Yes - I think that it is because it is at D3. A lot of my D1 teams have Very good for success. I don't have enough time at D2 or D3 yet to see there.

It's definitely broken at D3. I've been asking around to some really good D3 coaches and no one has Very Good preference. Even teams with multiple Titles in the past 4 seasons.

Posted by tarvolon on 12/6/2016 7:23:00 PM (view original):
I think it's not relativized for division. I have had A+ prestige D3 teams that were Good or Neutral but C+ prestige D1 teams that were good (and B+ prestige that were very good IIRC). D1 teams need a lot less than D3 to get into the positives for the success preference.

I also think this is true. Your score is modified for division so the a Div-2 team scores lower than a Div-1 team with similar success.

Posted by Benis on 12/9/2016 6:47:00 AM (view original):
It's definitely broken at D3. I've been asking around to some really good D3 coaches and no one has Very Good preference. Even teams with multiple Titles in the past 4 seasons.

Has to be on an absolute scale, so Div3 guys with A+ are not better than Div2, etc.. Since we all recruit the same recruits.

I get what youre saying hughes but thats not how its supposed to work. There is already a division multiplier to take that in to account. thats what seble told us.

Why can you get a Very Good preference in D3 for Conference then? Why can you get a Very Good for strong defense in D3? why would they make this one preference like that but not the others?

Its broke.

During Beta we asked Seble if preferences were stronger at higher levels compared to lower ones. He said no, its all the same multiplier. There is a separate division multiplier. Criteria shouldnt be different between divisions.

Posted by Benis on 12/9/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):
I get what youre saying hughes but thats not how its supposed to work. There is already a division multiplier to take that in to account. thats what seble told us.

Why can you get a Very Good preference in D3 for Conference then? Why can you get a Very Good for strong defense in D3? why would they make this one preference like that but not the others?

Its broke.

I doubt it's broke. I suppose it's possible it's not working as intended, but very unlikely, I would think. The success preference puts a team on a continuum for the recruit. It's a mistake to think of it like something your team achieves, like prestige. D3 teams are more likely to get better credit from recruits wanting rebuilds. They are less likely to get a positive modifier from recruits wanting success. That's all this means.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/9/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/9/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):
I get what youre saying hughes but thats not how its supposed to work. There is already a division multiplier to take that in to account. thats what seble told us.

Why can you get a Very Good preference in D3 for Conference then? Why can you get a Very Good for strong defense in D3? why would they make this one preference like that but not the others?

Its broke.

I doubt it's broke. I suppose it's possible it's not working as intended, but very unlikely, I would think. The success preference puts a team on a continuum for the recruit. It's a mistake to think of it like something your team achieves, like prestige. D3 teams are more likely to get better credit from recruits wanting rebuilds. They are less likely to get a positive modifier from recruits wanting success. That's all this means.

Huh?

"D3 teams are more likely to get better credit from recruits wanting rebuilds. They are less likely to get a positive modifier from recruits wanting success." Really? Where did you read this? That's not my understanding at all. I mean, yes, it makes sense, sort of. But that's not how it was described in Beta. And if we're comparing everything to D1 then it should also apply to D2 then too?

I didn't read it anywhere, it's my understanding from playing the game. I think your expectation is based on an interpretation of something Seble said, which is probably not what he meant to imply, that is that the criteria for determining success at each level is the same. The weight given for each category can be the same, but they can still have different criteria for establishing those categories within each division. I'm almost positive that's what he meant, based on how 3.0 has played.

A D+ D1 team can be neutral for "wants success" (that's CSUN, for example). I don't think that's true for D2.

And anyway, wouldn't that be good news, if your primary concern is the prevalence of lower division "superteams"? This feature is one thing that mitigates that concern.

I suppose that does help the little guys a little more. So now one of the preferences are only Good instead of Very Good... Or it's worse and neutralizes some of the potential benefit a rebuilding team could have. Because inversely if you're only Good then that means you're only Bad on rebuild.

So, if I'm rebuilding I could try to go for a team that wants rebuild and get a Very Good and the other "superteam" would have a Very Bad. This could help offset the prestige difference.

But it's not that way and it's impossible to get a Very Good at D3 it seems.

The way I look at it as at D1, bad teams get less credit from "wants rebuild" guys than good teams get credit for "wants success" guys. There's less variance at low D1 than mid-high D1. Lipscomb is D-, and only goes from bad (success) to good. At D3, it's reversed (maybe, someone with low D3 would have to substantiate). There isn't much variance at the top. Bottom level guys get more of an advantage with recruits who want a rebuild, than top teams get with recruits who want success.

I really don't get why they'd program it this way. Why have the 5 levels if you're making some of them impossible to reach and cap it.

So you have for team success very little distinction between teams that have won multiple national championships and those who have 1st round exits. The purpose was supposed to add realism with these preferences. By not making much distinction between these, you're not doing that in my opinion.

But I guess that's why I keep saying this is nothing like real life.

If I'm a recruit, and I want success, the difference between D- Lipscomb and B Tennessee is enormous. The difference between A+ CNU and C- Augsburg isn't quite as big a deal. If I want a rebuild, to be the shining star, foundational player for the University, a campus god for all to behold, then the reverse is probably true. D3 teams would get more of that modifier advantage than D1 teams.

I don't see how this is unrealistic. I think it actually works - in its limited way - to make both divisions more realistic.

I totally disagree that there isn't a big difference between a perennial powerhouse at D3 vs a scrub team who hasn't made the postseason in 50 seasons. In real life this would matter to a recruit, big time.

If a kid is only recruited by lower division schools (as we all know, D3 schools don't offer scholarships, so it's already apples and oranges) that difference doesn't matter *as much* as it would matter if he was being recruited by D1 teams. That's the point. It does matter, as reflected in the difference between good and bad. But it's less likely to be a primary factor. I think that's true to real life.