I posted this in another thread but it'll likely get buried. I wanted to see what others thought about removing the caps for recruiting effort (20 HVs, 1CV, 80APs per cycle). This is a SIMPLE change that WIS could do and wouldn't require a rewrite of the entire program (I think). Here's my argument.


I don't think "it's all random" but I get why this is being said. The new system boxes us into a corner at D1. You can only do 20 HVs. You can only do 80 APs per cycle. You can only do 1 CV. So if I'm at UNC and my competitor is at Duke, we could likely have very similar preferences. So what happens - we both 'max' out and go 'all in' on the player. What happens next is that both of us are Very High and then an RNG will determine who wins.

I don't have a problem with the RNG necessarily and I'm fine with it for the most part. But in this situation, it's silly. I think the cap is the real problem here. If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget. But, we're handcuffed to only ~20% of our budget each. THIS is the issue which causes us to be in so many of these VH vs VH situations and makes many feel like there is no strategy. You go all in and I go all in then we roll a weighted die to see who wins.

As mbriese points out, you could also have lower tiered schools going balls deep on a guy if they choose to do so. This would prevent Duke/UK/UNC from getting a guy for nothing (one of the biggest gripes for many). I think this really shakes it up and could present us with options and strategies. Now I don't just say "okay he went all in max effort, now I know what my chances are if I go all in max effort". That system is boring IMHO.

I prefer the cap system to the lovebomb system.

There is no lovebomb system. The more schollies you have, the less money you get starting at 3 schollies and up I think. And if you lovebomb on a top recruit, no way you are getting anything else. I am thinking remove caps but keep the CV cap to 1 and five overall.

In regards to the lovebomb. I think a risk would be that you drop 80 HVs in one cycle and then you have the poaching problem. So maybe you cap the HVs to 10 a cycle or 20 a cycle. But the total number isn't capped.

There was a reason the cap was instituted after a season of beta. The first season was bad, and number of scholarships was still the primary determinant of whether you could fight for a kid or not. People weren't going to keep battling when they get knocked out of signing range by a team with equivalent prestige and preferences, but double the scholarships. Number of scholarships shouldn't be a primary factor determining the school a recruit chooses. If you want to "lovebomb" a kid, you can do that via AP, where the effect is limited by prestige and preference profile - so it's a realistic feature that doesn't turn this game back into eBay.

Removing those caps will re-introduce the "superclass" dominance. There's nothing skillful, or particularly interesting, about being able to manipulate your classes to always have max resources when you recruit.

It will also re-introduce the incentive to avoid battles.

Its a bad idea, and WIS should absolutely reject it.

Can there be a 5th option - remove all caps for D1 only?

Copied from other threads because it is true:
"What kind of "skill" is added by removing effort caps? Then it goes back to resources and scholarships and then the "skill" becomes stashing resources and avoiding battles. Back to a singular dominant strategy; talk about removing skill. The game isn't going to go back to that."
"If you weren't guaranteed to win the battle no matter how many AP, HV, CV you dropped on a player, wouldn't the complaining be 100x worse after a user loaded up on a player and still lost?"
And I don't think WIS is going to selectively destroy only D1 by removing the caps only in D1.

I think it's all just chit-chat as they did it for a reason after not having it in place. I'm not sure I've ever seen WifS make a change, make a change to the change and reverse the change months later.

And I still think, using this example "If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget", that a Duke loss creates a deluge of "That's not realistic. This sucks. I quit" threads if Duke doesn't win. Who wants that?

Thanks for voting twice using both IDs Shoe. I can tell you REALLY don't like it. Guess it seems fair you get 2 votes since your opinion is more important than anyone else.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/20/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Copied from other threads because it is true:
"What kind of "skill" is added by removing effort caps? Then it goes back to resources and scholarships and then the "skill" becomes stashing resources and avoiding battles. Back to a singular dominant strategy; talk about removing skill. The game isn't going to go back to that."
"If you weren't guaranteed to win the battle no matter how many AP, HV, CV you dropped on a player, wouldn't the complaining be 100x worse after a user loaded up on a player and still lost?"
And I don't think WIS is going to selectively destroy only D1 by removing the caps only in D1.

I don't think removing caps in D1 would destroy it at all. If anything it opens the door for a lot more strategy. Everyone has the same budget, and spending more on a player doesn't guarantee you'll get them with the preference weights. It also gets rid of the pesky "ugh I spent the max on a player and got beat out by a DII school" issue - lose out on a player, it's your own fault for not prioritizing them highly enough.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for voting twice using both IDs Shoe. I can tell you REALLY don't like it. Guess it seems fair you get 2 votes since your opinion is more important than anyone else.

If my extra vote makes a difference in the end, feel free to remove one for your own satisfaction.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for voting twice using both IDs Shoe. I can tell you REALLY don't like it. Guess it seems fair you get 2 votes since your opinion is more important than anyone else.

If my extra vote makes a difference in the end, feel free to remove one for your own satisfaction.

Yeah because that was my point.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for voting twice using both IDs Shoe. I can tell you REALLY don't like it. Guess it seems fair you get 2 votes since your opinion is more important than anyone else.

If my extra vote makes a difference in the end, feel free to remove one for your own satisfaction.

Yeah because that was my point.

Make your point then.

Posted by mbriese on 12/20/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/20/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Copied from other threads because it is true:
"What kind of "skill" is added by removing effort caps? Then it goes back to resources and scholarships and then the "skill" becomes stashing resources and avoiding battles. Back to a singular dominant strategy; talk about removing skill. The game isn't going to go back to that."
"If you weren't guaranteed to win the battle no matter how many AP, HV, CV you dropped on a player, wouldn't the complaining be 100x worse after a user loaded up on a player and still lost?"
And I don't think WIS is going to selectively destroy only D1 by removing the caps only in D1.

I don't think removing caps in D1 would destroy it at all. If anything it opens the door for a lot more strategy. Everyone has the same budget, and spending more on a player doesn't guarantee you'll get them with the preference weights. It also gets rid of the pesky "ugh I spent the max on a player and got beat out by a DII school" issue - lose out on a player, it's your own fault for not prioritizing them highly enough.

You didn't play beta, I take it. This game without caps on HVs is awful. It doesn't introduce more strategy that's not already in play, it just turns the recruiting process back into a bald bidding process, which is what 3.0 wanted to get away from in the first place.