Has anyone really blocked me? Do you guys understand the purpose of blocking someone is to not be tempted to read and respond to them?

You don't understand the purpose of the caps if you keep calling for them to be eliminated or raised substantially. You simply do not understand. And I'm not inclined to repeat myself. Read my post again. Or have someone explain it to you.

And, you might read up on the meaning of "troll" or "trolling". Something like this qualifies: "Mike, your such an annoying person, I blocked you, and now all I see when I scroll down posts is 20 billion banners, and a bunch of retarded off topic arguments directed at you. You are a poison to this forum, you don't contribute anything helpful it's all "stop whining" "I play HBD" "quit if you don't like it" " you lost get over it". Your arguments are so dumb it's ridiculous." ESPECIALLY when the person you're addressing hasn't mentioned you, addressed you or even acknowledged your existence for weeks. Even moreso when it comes in the middle of an extended discussion that YOU were not taking part in. Dumbass.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 9:20:00 AM (view original):
Has anyone really blocked me? Do you guys understand the purpose of blocking someone is to not be tempted to read and respond to them?

You don't understand the purpose of the caps if you keep calling for them to be eliminated or raised substantially. You simply do not understand. And I'm not inclined to repeat myself. Read my post again. Or have someone explain it to you.

And, you might read up on the meaning of "troll" or "trolling". Something like this qualifies: "Mike, your such an annoying person, I blocked you, and now all I see when I scroll down posts is 20 billion banners, and a bunch of retarded off topic arguments directed at you. You are a poison to this forum, you don't contribute anything helpful it's all "stop whining" "I play HBD" "quit if you don't like it" " you lost get over it". Your arguments are so dumb it's ridiculous." ESPECIALLY when the person you're addressing hasn't mentioned you, addressed you or even acknowledged your existence for weeks. Even moreso when it comes in the middle of an extended discussion that YOU were not taking part in. Dumbass.

Mike I don't want to go back. I never had the A+ advantage. When the game changed, I was still building my two D1 teams. I am having some success with the new system, I just want it to be more strategic. It's less strategic at D3 and D1 than it was under 2.0. D1 is a luck oriented product and D3 has no battles anymore, just a wait and hope recruiting thing with location now being the most important criteria when thinking strategy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 9:09:00 AM (view original):
No. Really most of the complaining is coming from folks who want to roll back the clock. Where Duke stakes a claim and everyone else is forced to run away. Where the same 10-12 teams cherrypick their recruits and fight each other for the NT season after season. Where anything less than 30-2 is consider a "poor" season. Where you can claim you "earned" the advantages that keep you at the top of the mountain. And many of the users who played that game are just fine with the updates and have adapted.

You pretend as if anyone not playing D1 simply cannot understand the concept of losing battles and having no way to land another top recruit. That's just a false pretense. HD is not some unique universe where you put a lot into something, get nothing back and have no other resources to gamble big again. That is a life concept. So, please, I beg of you, stop saying "If you play D1, you will see what I mean" because it's just nonsense.

Your first paragraph is categorically false -- I don't know of anyone who is saying "let's go back to 2.0." I think all of those players quit already. It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you keep building the same ridiculous strawmen.

What some people are saying in this thread (I think) are three things: (1) that the 20 HV cap should be increased in DI to increase tactical complexity within a battle; (2) that the battles in high DI are pretty boring and there is not a lot of complexity to them, since you just max out your 20 HV, your CV, and hope for the best; and (3) that if you go "all in" and lose, there should be some way to compensate the losing coach.

Re: the first, I'd be in favor of a minor increase to the 20 HV cap -- maybe to 25 -- but if you raise it too much, it turns into "I win because I have more open schollys" which is a dumb way to decide battles.

Re: the second, this is absolutely true. It's the difference between strategy and tactics. Seems to me that there is a lot more strategy in 3.0 with regard to recruiting, i.e., who do I go after, where do I scout, do I go all-in on this recruit, but once you've decided to go all-in, your tactics are limited -- you just max out and hope for the best.

Re: the third, amazingly enough, I agree with you (again, this is why the strawmen you keep building aren't helping your cause). You go all in and lose, that's too bad. I'd be in favor of tweaking some things so that battles aren't as much of a crapshoot (for example, I think for certain preferences (distance from home, success/rebuild), it should be nearly impossible for a coach to win unless he is VH on that preference -- I think that for "wants to play," a coach should have pretty much no chance unless he offers a start), but if you go all in and lose, them's the breaks.

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/2/2017 9:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 6:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 3/1/2017 8:57:00 PM (view original):
APs should be capped (as in the total amount you can give), have less value, or have diminishing returns, because the reason why you can't develop backup options in a battle is because if you drop the AP ball for 2 cycles to unlock another recruit, your now down a considerable amount in the battle and there is no way to make it up because most likely the other team won't drop the AP ball and you can't catch back up.

I hate the "quit if you don't like it" because the whole reason the whole system is screwed is because a small amount of people whined enough to get the admin to change it, and now that they got their change they are saying to everyone else stfu.

You cant honestly tell me that this recruiting system is perfect, there are changes to be made. We have to discuss issues in order to find the best solution.

Mike, your such an annoying person, I blocked you, and now all I see when I scroll down posts is 20 billion banners, and a bunch of retarded off topic arguments directed at you. You are a poison to this forum, you don't contribute anything helpful it's all "stop whining" "I play HBD" "quit if you don't like it" " you lost get over it". Your arguments are so dumb it's ridiculous.

If you remove the caps on HVs and CVs it won't be the same as the old system because there will still be dice rolls, but it will allow people to actually put a priority on players and put more money into players that are important to them. It would allow smaller prestige schools to fight for players with the big guys because they can put a high priority on a player and knock off the big guys that don't care that much about that particular player. 20 HVs is not enough of a spread, it should at least be like a 30 cap or 40, so teams will have to chose between investing fully into different players.

I'm almost positive you're mentally challenged.

HV/CV are capped so users with massive resources just can't spend their way to the best players. It's an intentional change. It encourages competition for the top players. The sooner you understand this, the happier you'll be. But, since I think you're likely mentally challenged, it may take awhile.

First off this response proves my point that you are a poison to the forums because your just trying to troll me by calling me retarded.

I know what the purpose of the caps are, I am saying that it is wrong, because you can't set yourself apart from anyone else at all unless you dump all of your APs into a player and can't develop backup options because of that. You should be able to set yourself apart from other people, 20 simply isn't high enough, I can have a local guy and spend like 4,500$ on my top target, that's way to easy to go all in on a recruit, there should be some sacrifice for going all in, you shouldn't be able to go all in on all of your targets. The cap needs to be higher.

Totally agree.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 9:20:00 AM (view original):
Has anyone really blocked me? Do you guys understand the purpose of blocking someone is to not be tempted to read and respond to them?

You don't understand the purpose of the caps if you keep calling for them to be eliminated or raised substantially. You simply do not understand. And I'm not inclined to repeat myself. Read my post again. Or have someone explain it to you.

And, you might read up on the meaning of "troll" or "trolling". Something like this qualifies: "Mike, your such an annoying person, I blocked you, and now all I see when I scroll down posts is 20 billion banners, and a bunch of retarded off topic arguments directed at you. You are a poison to this forum, you don't contribute anything helpful it's all "stop whining" "I play HBD" "quit if you don't like it" " you lost get over it". Your arguments are so dumb it's ridiculous." ESPECIALLY when the person you're addressing hasn't mentioned you, addressed you or even acknowledged your existence for weeks. Even moreso when it comes in the middle of an extended discussion that YOU were not taking part in. Dumbass.

Way too long. Didn't read.

End the conversation about compensating if you lose zorzii. Its not helping your case or anyone else's. Its a horrible idea.

I do agree that the HV cap should be changed.

zorzi, it's just a different strategy. There is no longer a guarantee, regardless of effort, that you'll get a contested recruit. I do not know if one should bail if a 3rd school joins the fray, if it's better to stay in 3-4 way battles or to seek uncontested, lesser players, find 1vs1 battles, etc, etc, but there is a strategy in setting yourself up to succeed. EVERYONE is playing the same game. Your rival has to make the same decisions. The best users will still be the best if they adapt. If they continue to long for the good ol' days, they're going to get left behind.

With that said, I'd be all for restricting D2/D3 from D1 recruits with limits. Off the top of my head, the Top 250 would be off limits for both D2/D3. Can't even discover them. Then, for D3, maybe Top 125 at every position. Same deal, can't even find them. That would leave more D1 players available deep into RS2 for the D1 teams that get shutout. That 123 PG isn't going to lead a D1 team but hopefully he won't kill them either.

Posted by Benis on 3/2/2017 9:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 9:20:00 AM (view original):
Has anyone really blocked me? Do you guys understand the purpose of blocking someone is to not be tempted to read and respond to them?

You don't understand the purpose of the caps if you keep calling for them to be eliminated or raised substantially. You simply do not understand. And I'm not inclined to repeat myself. Read my post again. Or have someone explain it to you.

And, you might read up on the meaning of "troll" or "trolling". Something like this qualifies: "Mike, your such an annoying person, I blocked you, and now all I see when I scroll down posts is 20 billion banners, and a bunch of retarded off topic arguments directed at you. You are a poison to this forum, you don't contribute anything helpful it's all "stop whining" "I play HBD" "quit if you don't like it" " you lost get over it". Your arguments are so dumb it's ridiculous." ESPECIALLY when the person you're addressing hasn't mentioned you, addressed you or even acknowledged your existence for weeks. Even moreso when it comes in the middle of an extended discussion that YOU were not taking part in. Dumbass.

Way too long. Didn't read.

Ditto.

"With that said, I'd be all for restricting D2/D3 from D1 recruits with limits. Off the top of my head, the Top 250 would be off limits for both D2/D3. Can't even discover them. Then, for D3, maybe Top 125 at every position. Same deal, can't even find them. That would leave more D1 players available deep into RS2 for the D1 teams that get shutout. That 123 PG isn't going to lead a D1 team but hopefully he won't kill them either."

You're basically describing how it worked in 2.0. I thought that was a great system and I have no idea why they moved away from it. Wardo should celebrate with another beer because I actually agree with you Mike. 100%.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 9:43:00 AM (view original):
zorzi, it's just a different strategy. There is no longer a guarantee, regardless of effort, that you'll get a contested recruit. I do not know if one should bail if a 3rd school joins the fray, if it's better to stay in 3-4 way battles or to seek uncontested, lesser players, find 1vs1 battles, etc, etc, but there is a strategy in setting yourself up to succeed. EVERYONE is playing the same game. Your rival has to make the same decisions. The best users will still be the best if they adapt. If they continue to long for the good ol' days, they're going to get left behind.

With that said, I'd be all for restricting D2/D3 from D1 recruits with limits. Off the top of my head, the Top 250 would be off limits for both D2/D3. Can't even discover them. Then, for D3, maybe Top 125 at every position. Same deal, can't even find them. That would leave more D1 players available deep into RS2 for the D1 teams that get shutout. That 123 PG isn't going to lead a D1 team but hopefully he won't kill them either.

Wow, you just decided to go with my idea.

Posted by johnsensing on 3/2/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 9:09:00 AM (view original):
No. Really most of the complaining is coming from folks who want to roll back the clock. Where Duke stakes a claim and everyone else is forced to run away. Where the same 10-12 teams cherrypick their recruits and fight each other for the NT season after season. Where anything less than 30-2 is consider a "poor" season. Where you can claim you "earned" the advantages that keep you at the top of the mountain. And many of the users who played that game are just fine with the updates and have adapted.

You pretend as if anyone not playing D1 simply cannot understand the concept of losing battles and having no way to land another top recruit. That's just a false pretense. HD is not some unique universe where you put a lot into something, get nothing back and have no other resources to gamble big again. That is a life concept. So, please, I beg of you, stop saying "If you play D1, you will see what I mean" because it's just nonsense.

Your first paragraph is categorically false -- I don't know of anyone who is saying "let's go back to 2.0." I think all of those players quit already. It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you keep building the same ridiculous strawmen.

What some people are saying in this thread (I think) are three things: (1) that the 20 HV cap should be increased in DI to increase tactical complexity within a battle; (2) that the battles in high DI are pretty boring and there is not a lot of complexity to them, since you just max out your 20 HV, your CV, and hope for the best; and (3) that if you go "all in" and lose, there should be some way to compensate the losing coach.

Re: the first, I'd be in favor of a minor increase to the 20 HV cap -- maybe to 25 -- but if you raise it too much, it turns into "I win because I have more open schollys" which is a dumb way to decide battles.

Re: the second, this is absolutely true. It's the difference between strategy and tactics. Seems to me that there is a lot more strategy in 3.0 with regard to recruiting, i.e., who do I go after, where do I scout, do I go all-in on this recruit, but once you've decided to go all-in, your tactics are limited -- you just max out and hope for the best.

Re: the third, amazingly enough, I agree with you (again, this is why the strawmen you keep building aren't helping your cause). You go all in and lose, that's too bad. I'd be in favor of tweaking some things so that battles aren't as much of a crapshoot (for example, I think for certain preferences (distance from home, success/rebuild), it should be nearly impossible for a coach to win unless he is VH on that preference -- I think that for "wants to play," a coach should have pretty much no chance unless he offers a start), but if you go all in and lose, them's the breaks.

Well, it's the internet. People are prone to exaggeration. Most of the complaining is from people hoping to roll back to "some" components of 2.0. Most specifically, a "guarantee" or way to greatly improve one's chances of landing a recruit. It's simply a desire to discourage other users from battling them for a recruit.

1. Agree. I assumed that the limit of 20 was carefully thought out so that D1 would always have a big advantage in being able to offer 20 to a D2's 15/D3's 5(or whatever number is correct). Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe 25 is the number. Or maybe it's 15. But I'd hate to see a 3 opening D1 be able to offer more than a 1 opening D1. They already have the 80/40 AP advantage. Making a HV advantage available is a rolling back of the clock.

2. Obviously agree.

3. I'd be for a few of the preferences being tweaked to create a huge advantage. Success/Rebuild is a gimme. As is Wants to Play. Distance is an odd one. Does the kid want to drive home on the weekend? Have friends/family at the games? Is 210 that much different than 198? It would almost have to be a sliding scale and I bet that would be a ***** to program.

Posted by zorzii on 3/2/2017 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 9:43:00 AM (view original):
zorzi, it's just a different strategy. There is no longer a guarantee, regardless of effort, that you'll get a contested recruit. I do not know if one should bail if a 3rd school joins the fray, if it's better to stay in 3-4 way battles or to seek uncontested, lesser players, find 1vs1 battles, etc, etc, but there is a strategy in setting yourself up to succeed. EVERYONE is playing the same game. Your rival has to make the same decisions. The best users will still be the best if they adapt. If they continue to long for the good ol' days, they're going to get left behind.

With that said, I'd be all for restricting D2/D3 from D1 recruits with limits. Off the top of my head, the Top 250 would be off limits for both D2/D3. Can't even discover them. Then, for D3, maybe Top 125 at every position. Same deal, can't even find them. That would leave more D1 players available deep into RS2 for the D1 teams that get shutout. That 123 PG isn't going to lead a D1 team but hopefully he won't kill them either.

Wow, you just decided to go with my idea.

Not really. You want D3 out of D1 completely. That 152nd ranked SG is not getting signed by D1 teams or very many D2 teams. No reason to leave them unsigned. D3 should have the opportunity. Your idea eliminates that option. If you'd have presented something besides "No D3 signing D1 recruits", I'd have agreed long ago.

Posted by johnsensing on 3/2/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 9:09:00 AM (view original):
No. Really most of the complaining is coming from folks who want to roll back the clock. Where Duke stakes a claim and everyone else is forced to run away. Where the same 10-12 teams cherrypick their recruits and fight each other for the NT season after season. Where anything less than 30-2 is consider a "poor" season. Where you can claim you "earned" the advantages that keep you at the top of the mountain. And many of the users who played that game are just fine with the updates and have adapted.

You pretend as if anyone not playing D1 simply cannot understand the concept of losing battles and having no way to land another top recruit. That's just a false pretense. HD is not some unique universe where you put a lot into something, get nothing back and have no other resources to gamble big again. That is a life concept. So, please, I beg of you, stop saying "If you play D1, you will see what I mean" because it's just nonsense.

Your first paragraph is categorically false -- I don't know of anyone who is saying "let's go back to 2.0." I think all of those players quit already. It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you keep building the same ridiculous strawmen.

What some people are saying in this thread (I think) are three things: (1) that the 20 HV cap should be increased in DI to increase tactical complexity within a battle; (2) that the battles in high DI are pretty boring and there is not a lot of complexity to them, since you just max out your 20 HV, your CV, and hope for the best; and (3) that if you go "all in" and lose, there should be some way to compensate the losing coach.

Re: the first, I'd be in favor of a minor increase to the 20 HV cap -- maybe to 25 -- but if you raise it too much, it turns into "I win because I have more open schollys" which is a dumb way to decide battles.

Re: the second, this is absolutely true. It's the difference between strategy and tactics. Seems to me that there is a lot more strategy in 3.0 with regard to recruiting, i.e., who do I go after, where do I scout, do I go all-in on this recruit, but once you've decided to go all-in, your tactics are limited -- you just max out and hope for the best.

Re: the third, amazingly enough, I agree with you (again, this is why the strawmen you keep building aren't helping your cause). You go all in and lose, that's too bad. I'd be in favor of tweaking some things so that battles aren't as much of a crapshoot (for example, I think for certain preferences (distance from home, success/rebuild), it should be nearly impossible for a coach to win unless he is VH on that preference -- I think that for "wants to play," a coach should have pretty much no chance unless he offers a start), but if you go all in and lose, them's the breaks.

Yep,
1- I don't wanna go back to 2.0 but have always and always will hate the ee issue which makes D1 annoying. The whole "you just don't wanna compete" schtick is getting old. There are some good changes. But there are definite tweaks still needed. Further, D1 & high prestige should have advantages! That's what we've worked for!just like a real life DYNASTY.
2- HV max is odd. Makes it a dice roll when you can go all in at D1 on each of your recruits and have a chance at them all... or have a chance to lose them all. If you're the A+ home team offering playing time to a guy who wants to local kid who wants to stay home, you should have a HUGE advantage and not have to battle a D prestige from 400 miles away. On the other hand, the C prestige from far away should have an advantage for the local who wants to stay home and doesn't need to play for a winner. As of now, preferences help, but it's still an anyone has a chance game on many battles that should not be battles.
3-if you lose, of course you should lose your resources. That's just silly to say otherwise.

I'm curious about the "limiting certain recruits to certain levels" - recruits are already graded (A, B, C, D), is it necessary to artificially designate the D1, D2, D3?

And D3 recruiting up to low D1, and D2 recruiting up to mid D1 - is this more a two part problem: 1. Artificial designation of projected level, and 2 inefficient distribution of humans, and the choices those humans are making? If low D1 D+ prestige recruited as intended, then the low D1 recruits would not be available to D2 and D3 to recruit.

And there it is. "I earned my advantages!!!"

Again, real life can't be clamored for by users with 40+ at one school. That is not real life.