Posted by MikeT23 on 2/17/2017 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jt2xTTU on 2/17/2017 8:05:00 AM (view original):
This is a newbie, maybe contrarian, view ... are D1 coaches recruiting greedily? Are you trying to get a full roster of All-Americans? Are you trying to be Kentucky and trying for 5 diaper dandies every recruiting season?

The game was set up differently in the past. If a Duke, Kentucky, UNC, etc wanted a recruit, they staked claim and got him. There was no contested battles(unless Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc all wanted the same guy).

Some users want that game back.

So playing a new game with old strategies and techniques

I think the users that stayed have adapted or are doing so. Doesn't stop them from wishing for the good ol' days.

With that said, I wonder why WifS didn't keep a "Classic" version and create the new 2016 version. It can't cost that much to run the game. The Classic version would have stayed as is, no updates coming, and the new version could have had all the bells and whistles of restructured conferences, new recruiting, etc, etc. Seems that would have prevented a lot of angst.

jt - Mike is a blowhard that likes to talk **** but knows nothing about current top DI recruiting.

To answer your question. No - many of the coaches are NOT being greedy. They are recruiting wisely and maybe going for 1-2 studs and then some backups. But in the new RNG world of HD, you can wind up on the losing end of battles you were favored to win. When that happens, the current game forces them to take on multiple walkons.

The morons who say "why don't you have a back up plan" don't realize that spreading yourself too thin with multiple backup plans almost ensures you actually lose the battles you thought you could win.

I didn't address current D1 recruiting, dipshit.

Posted by mullycj on 2/17/2017 6:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/17/2017 6:02:00 AM (view original):
to promote battling for recruits

No **** captain obvious. That doesn't mean it was done correctly.

Sorry man, I thought he was asking a question so I answered it.

Posted by CoachSpud on 2/17/2017 1:14:00 AM (view original):
"What is the reasoning ... behind rolling the dice to decide on a recruit? I simply don't understand it."

What game are you talking about? This is a Hoops Dynasty forum, and HD doesn't work like that. Maybe if you tell us what game you are talking about, someone can help you. Or, if you think HD works that way, here's some important help -- it doesn't work that way.

Ok. Have a nice day.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/17/2017 6:02:00 AM (view original):
to promote battling for recruits

I didn't really see this as being a priority, I'm guessing this was just seble's personal preference?

And nothing wrong with battling for recruits, they just need to fix in how they go about it. In real life, an A+ prestige team like Kentucky can go after 5 recruits with 3 openings. I don't think the 2 backup recruits are going to say "screw Kentucky because they recruited me a bit late, I'm going to go play at Fordham". Unfortunately, that's how 3.0 works. Maybe we need to get rid of the attention points altogether.

Couples counter points there wizard:

1. I think the lack of battling for recruits was a huge issue in 2.0, IMO. It's why I didn't play D1.
2. Unless you are going to change the structure of resources being allocated by prestige as opposed to openings, I don't see how you are accomplish your real life example.
3.Recruits might not say "Screw Kentucky, I want Fordham in real life but they might say Screw KY, I want VT (or some other seconde tier B level prestige team).
4. I like the idea of AP's only working to unlock actions but that makes a boring game in my opinion. They would need to include considering credit or some other option. I wish they would limit CV's to 3 schools as opposed to 5. That might change up some strategy.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/17/2017 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Couples counter points there wizard:

1. I think the lack of battling for recruits was a huge issue in 2.0, IMO. It's why I didn't play D1.
2. Unless you are going to change the structure of resources being allocated by prestige as opposed to openings, I don't see how you are accomplish your real life example.
3.Recruits might not say "Screw Kentucky, I want Fordham in real life but they might say Screw KY, I want VT (or some other seconde tier B level prestige team).
4. I like the idea of AP's only working to unlock actions but that makes a boring game in my opinion. They would need to include considering credit or some other option. I wish they would limit CV's to 3 schools as opposed to 5. That might change up some strategy.

I'm not sure how much capping the CVs would help since you can overcome that easily with APs.

1 HV = 50 APs. I'm not sure how much a CV is worth but let's say it's worth 2 HVs. That means you can overcome an extra CV by a mere 100 APs. It's substantial, sure, but I'm not sure how much it changes the big picture.

I'm still on remove the HV cap train. If that cap was removed then UConn could have done 30 HVs and then (hopefully) knocked off Union.

I haven't come back to HD since the update and have never played it but Im reserving a team and reading up on 3.0. Isn't it fair to say that real world recruiting is a "dice roll" at some point? Not trying to play devil's advocate here but just saying that I've seen posts before where people have complained about how realistic these games are (or aren't). I guess I'll find out for myself when I come back. I really enjoyed HD but was never any good. Also not to piggyback on this post (A site mail would be cool) Would someone mind letting me know the GOOD changes that have been made? All I've sen are complaints. Cheers.

The last sentence says it all. This is a very negative place. I quit in 2006 because I didn't like recruiting(it was as I mentioned earlier). I came back when WifS sent me a credit. In my 3rd season and have taken a 2nd team that starts first week in March. Give the game a chance and ignore all the negativity. Good luck.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/17/2017 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Couples counter points there wizard:

1. I think the lack of battling for recruits was a huge issue in 2.0, IMO. It's why I didn't play D1.
2. Unless you are going to change the structure of resources being allocated by prestige as opposed to openings, I don't see how you are accomplish your real life example.
3.Recruits might not say "Screw Kentucky, I want Fordham in real life but they might say Screw KY, I want VT (or some other seconde tier B level prestige team).
4. I like the idea of AP's only working to unlock actions but that makes a boring game in my opinion. They would need to include considering credit or some other option. I wish they would limit CV's to 3 schools as opposed to 5. That might change up some strategy.

A couple the suggestion below in some other threads and it has merits.
"only go to the dice roll for teams at VH".

This still leaves an element of risk for teams though not as extreme as now.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/17/2017 9:03:00 AM (view original):
I didn't address current D1 recruiting, dipshit.

Maybe you type SO MANY posts you have no idea what you actually DO SAY.

"The game was set up differently in the past. If a Duke, Kentucky, UNC, etc wanted a recruit, they staked claim and got him. There was no contested battles(unless Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc all wanted the same guy).

Some users want that game back."

.....Or I guess those are DII schools.

Posted by mullycj on 2/17/2017 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/17/2017 9:03:00 AM (view original):
I didn't address current D1 recruiting, dipshit.

Maybe you type SO MANY posts you have no idea what you actually DO SAY.

"The game was set up differently in the past. If a Duke, Kentucky, UNC, etc wanted a recruit, they staked claim and got him. There was no contested battles(unless Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc all wanted the same guy).

Some users want that game back."

.....Or I guess those are DII schools.

Your rush to be stupid is amazing.

"The game was set up differently in the past. If a Duke, Kentucky, UNC, etc wanted a recruit, they staked claim and got him."

"Some users want that game back."

Do you need me to explain or has it sunk in yet?

Posted by jt2xTTU on 2/17/2017 8:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/17/2017 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jt2xTTU on 2/17/2017 8:05:00 AM (view original):
This is a newbie, maybe contrarian, view ... are D1 coaches recruiting greedily? Are you trying to get a full roster of All-Americans? Are you trying to be Kentucky and trying for 5 diaper dandies every recruiting season?

The game was set up differently in the past. If a Duke, Kentucky, UNC, etc wanted a recruit, they staked claim and got him. There was no contested battles(unless Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc all wanted the same guy).

Some users want that game back.

So playing a new game with old strategies and techniques

Hell, this post indicates the user I was addressing understood EXACTLY what I said.

Maybe, before you decide to ******* up, read the damn posts and comprehend them.