00 PM (view original):
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.

None of this is personal, pkoopman.

If I have 6 and you have 3, then I should have every advantage possible. 6 > 3. Next season, you will have 3 and I will have 0. Now the advantage lies with you. My main issue with this change is that WIS stated the reason for the change is that it was "unfair." Class distribution is a choice we all get to make. The only way it would be "unfair" is if some teams were allowed to have max openings and other teams were not. However, we ALL can choose to have 0-6 openings in any given season. That decision comes with positives and negatives but it is a choice. Anything that limits choice and strategic richness is bad for the game.

I agree it's not personal. My use of the term asinine is simply a reflection of my distaste for the system that used to exist, not for the people who enjoyed it. :)

If you have 6 and I have 3 in real life, the only advantage you would have is feeling less conflicted about offering more promises. That's exactly how this system should work. Recruits should make decisions based on preferences, promises, and prestige. That's all. Nobody chooses Duke over Kansas because Duke has fewer scholarship players that season.

Regarding strategy, not every strategy needs to be rewarded. Rewarding class structure choices doesn't make any intuitive sense. Reward good, efficient scouting, reward recruiting prioritization, reward finding under-appreciated value, reward game planning and reward team structure. There's no reason to reward being able to lump 6 scholarships into two classes. It's not rewarded in real life, it doesn't make the game better, it's not a better simulation of basketball, nor does it tell us who plays the game with the most skill. Let that strategy die with 2.0.

OK, we'll just disagree on this one because I do believe that every strategy should be rewarded or punished based on its inherent strength or weakness. You want to have a 3-3-3-3 class structure, good for you. I want to have a 6-0-6-0 class structure. One should not be punished over the other. If WIS thinks 6 openings is "unfair" then re-write the damn program to prevent it from being possible. 4 openings being the max or whatever. Allowing a choice to be on the table and then punishing someone for selecting that choice is, to use your word, what is asinine. :)

Posted by pkoopman on 10/29/2016 3:43:00 PM (view original):

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.

and what do you do if you have 2 or 3 possible EEs at different spots? lets say you have 2 kids graduating and then may have 1,2 or 3 EEs - at different positions

you cant do nearly enough first cycle effort to cover yourself - and now in the second cycle when you may have lots of APs you cant concentrate them

surprise EEs or large numbers of EEs getting worse - terrible transition results likely

one other note - this is a really big change - are they posting something in coaches corners to alert people? they should

this also is a change that affects the dynamic balance of the game in a way that wasnt explored or tested in the beta - big change - rife with prospects of unforeseen consequences. Would have been great to try in the BETA to see what it does to all sorts of stuff.....

another nail in the coffin for me - I see no way in which I can handle the next recruiting cycle for my team - hopeless - I will soon give up on what could have been a really great game

seble stated that he envisioned a "winning" strategy under 3.0 entailing coaches persuing backup options; not going "all-in" on just 1 or 2 guys. But the system is really not built to allow spreading around effort too much, at least for high D1. The unlock threshold works directly against this strategy, and it is too easy for low-tier programs to compete for top talent.

The whole 6>3 argument discussed above is interesting. I personally thing changing budgets based on openings is wildly unrealistic.

I wish people would stop trying to say "this would not happen in real life" because guess what, this is not real life. It's a game based on numbers, not feelings and emotions.