Posted by jt2xTTU on 3/2/2017 10:10:00 AM (view original):
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.

My theory is it's needed so SIMAI knows who to recruit.

The problem for D1(OMG!!!! HE'S TALKING ABOUT D1 AGAIN!!!!! HE CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND IT!!!!!) is that their RS2 options are depleted when they lose a battle. It's not the D3 schools taking serviceable D1 recruits, it's the D2s. By eliminating some of the D2 options on D1 recruits, you push D2 down the ladder into some of the recruits D3s are taking. I think what I suggested would help D1 late but would have minimal effect on D2/D3. We're probably just talking a few dozen players.

Last season I got the 156 and 180 PGs. A D1 human and a couple of D1 SIMAI showed up late on the 156. A D2 human and D1 SIMAI did the same on the 180. I've yet to see a SIMAI go up a level and it was confirmed by a couple of vets that they don't. So my guess is SIMAI recruiting would have to be completely overhauled if the designated projections were removed.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 10:13:00 AM (view original):
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.

Yep-
Its so unlike real life when pretty models get more work, attention, and pay than ugly ones. Darn entitlement! Advantages!
Its so unlike real life when people who work for degrees, work their way up the corporate ladder, and make a lot of money drive nicer cars than those who don't graduate HS. Darn entitlement!
Its so unlike real life when smart and studies analysts who work hard write better computer programs and work their way up and get benefits from that, darn entitlement!
And why do the athletic kids do better in sports? That's not fair.
Its so unlike real life when D1 coaches get better players than D2! Those darn entitled coaches!

You do know there are divisions in college basketball?
You do know there are divisions in this sim of college basketball that earn you advantages?
You do know kids would rather play for Kansas, Duke, UConn, and KY than Wofford, Pririe View A&M, and SE Connecticut St?
You do understand you can work your way up to get better players and that's how this game is designed?
And lastly, you do understand this game is trying to "simulate" real life in as many ways as possible, eliminating advantages to areas that are impossible to simulate?

If you really don't like advantages and think we shouldn't have them... recruit unathletic, bad defending slow guys for this game. If you truly think advantages are wrong, don't recruit the areas that give you advantages in the other areas.
-OR- understand the reality of advantages and work towards them. 3.0 allows you to work for them. Do it. Please.
Wow. I'm really concerned that you don't understand this. Really? Advantages? Unrealistic? Really?

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.

Regarding 1, what's the case for 25 instead of 20? If anything, I think the caps should be lowered. The higher the cap, the more it's about number of scholarships, and the less battling (I know that's what zorzii wants, but I think that would be a huge step backward for the game). Higher caps also makes recruiting even more local. I think with lower caps, say 10, now you're encouraging people to actually fight at distance. I think that would be a good thing, and further enhance the value of strategy.

On 2, I think this assessment is mostly a matter of personal taste, and somewhat reflects the tactics you've chosen. I don't think a "max out and forget it" approach is the predominant tactic, nor do I think it's likely to be the best tactic in most situations. If you're an A+, and you have 3 open scholarships, and say 2 possible EEs, I think it would be a bad tactic. I think you can make a pretty good case for choosing 1 or maybe 2 "top priorities" among the elite recruits, and then 6 or 7 solid 4 year types. Spread the 80 APs you have evenly among those 8 targets, and hold off on any visits until you see how the battles are shaking out. Chances are, a couple of those solid 1-3 star 4 year types will slide to you with no fight now and then. I see guys (not you, JS) with A+ prestige talking about avoiding battles and seeking out the undervalued players, and that's just overkill, IMO. Use that high prestige. That is precisely *how* you get guys with little to no fight, it's not that no one else values the player, it's that no one wants to fight you for it. I understand not wanting to be the 4th or 5th team on a guy, but reverting to 2.0 risk aversion is crazy talk.

Posted by stewdog on 3/2/2017 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 10:13:00 AM (view original):
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.

Yep-
Its so unlike real life when pretty models get more work, attention, and pay than ugly ones. Darn entitlement! Advantages!
Its so unlike real life when people who work for degrees, work their way up the corporate ladder, and make a lot of money drive nicer cars than those who don't graduate HS. Darn entitlement!
Its so unlike real life when smart and studies analysts who work hard write better computer programs and work their way up and get benefits from that, darn entitlement!
And why do the athletic kids do better in sports? That's not fair.
Its so unlike real life when D1 coaches get better players than D2! Those darn entitled coaches!

You do know there are divisions in college basketball?
You do know there are divisions in this sim of college basketball that earn you advantages?
You do know kids would rather play for Kansas, Duke, UConn, and KY than Wofford, Pririe View A&M, and SE Connecticut St?
You do understand you can work your way up to get better players and that's how this game is designed?
And lastly, you do understand this game is trying to "simulate" real life in as many ways as possible, eliminating advantages to areas that are impossible to simulate?

If you really don't like advantages and think we shouldn't have them... recruit unathletic, bad defending slow guys for this game. If you truly think advantages are wrong, don't recruit the areas that give you advantages in the other areas.
-OR- understand the reality of advantages and work towards them. 3.0 allows you to work for them. Do it. Please.
Wow. I'm really concerned that you don't understand this. Really? Advantages? Unrealistic? Really?

That was way too long. Didn't bother because you missed the important part.

Don't care about advantages. Just pointing out that you're screaming for "REAL LIFE" while coaching at a school for 40+ seasons. That is NOT real life.

Of course the game is not 100% real life. But some degree of realism is a good goal in a simulation game.

Battles are good. One of the best things about 3.0. But realistic battles are better. D1 heavyweights going at it for a top recruit makes sense. But D1 having to exert anything more than minimal effort against a D3 makes no sense. One way of fixing that would be to block lower division schools from chasing some or all D1 guys. In real life, a top 250 guy is not going to entertain overtures from a D3 coach. Another way would be to use prestige realistically, to make D1 effort worth much, much more than D3.

I do not think coaches should be compensated after losing a battle.

Posted by pkoopman on 3/2/2017 11:01:00 AM (view original):

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.

Regarding 1, what's the case for 25 instead of 20? If anything, I think the caps should be lowered. The higher the cap, the more it's about number of scholarships, and the less battling (I know that's what zorzii wants, but I think that would be a huge step backward for the game). Higher caps also makes recruiting even more local. I think with lower caps, say 10, now you're encouraging people to actually fight at distance. I think that would be a good thing, and further enhance the value of strategy.

On 2, I think this assessment is mostly a matter of personal taste, and somewhat reflects the tactics you've chosen. I don't think a "max out and forget it" approach is the predominant tactic, nor do I think it's likely to be the best tactic in most situations. If you're an A+, and you have 3 open scholarships, and say 2 possible EEs, I think it would be a bad tactic. I think you can make a pretty good case for choosing 1 or maybe 2 "top priorities" among the elite recruits, and then 6 or 7 solid 4 year types. Spread the 80 APs you have evenly among those 8 targets, and hold off on any visits until you see how the battles are shaking out. Chances are, a couple of those solid 1-3 star 4 year types will slide to you with no fight now and then. I see guys (not you, JS) with A+ prestige talking about avoiding battles and seeking out the undervalued players, and that's just overkill, IMO. Use that high prestige. That is precisely *how* you get guys with little to no fight, it's not that no one else values the player, it's that no one wants to fight you for it. I understand not wanting to be the 4th or 5th team on a guy, but reverting to 2.0 risk aversion is crazy talk.

I think upping the cap a bit would bring more of an element of strategy into when/if to go "all in." Right now at DI, I can go "all in" -- defined as all 20 HVs and a CV -- on multiple recruits. There's not a ton of strategy there -- I pick my top guys, max 'em out if there's a battle, and hope for the RNG to come my way. You're probably right about a jump in the cap limiting battles -- although I think a jump of 5 HVs would hopefully have a marginal effect. That said, lowering it to 10 would greatly reduce strategy, in my view -- I know I'd just go all in on as many top recruits as I could within 300 miles or so and hope for the RNG, and so would a bunch of other coaches, then it's just a bunch of (weighted) coinflips. That's not a lot of strategy, or all that much fun, in my view.

It's a pet peeve of mine. Having term limits at schools is a terrible ideal for the GAME. But you simply cannot scream "REALISM!!!!" non-stop when you know you wouldn't be coaching at a school for 40+ years in real life. You have to adapt portions of the game to make it playable. And it isn't necessarily the portions that you specifically like.

I mentioned Top 250 being D1 territory exclusively earlier today. And Top 125 at each position being off limits to D3.

Compensated for losing a battle is universally regarded as the worst idea ever by all but one user.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Last season I got the 156 and 180 PGs. A D1 human and a couple of D1 SIMAI showed up late on the 156. A D2 human and D1 SIMAI did the same on the 180. I've yet to see a SIMAI go up a level and it was confirmed by a couple of vets that they don't. So my guess is SIMAI recruiting would have to be completely overhauled if the designated projections were removed.

No, sims can recruit up a level. Not super common but it does happen.

I'll disagree with the idea of making certain recruits totally unavailable to lower levels. If for some reason, the 125th ranked SG draws no interest from a D1 school, a D2 school should be able to snag him. Or even a D3 school.

I would imagine that D1 schools are weighted more heavily than D2 schools, and D2 are weighted more heavily than D3. Assuming that's true, maybe the weights should be adjusted to make it more difficult (though not impossible) to pull a recruit down to a lower level.

So for example, a D2 school would have to put in 3x the effort (AP and money spent on HV/CV) of a D1 school to get equal consideration for a particular recruit. The same for a D3 school and a D2 school. And the difference between D3 and D1 might be 8-10x. Difficult, but not impossible.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by stewdog on 3/2/2017 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2017 10:13:00 AM (view original):
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.

Yep-
Its so unlike real life when pretty models get more work, attention, and pay than ugly ones. Darn entitlement! Advantages!
Its so unlike real life when people who work for degrees, work their way up the corporate ladder, and make a lot of money drive nicer cars than those who don't graduate HS. Darn entitlement!
Its so unlike real life when smart and studies analysts who work hard write better computer programs and work their way up and get benefits from that, darn entitlement!
And why do the athletic kids do better in sports? That's not fair.
Its so unlike real life when D1 coaches get better players than D2! Those darn entitled coaches!

You do know there are divisions in college basketball?
You do know there are divisions in this sim of college basketball that earn you advantages?
You do know kids would rather play for Kansas, Duke, UConn, and KY than Wofford, Pririe View A&M, and SE Connecticut St?
You do understand you can work your way up to get better players and that's how this game is designed?
And lastly, you do understand this game is trying to "simulate" real life in as many ways as possible, eliminating advantages to areas that are impossible to simulate?

If you really don't like advantages and think we shouldn't have them... recruit unathletic, bad defending slow guys for this game. If you truly think advantages are wrong, don't recruit the areas that give you advantages in the other areas.
-OR- understand the reality of advantages and work towards them. 3.0 allows you to work for them. Do it. Please.
Wow. I'm really concerned that you don't understand this. Really? Advantages? Unrealistic? Really?

That was way too long. Didn't bother because you missed the important part.

Don't care about advantages. Just pointing out that you're screaming for "REAL LIFE" while coaching at a school for 40+ seasons. That is NOT real life.

The point was addressed.
"And lastly, you do understand this game is trying to "simulate" real life in as many ways as possible, eliminating advantages to areas that are impossible to simulate?"
There are no advantages to being there unrealistic amounts of time.

Shockingly, you majored on the minors, missing the point of the entire game,

I think getting 5 more hvs and one cv, would help. And i support mikés idea about recruiting just make sure canlt scout them

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2017 11:54:00 AM (view original):
I'll disagree with the idea of making certain recruits totally unavailable to lower levels. If for some reason, the 125th ranked SG draws no interest from a D1 school, a D2 school should be able to snag him. Or even a D3 school.

I would imagine that D1 schools are weighted more heavily than D2 schools, and D2 are weighted more heavily than D3. Assuming that's true, maybe the weights should be adjusted to make it more difficult (though not impossible) to pull a recruit down to a lower level.

So for example, a D2 school would have to put in 3x the effort (AP and money spent on HV/CV) of a D1 school to get equal consideration for a particular recruit. The same for a D3 school and a D2 school. And the difference between D3 and D1 might be 8-10x. Difficult, but not impossible.

A post in another thread had a theory the D1-D3 weight is approx 5X the effort

Maybe the theory is sound, but implementation needs to be tweaked (zorzii is going to rejoice in this statement, if he reads it). Maybe the CV and HV are not expensive enough relative to the available resources (or vice versa, too much resources for relatively cheap CV, HV). If a team has 3 openings, they should only be able to go "all-in" on 1 and have to pro rate resources to the remaining 2 openings.

Likewise, maybe the gap between D1-D3 should be 10X, and the gap between D1-D2 should be 5X.

Posted by jt2xTTU on 3/2/2017 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2017 11:54:00 AM (view original):
I'll disagree with the idea of making certain recruits totally unavailable to lower levels. If for some reason, the 125th ranked SG draws no interest from a D1 school, a D2 school should be able to snag him. Or even a D3 school.

I would imagine that D1 schools are weighted more heavily than D2 schools, and D2 are weighted more heavily than D3. Assuming that's true, maybe the weights should be adjusted to make it more difficult (though not impossible) to pull a recruit down to a lower level.

So for example, a D2 school would have to put in 3x the effort (AP and money spent on HV/CV) of a D1 school to get equal consideration for a particular recruit. The same for a D3 school and a D2 school. And the difference between D3 and D1 might be 8-10x. Difficult, but not impossible.

A post in another thread had a theory the D1-D3 weight is approx 5X the effort

Maybe the theory is sound, but implementation needs to be tweaked (zorzii is going to rejoice in this statement, if he reads it). Maybe the CV and HV are not expensive enough relative to the available resources (or vice versa, too much resources for relatively cheap CV, HV). If a team has 3 openings, they should only be able to go "all-in" on 1 and have to pro rate resources to the remaining 2 openings.

Likewise, maybe the gap between D1-D3 should be 10X, and the gap between D1-D2 should be 5X.

My problem is I want location to d3 less important. I have no real problems about d2. Teams are a bit stronger overall but not that much. As for D3, I am only for mikes cap for competition purposes.

Yes, my whole point is that you shouldn't be able to go all in on all of your targets, where's the strategy in that? You should have to pick and choose where to invest.