Shoe - can you put more context around what happened in beta? In my opinion removing the caps would have the biggest effect on lower tier schools, since they could put more resources into either A. poaching players from bigger schools that aren't as high priority for them or B. going after one big fish with their resources while trying to fill other scholarships with role players using AP only.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):

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.

I created the poll because I was genuinely curious about what people thought. It's not going to determine what WIS does and therefore you don't need to make sure your side wins. The intention is to generate conversation and debate and discuss the topic. Ya know, for fun.

Basically you're just showing that you don't care about anyone else's opinion because you want to make sure the poll reflects more about what YOU think and not what others think. What's the point of that? It's a silly and meaningless poll. Yeah it's just one vote and the final data doesn't matter (at all) but clearly you think your opinion matters more.

Posted by mbriese on 12/20/2016 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Shoe - can you put more context around what happened in beta? In my opinion removing the caps would have the biggest effect on lower tier schools, since they could put more resources into either A. poaching players from bigger schools that aren't as high priority for them or B. going after one big fish with their resources while trying to fill other scholarships with role players using AP only.

The results of Beta need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. The worlds were empty and there were so many ghost ship teams. I'd estimate that there were maximum of 50 coaches actively playing at each level.

Seble implemented the 20 HV cap after the 1st or 2nd season (can't remember) and a few folks complained and asked why. He said that very few battles even get to 20 HVs so it's a rare occurrence anyway. Which I think in reality is not true at all. I've had 2 seasons at D1 in 3.0 and I've maxed out on 2 players each time. I suspect people are maxing out quite a bit now vs Beta because there are actual battles happening now. We never really got to simulate battling in real world circumstances because 1) we didn't have enough coaches and 2) we didn't have enough seasons in beta.

Posted by mbriese on 12/20/2016 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Shoe - can you put more context around what happened in beta? In my opinion removing the caps would have the biggest effect on lower tier schools, since they could put more resources into either A. poaching players from bigger schools that aren't as high priority for them or B. going after one big fish with their resources while trying to fill other scholarships with role players using AP only.

Just to be clear, I do operate 2 IDs. This is my original, shoe3 started as my son, who stopped playing (before beta) because he didn't enjoy 2.0 much, but asked me to keep up his team in Smith and update him. For what it's worth, he and I have very similar thoughts on how the game should feel.

The first season of beta was a mess. We were told that they wanted more competition for top recruits, and they wanted it to feel more like real life recruiting, and less like bidding. Specifically that they didn't want number of scholarships and distance to be primary factors in the elite recruit's decision. Before HVs were capped, there was very widespread "sniping" - poaching isn't the right term, because poaching means coming in to someone else's territory and doing something illegal, which doesn't apply to recruiting, but anyway... Lots of people lost recruits at signing cycle to snipers who just "lovebombed" them at the last minute. It was clear that this was going to be a dominant strategy, and it needed a fix. Gaming your class structure to ensure that you have maximum resources to spend when you bid... I mean recruit... isn't a good way to run a competitive simulation of real life college basketball coaching.

My preference would be to eliminate cash "resources" altogether. Recruit's decisions should be made based on his preferences, promises the coach is willing to make, and prestige of the program. This doesn't get any traction, because players want to bid, I suspect people like that feeling of control, despite the obvious (to me) absurdity of the notion of an elite recruit making a decision based on how many time a coach is willing to eat mom's pie. I accept that my vision for the game will likely never be implemented. I can live with caps, as they currently exist, both with APs and home visits.

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.

You're a weird guy.

I always go 20 HVS when I know a battle will start... I always offer minutes and start also. You have no other choice. The players you bring in, when they are any good, are locking in to start and to play minutes.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 12/20/2016 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Shoe - can you put more context around what happened in beta? In my opinion removing the caps would have the biggest effect on lower tier schools, since they could put more resources into either A. poaching players from bigger schools that aren't as high priority for them or B. going after one big fish with their resources while trying to fill other scholarships with role players using AP only.

Just to be clear, I do operate 2 IDs. This is my original, shoe3 started as my son, who stopped playing (before beta) because he didn't enjoy 2.0 much, but asked me to keep up his team in Smith and update him. For what it's worth, he and I have very similar thoughts on how the game should feel.

The first season of beta was a mess. We were told that they wanted more competition for top recruits, and they wanted it to feel more like real life recruiting, and less like bidding. Specifically that they didn't want number of scholarships and distance to be primary factors in the elite recruit's decision. Before HVs were capped, there was very widespread "sniping" - poaching isn't the right term, because poaching means coming in to someone else's territory and doing something illegal, which doesn't apply to recruiting, but anyway... Lots of people lost recruits at signing cycle to snipers who just "lovebombed" them at the last minute. It was clear that this was going to be a dominant strategy, and it needed a fix. Gaming your class structure to ensure that you have maximum resources to spend when you bid... I mean recruit... isn't a good way to run a competitive simulation of real life college basketball coaching.

My preference would be to eliminate cash "resources" altogether. Recruit's decisions should be made based on his preferences, promises the coach is willing to make, and prestige of the program. This doesn't get any traction, because players want to bid, I suspect people like that feeling of control, despite the obvious (to me) absurdity of the notion of an elite recruit making a decision based on how many time a coach is willing to eat mom's pie. I accept that my vision for the game will likely never be implemented. I can live with caps, as they currently exist, both with APs and home visits.

First, and most importantly, I'm going to assume that know what you mean by "eat a mom's pie", and I would argue that that would be a huge recruiting chip, albeit an immoral / probably illegal one.

Unless I'm missing something (I probably am - I usually am), you could eliminate lovebombing by capping interactions on a per-cycle basis. I don't see any problem with that, but I still think removing the overall cap would open the door for more strategy. I don't disagree with the notion that the most realistic way would be to base everything on preferences, promises, and prestige (the 3 P's of logical and realistic recruiting, lookie there), but that's not fun. This is a game. I want that sweet-spot middle ground that lies in between a true SIM and an interactive game where dozens of strategies can be factored in to the end result.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):

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.

I created the poll because I was genuinely curious about what people thought. It's not going to determine what WIS does and therefore you don't need to make sure your side wins. The intention is to generate conversation and debate and discuss the topic. Ya know, for fun.

Basically you're just showing that you don't care about anyone else's opinion because you want to make sure the poll reflects more about what YOU think and not what others think. What's the point of that? It's a silly and meaningless poll. Yeah it's just one vote and the final data doesn't matter (at all) but clearly you think your opinion matters more.

So if it's silly and meaningless, why not accept that some people with multiple IDs may occasionally vote more than once? Do I believe that no one else would vote twice? Do I even know who has multiple IDs? Do you? No. I voted twice because I assumed others may as well. And it's silly and meaningless, but it also represents what this forum can often be - an echo chamber, where only certain types of people with certain types of opinions hang out to actually discuss them. On both IDs, I had fewer than 100 total posts in 2 1/2 years prior to beta. The reason I started posting more is because it was becoming apparent that the negativity was threatening to sabotage what I felt were *very* positive changes to the game. I enjoy 3.0, and I want others to enjoy it.

Since benis has his panties bunched so much, I might create a dozen aliases just to vote multiple times.

Posted by mbriese on 12/20/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 12/20/2016 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Shoe - can you put more context around what happened in beta? In my opinion removing the caps would have the biggest effect on lower tier schools, since they could put more resources into either A. poaching players from bigger schools that aren't as high priority for them or B. going after one big fish with their resources while trying to fill other scholarships with role players using AP only.

Just to be clear, I do operate 2 IDs. This is my original, shoe3 started as my son, who stopped playing (before beta) because he didn't enjoy 2.0 much, but asked me to keep up his team in Smith and update him. For what it's worth, he and I have very similar thoughts on how the game should feel.

The first season of beta was a mess. We were told that they wanted more competition for top recruits, and they wanted it to feel more like real life recruiting, and less like bidding. Specifically that they didn't want number of scholarships and distance to be primary factors in the elite recruit's decision. Before HVs were capped, there was very widespread "sniping" - poaching isn't the right term, because poaching means coming in to someone else's territory and doing something illegal, which doesn't apply to recruiting, but anyway... Lots of people lost recruits at signing cycle to snipers who just "lovebombed" them at the last minute. It was clear that this was going to be a dominant strategy, and it needed a fix. Gaming your class structure to ensure that you have maximum resources to spend when you bid... I mean recruit... isn't a good way to run a competitive simulation of real life college basketball coaching.

My preference would be to eliminate cash "resources" altogether. Recruit's decisions should be made based on his preferences, promises the coach is willing to make, and prestige of the program. This doesn't get any traction, because players want to bid, I suspect people like that feeling of control, despite the obvious (to me) absurdity of the notion of an elite recruit making a decision based on how many time a coach is willing to eat mom's pie. I accept that my vision for the game will likely never be implemented. I can live with caps, as they currently exist, both with APs and home visits.

First, and most importantly, I'm going to assume that know what you mean by "eat a mom's pie", and I would argue that that would be a huge recruiting chip, albeit an immoral / probably illegal one.

Unless I'm missing something (I probably am - I usually am), you could eliminate lovebombing by capping interactions on a per-cycle basis. I don't see any problem with that, but I still think removing the overall cap would open the door for more strategy. I don't disagree with the notion that the most realistic way would be to base everything on preferences, promises, and prestige (the 3 P's of logical and realistic recruiting, lookie there), but that's not fun. This is a game. I want that sweet-spot middle ground that lies in between a true SIM and an interactive game where dozens of strategies can be factored in to the end result.

That's the third time I've used that line, and you're the first to bite, so kudos. :) I was very surprised when mully let that go.

Capping per cycle would be better than nothing, but it's a half-measure. It alleviates sniping, but it doesn't address the disincentive to battle someone for an elite recruit when you know he has twice the scholarship resources to spend.

In the old game, this was the "snowball" effect. People probably called it by other names, but the general idea was that elite teams with lots of scholarships (EEs help recruiting in both ways, prestige and scholarships) rarely got challenged for *anyone* because of their obvious advantage in any single recruiting battle or 3. So when they don't get challenged for their top 4 targets, they can pick off whoever they want for their last 2. If I had to guess, I'd speculate that eliminating this process was priority #1 for Seble and whoever else had an interest in attracting and retaining new customers. After a season of beta, it was clear that with no HV caps, the snowball was going nowhere in 3.0. If anything, it would proliferate because now teams can keep their targets mostly hidden, if they choose. So if you see Duke, with A+ prestige, and twice the scholarship resources pop up on the first considering list, are you going to fight for that recruit? You'll have no shot, and you'll find that out after testing it once. So teams are going to lay off when they see Duke.

"I voted twice because I assumed others may as well."

Wow. Still not getting it.

Assuming that the person who spends the most $ gets the recruit, I see your point, but with those added 3.0 factors (multipliers for preferences / promises) I don't see it playing out that way. That being said, I didn't take part in beta and have been doing this for a much shorter time period than you have, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I'd love to make a low D1 team competitive someday, and that's what I think of when I picture recruiting without a per-recruit cap (with the caveat being that there's a per-cycle cap, based on what you've said about lovebombs).

Here's the issue, to me, I see with your argument PK/Shoe. You're in the old 2.0 mindset where 6 openings creates such a huge advantage. It's been mitigated a lot.

No more rollover.
No more postseason bonus cash.
No more rolling over of postseason bonus cash.
Preferences were implemented
Recruiting caps were eliminated so now a D- prestige can actually send effort to a 5 star.
The allocation of recruiting cash was changed and now you get some baseline.
Variable/probalistic signing (RNG)
They say prestige impact hasn't changed but maybe this up for debate

If I have 3 openings, I get $14 grand. Whether I'm at Duke or Elon. If I have 6 openings I have $23 grand. This is not double.

I think it could INCREASE battling and actually make it harder for A+ teams. If I'm at New Mexico State, I take my 6 openings and go big on a couple 5 star guys against Duke, whether he has 6 openings or 2. Because I know he has much more to risk if he loses. Can he go 50 HVs too? Sure. But then how will he beat other teams? That's quite a big risk for him to take if he wants to compete in the ACC. I'm in the Big South, I can handle losing that battle and taking an average player as a backup.

I feel like a few people are terrified of A+ prestige schools taking over and I don't see it. They're going to have so many more schools to compete against based upon all the changes I listed above. 6 openings or not, I'm coming for them, even with my D prestige.

Edit- In fact I'm MORE likely to come at them if I think I could outspend them. If I know we both max out, I will likely lose due to prestige.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):
"I voted twice because I assumed others may as well."

Wow. Still not getting it.

No I get it. You take this poll more seriously than I do, and concurrently want to make it look like I care so much more about it than you do that I would dare violate its integrity by doing something anyone else with multiple IDs can do. Incoherent point, but I get it.

If it makes you feel better, Matt (original shoe3) is home on semester break. I just explained the new process to him, and he agrees with me. Removing caps are a bad idea. And also, he may pick the game up again (though I'll still be paying for it, at least until he's out of college). So win for 3.0 all around.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):
"I voted twice because I assumed others may as well."

Wow. Still not getting it.

No I get it. You take this poll more seriously than I do, and concurrently want to make it look like I care so much more about it than you do that I would dare violate its integrity by doing something anyone else with multiple IDs can do. Incoherent point, but I get it.

If it makes you feel better, Matt (original shoe3) is home on semester break. I just explained the new process to him, and he agrees with me. Removing caps are a bad idea. And also, he may pick the game up again (though I'll still be paying for it, at least until he's out of college). So win for 3.0 all around.

Sigh.