It's no secret many of the long-time owners (especially at D1) disliked the changes that became 3.0. The consensus was just a few tweaks were needed to make D1 more realistic and none of them were taken into consideration. If I was king of HD, here's what I would have done to 2.0:

1) Make the top 50 recruits within 200 miles of EVERY school for recruiting purposes. This means Duke, UCLA, and UCONN can finally compete against each other for the same kid. The ONLY way this happens now is if the kid is in PR or an international.
2) Cut bonus cash in half or two-thirds to make mid majors more competitive in recruiting.
3) Every 5-star kid has to start. No more recruiting studs and letting them sit on your bench. If you sign a 5-star your have to take the IQ penalty if he doesn't already run your O/D.
4) Make the recruiting value for starts 5x-10x more valuable, but the kid has to start every game in the regular and post-season and if they don't they transfer. No more 80% of starts (or, minutes for that matter)-it's a black and white issue.
5) Relax prestige a bit at D1. It's not realistic for Duke or UCONN to be sim for 3 seasons, miss the post-season all together, and still be an A prestige while a no-name school to go to the R32 or S16 three seasons in a row and still be B or B+.

Look, I realize 2.0 is gone. But these few changes would have induced several more battles at high D1 (which is what the game sorely needed) without an entire overhaul of the engine and made mid majors more competitive as well. Just my two cents.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 2/18/2017 8:27:00 AM (view original):
At high D1, I agree with the OP. There are a few things at play here. In 2.0, recruiting was dependent on recruit generation. In 3.0 if you're in a crowded area (like the midwest or NE) now you are dependent on recruit generation and recruit's preferences. If you're a school in NY and have a stud that's 10 miles from you but you don't match up well with preferences you basically have no shot in landing the guy (because of caps). This doesn't come into play as much at D2 or D3 because the odds are you don't have enough money to go all-in on multiple recruits. As bbunch alluded to, you go all-in on a few guys, get to "very high," then sit there and wait. If you win, yay, but if you lose, you're basically stuck with a walk-on.

(Again, regarding high D1). In 2.0 there was a sense of accomplishment when you won a battle or sniped a kid at signings because you paid attention and made the right moves. And if I got sniped I tipped my hat to the other coach, learned from it, and moved on. But at least I knew why I lost and could adjust strategies in future seasons. In 3.0, you're efforts are capped so the computer ultimately decides who wins and loses recruits. In 3.0 I've won and lost battles and regardless of which side I'm on my reaction is the same-'meh.'

And add the luck factor to all of this - it's strange that we have preferences as well as luck. What's the point of preferences if the player will possibly choose the school that he prefers less (the 25% school over the 40% and 35% school)? It's luck already to find a player well-aligned to your team due to their preferences. It's also luck to win the battle due to caps and the weighted dice roll.

I don't think this is the intended result of 3.0 - Hopefully some folks are working on some fixes, but they don't seem to be around very much.

Posted by bbunch on 2/18/2017 8:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 2/18/2017 8:27:00 AM (view original):
At high D1, I agree with the OP. There are a few things at play here. In 2.0, recruiting was dependent on recruit generation. In 3.0 if you're in a crowded area (like the midwest or NE) now you are dependent on recruit generation and recruit's preferences. If you're a school in NY and have a stud that's 10 miles from you but you don't match up well with preferences you basically have no shot in landing the guy (because of caps). This doesn't come into play as much at D2 or D3 because the odds are you don't have enough money to go all-in on multiple recruits. As bbunch alluded to, you go all-in on a few guys, get to "very high," then sit there and wait. If you win, yay, but if you lose, you're basically stuck with a walk-on.

(Again, regarding high D1). In 2.0 there was a sense of accomplishment when you won a battle or sniped a kid at signings because you paid attention and made the right moves. And if I got sniped I tipped my hat to the other coach, learned from it, and moved on. But at least I knew why I lost and could adjust strategies in future seasons. In 3.0, you're efforts are capped so the computer ultimately decides who wins and loses recruits. In 3.0 I've won and lost battles and regardless of which side I'm on my reaction is the same-'meh.'

And add the luck factor to all of this - it's strange that we have preferences as well as luck. What's the point of preferences if the player will possibly choose the school that he prefers less (the 25% school over the 40% and 35% school)? It's luck already to find a player well-aligned to your team due to their preferences. It's also luck to win the battle due to caps and the weighted dice roll.

I don't think this is the intended result of 3.0 - Hopefully some folks are working on some fixes, but they don't seem to be around very much.

From a kid's perspective, it's like...."My personal preferences lean me more toward Oregon St. than Oregon - they run the offense I like better, they have a long-time coach, and the girls are friendlier. Screw it - I'm going to Oregon!!! "

That makes no sense to me. If both schools are maxed, why would a kid EVER choose a school that they prefer less?

You guys make too much sense.

Posted by bbunch on 2/18/2017 8:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2017 7:59:00 AM (view original):
It's what happened before 3.0.

And, if you remove the caps, the team with 4 openings has a huge advantage over a team with two. More resources. This isn't advanced physics. If I have 20k more in recruiting money, I can offer substantial more CV/HV.

To your idea: I get it, and I don't think the caps necessarily should be removed personally, but I think they should definitely be raised. The issue is a matter of scale. Right now, the game is not effective when 2 top schools competing for a recruit can go all-in with effort and then have to sit and wait to see whether the 51% or 49% probability wins. There need to be other factors at play that involve skill.

Also, don't question my intelligence by saying "this isn't advanced physics". That makes you sound like an *******. Attack the idea, not the person.

How does raising the caps help?

If you make them too high, it just becomes a math equation again. And if it's much higher you won't be able to go all in on enough guys so that if you lose you really are screwed.

If the game is working right, and I believe it is, it is pretty damn hard to go 0-5 on 50/50 roll. Also, the way it's set up, you don't have to take walk on's, you can sign players.

The game is different. I don't buy into the luck component as much as you guys but i respect your opinion. I also think that the HIGH D1 experience is so much different than the rest of us plebeians experiences we may never get it. I mean that, I am not being snarky or sarcastic.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/18/2017 8:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bbunch on 2/18/2017 8:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2017 7:59:00 AM (view original):
It's what happened before 3.0.

And, if you remove the caps, the team with 4 openings has a huge advantage over a team with two. More resources. This isn't advanced physics. If I have 20k more in recruiting money, I can offer substantial more CV/HV.

To your idea: I get it, and I don't think the caps necessarily should be removed personally, but I think they should definitely be raised. The issue is a matter of scale. Right now, the game is not effective when 2 top schools competing for a recruit can go all-in with effort and then have to sit and wait to see whether the 51% or 49% probability wins. There need to be other factors at play that involve skill.

Also, don't question my intelligence by saying "this isn't advanced physics". That makes you sound like an *******. Attack the idea, not the person.

How does raising the caps help?

If you make them too high, it just becomes a math equation again. And if it's much higher you won't be able to go all in on enough guys so that if you lose you really are screwed.

If the game is working right, and I believe it is, it is pretty damn hard to go 0-5 on 50/50 roll. Also, the way it's set up, you don't have to take walk on's, you can sign players.

The game is different. I don't buy into the luck component as much as you guys but i respect your opinion. I also think that the HIGH D1 experience is so much different than the rest of us plebeians experiences we may never get it. I mean that, I am not being snarky or sarcastic.

Respect your opinion as well...but I need some clarity here.

How would it be a math equation again? With preferences now involved and still with the possibility of the 35% school beating the 65% school? I just don't understand that statement. Please clarify.

In addition, because the monetary advantage of a school with more openings isn't nearly as extreme, that school would still have to be pretty cautious in what recruits they "go all in" for. They could go "all in" and still be a VH losing to a H, so there's a major element of risk there. Some coaches wouldn't chance it and would go for depth and many mid-level recruits that are more attainable, and some would chance it for the big time recruits.

Right now, in the D1 experience, just about all coaches become maxed out in their battles, and it's a 50-50 dice roll with no recovery from a loss. When the battle is lost, you can't realistically go to a backup plan as well, because the backup options have been accruing attention points from other coaches. You're basically stuck with many walkons. The luck element is just too severe right now.

The 2.0 math equation was the other extreme. This is not a balance right now, though...this is an overcorrection in my opinion.

Anyway you shake, raising the caps reduces battles.

If you remove/raise caps the the people with advantages (more cash, higher prestige, better preferences) gain bigger advantages.

Owners with advantages are less likely to be challenged.

Less people willing to challenged leads to stacked team filled with guys who were recruited with minimal effort.



I am not saying owners shouldn't have advantages, I am saying that advantages (earned and random) should be meaningful but not impossible to overcome.

"In addition, because the monetary advantage of a school with more openings isn't nearly as extreme, that school would still have to be pretty cautious in what recruits they "go all in" for. They could go "all in" and still be a VH losing to a H, so there's a major element of risk there. Some coaches wouldn't chance it and would go for depth and many mid-level recruits that are more attainable, and some would chance it for the big time recruits."

That strategy won't work either. Since prestige got its nuts cut off all you are doing is avoiding a coin flip with another A+ school for a coin flip with a B+ school. Because somewhere out there is a coach who will throw 20 HVs to that weaker player. Well if I am gonna risk losing a battle I want that risk to be for the better player.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/18/2017 9:48:00 AM (view original):
Anyway you shake, raising the caps reduces battles.

If you remove/raise caps the the people with advantages (more cash, higher prestige, better preferences) gain bigger advantages.

Owners with advantages are less likely to be challenged.

Less people willing to challenged leads to stacked team filled with guys who were recruited with minimal effort.



I am not saying owners shouldn't have advantages, I am saying that advantages (earned and random) should be meaningful but not impossible to overcome.

It's not a "battle" by any definition if both teams put in max effort and the computer decides who wins. The word "battle" assumes that effort, skill, and strategy matters.

The problem isn't that top owners are being challenged. It's that the "challenge" isn't strategic in nature at all. Since prestige is much less important in the recruiting formula now, and better preferences don't always go to the "better" team, I really don't see how this change would tip the scales far in favor of the already successful coaches.

I'm not arguing for 2.0 again. I'm arguing for a "battle" to actually mean something. Since "more cash" and "better preferences" are not influenced by success, and "higher prestige" is such a smaller factor in 3.0, I really don't think your argument holds water in light of the new games design.

From my experience at a D- prestige D1 team to start and now a C prestige, schools with higher prestige EASILY get recruits from me, even when I have the preference advantage. The main preference is still prestige.

Posted by bbunch on 2/18/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/18/2017 9:48:00 AM (view original):
Anyway you shake, raising the caps reduces battles.

If you remove/raise caps the the people with advantages (more cash, higher prestige, better preferences) gain bigger advantages.

Owners with advantages are less likely to be challenged.

Less people willing to challenged leads to stacked team filled with guys who were recruited with minimal effort.



I am not saying owners shouldn't have advantages, I am saying that advantages (earned and random) should be meaningful but not impossible to overcome.

It's not a "battle" by any definition if both teams put in max effort and the computer decides who wins. The word "battle" assumes that effort, skill, and strategy matters.

The problem isn't that top owners are being challenged. It's that the "challenge" isn't strategic in nature at all. Since prestige is much less important in the recruiting formula now, and better preferences don't always go to the "better" team, I really don't see how this change would tip the scales far in favor of the already successful coaches.

I'm not arguing for 2.0 again. I'm arguing for a "battle" to actually mean something. Since "more cash" and "better preferences" are not influenced by success, and "higher prestige" is such a smaller factor in 3.0, I really don't think your argument holds water in light of the new games design.

I agree with this. I don't see how some of these "battles" are really battles.

For example: 3 teams go 20 HVs, 1 CV, 20 min and start during the 1st cycle on a late signer. Every cycle after that each coach puts 40 AP toward that player until finally someone wins.

How is that battling?

Posted by kayan121110 on 2/18/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):
From my experience at a D- prestige D1 team to start and now a C prestige, schools with higher prestige EASILY get recruits from me, even when I have the preference advantage. The main preference is still prestige.

I may have been a little lucky but as a D prestige, I've done pretty well against higher prestige teams. I've beaten 2 B+ in battles and lost VH to H to another B.

Posted by Benis on 2/18/2017 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kayan121110 on 2/18/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):
From my experience at a D- prestige D1 team to start and now a C prestige, schools with higher prestige EASILY get recruits from me, even when I have the preference advantage. The main preference is still prestige.

I may have been a little lucky but as a D prestige, I've done pretty well against higher prestige teams. I've beaten 2 B+ in battles and lost VH to H to another B.

This has been my experience as well. As a C, B-, and B+ D1 team I've nabbed recruits from A+ schools.

Are you discussing A+ vs A+ type battles or d1 recruiting in general

Posted by bbunch on 2/18/2017 9:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/18/2017 8:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bbunch on 2/18/2017 8:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2017 7:59:00 AM (view original):
It's what happened before 3.0.

And, if you remove the caps, the team with 4 openings has a huge advantage over a team with two. More resources. This isn't advanced physics. If I have 20k more in recruiting money, I can offer substantial more CV/HV.

To your idea: I get it, and I don't think the caps necessarily should be removed personally, but I think they should definitely be raised. The issue is a matter of scale. Right now, the game is not effective when 2 top schools competing for a recruit can go all-in with effort and then have to sit and wait to see whether the 51% or 49% probability wins. There need to be other factors at play that involve skill.

Also, don't question my intelligence by saying "this isn't advanced physics". That makes you sound like an *******. Attack the idea, not the person.

How does raising the caps help?

If you make them too high, it just becomes a math equation again. And if it's much higher you won't be able to go all in on enough guys so that if you lose you really are screwed.

If the game is working right, and I believe it is, it is pretty damn hard to go 0-5 on 50/50 roll. Also, the way it's set up, you don't have to take walk on's, you can sign players.

The game is different. I don't buy into the luck component as much as you guys but i respect your opinion. I also think that the HIGH D1 experience is so much different than the rest of us plebeians experiences we may never get it. I mean that, I am not being snarky or sarcastic.

Respect your opinion as well...but I need some clarity here.

How would it be a math equation again? With preferences now involved and still with the possibility of the 35% school beating the 65% school? I just don't understand that statement. Please clarify.

In addition, because the monetary advantage of a school with more openings isn't nearly as extreme, that school would still have to be pretty cautious in what recruits they "go all in" for. They could go "all in" and still be a VH losing to a H, so there's a major element of risk there. Some coaches wouldn't chance it and would go for depth and many mid-level recruits that are more attainable, and some would chance it for the big time recruits.

Right now, in the D1 experience, just about all coaches become maxed out in their battles, and it's a 50-50 dice roll with no recovery from a loss. When the battle is lost, you can't realistically go to a backup plan as well, because the backup options have been accruing attention points from other coaches. You're basically stuck with many walkons. The luck element is just too severe right now.

The 2.0 math equation was the other extreme. This is not a balance right now, though...this is an overcorrection in my opinion.

The one thing that I like about the 20HV 1 CV limit is that a school with one scholarship has a shot at landing a stud near them, whereas in 2.0 it was nearly impossible because they could be totally outspent. There is still an advantage to having more openings though because you have an 80-40 AP advantage over the one scholarship team. And that can be pretty substantial if the school with 80 goes all in every cycle. I also think that promising starts and PT is much more important in 3.0 and those can tip the balance in your favor.

Personally, I like 3.0 better because in 2.0 it was more of a math equation and let's say there were two teams that recruited a player and they were super close, like 1 point of recruiting credit difference (whatever a point of recruiting credit was). It would always go to the team that did the most. I like the fact that if you go all in on a player, you do have a shot at them.

The other thing that I like is that there is more competition for recruits in this game. That's more realistic to me. In 2.0, most of the time with an A+ prestige, I had my recruiting done by the second cycle, and then I just had to wait for signings. People were afraid to compete for recruits because then they would look "weak" and others would jump on their uncontested recruits. So, it resulted in things like Duke being afraid to battle UNC for Mr. Basketball North Carolina, because if they did, Wake Forest might see that and jump on another 5-Star Duke recruit. But if Duke did did not challenge UNC for Mr. Basketball, then Wake Forest would see that Duke was not spread too thin and would not go for a top recruit that was 20 miles away because mathematically Duke had two more open scholarships.

To me, it is much more difficult to do the math in this game because there are so many factors, including the dreaded dice roll at play.