I do think one addition would make it more strategic. Right now there is no considering credit, so there is no incentive to starting early and spending anything before signings. At that point, you can go all in. I think something that would be interesting would be to keep the 20 HV and 1 CV limit, but to also install a 2 to 5 HV limit per cycle, and to add considering credit like it was in 2.0.

What would be even cooler, but probably would be impractical would be actually "scheduling" HVs and a CV with prospects. When you click on a prospect, a calendar would come up listing each cycle throughout the entire recruiting periods - early and late. There would be 4 openings per cycle for teams to schedule a HV or a CV with that prospect. One team could only schedule two per cycle. Once those 4 openings were filled up, there would be no more visits for that player in that cycle, so you'd have to schedule one for later. Once you schedule one, if you back out it hurts you with that prospect. The player could also see all of the HVs that were coming up, so if D- Lamar was leading on a recruit, but A+ Texas had a visit scheduled two cycles from that time, the prospect might wait until the Texas visit before he decided to commit to Lamar.

It's a whole new approach, but would be really interesting in my opinion.

Posted by bbunch on 2/18/2017 8:40:00 AM (view original):

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?

This was so well put. I seriously just LOL'd.

Posted by chapelhillne on 2/18/2017 10:34:00 AM (view original):

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.

Chapel, that's a fair point. Maybe the scale of the way that the money is distributed to teams in 3.0 could negate some of that point, though. 2.0 was much more extreme as far as presenting a huge mathematical advantage for teams with more openings. Without carryover or conference money, this might not be as much of a problem in 3.0. Another option is to do away with the caps, but have the money that teams bring in to recruiting be must closer and less dependent on the amount of scholarships available.

I like 3.0 a bit better as well, but there's one GLARING issue to me and that's the beginning of phase 2 of recruiting. Again, using the flaws in 2.0 to make an argument for the current model doesn't negate the giant problem with 3.0's 2nd phase of recruiting.

I proposed some ideas in another thread that I started. Did you check them out? I would like your opinion. I'm thinking of things that are relatively simple, straightforward changes that WIS might implement that would fix the issues, and brought in a few opinions from others.

Posted by jpmills3 on 2/17/2017 8:05:00 PM (view original):
i am playing on game credits, so at least it's not my money, but good gracious the new recruiting system is not good.

the cap on HVs and CVs has ruined strategy. No longer can a team go all in to secure their guy.

Now it's just get high or very high on x number of guys and hope to win the coin flip on 50%. Seriously dumb.

i have no idea why people prefer this over the previous system.

you want more preferences and different scouting things? Cool. You want to get rid of conference and rollover money? I think it has ruined conferences, but fine. You want to neuter prestige? Again, I disagree, but whatever, I will still find a way to be better than most.

But what we have now is boring and less strategic.

i say that having filled my 3 slots in the first session with 2 five stars and a four star, and the current number one ranked recruiting class too. Winning dice rolls hardly thrills me.

Absolutely agreed...when it comes down to it, the caps are why I left...that and in-season recruiting being the first session and not the second...the 2-session format in general sucks, but not having the offseason session be the main one, makes it worse.

Posted by colonels19 on 2/18/2017 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 2/17/2017 8:05:00 PM (view original):
i am playing on game credits, so at least it's not my money, but good gracious the new recruiting system is not good.

the cap on HVs and CVs has ruined strategy. No longer can a team go all in to secure their guy.

Now it's just get high or very high on x number of guys and hope to win the coin flip on 50%. Seriously dumb.

i have no idea why people prefer this over the previous system.

you want more preferences and different scouting things? Cool. You want to get rid of conference and rollover money? I think it has ruined conferences, but fine. You want to neuter prestige? Again, I disagree, but whatever, I will still find a way to be better than most.

But what we have now is boring and less strategic.

i say that having filled my 3 slots in the first session with 2 five stars and a four star, and the current number one ranked recruiting class too. Winning dice rolls hardly thrills me.

Absolutely agreed...when it comes down to it, the caps are why I left...that and in-season recruiting being the first session and not the second...the 2-session format in general sucks, but not having the offseason session be the main one, makes it worse.

Did you leave because of the existance of caps at all, or because the caps are too low?

Posted by jpmills3 on 2/18/2017 8:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2017 8:00:00 AM (view original):
And, addressing your edit, there is no skill in just dumping more resources into a recruit than the other guy. You have more, you use more.

I don't want to get personal or mean with you. But you really don't know what you are talking about in this game. It would be like me offering up opinions on how to win in Hard Ball Dynasty. I would be beyond my depth of understanding.

Yes. Scheduling 80 HV to the other guy's 20 HV to "secure your player" because you have more resources is very complicated. Far beyond my ability to understand.

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.

I wasn't questioning your intelligence. I simply knew someone would question my ability to understand the game. It's uncomplicated math. If you have more resources, you have a distinct advantage. If you dump all your resources into one recruit, it creates no battle if the other guy has limited resources or requires more than just that one player. By limiting CV/HV, you create a battlefield that can be somewhat level.

Posted by mullycj on 2/18/2017 8:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/18/2017 6:45:00 AM (view original):
So the game where the school with the most resources ALWAYS wins the recruit is more strategic? Hmmm, OK.

wow..yet another helpful post from Miketroll.

Here is a suggestion. EVERY thread owner just report ANY of MikeT's posts on their threads that don't add value in an effort to clean the trash off our forums.

Very on topic. I thought I was blocked. Did you accidentally unblock me again?

Posted by jpmills3 on 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bbunch on 2/18/2017 8:40:00 AM (view original):

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?

This was so well put. I seriously just LOL'd.

That was funny, but...

If you have every clear advantage from prestige to personal preferences to attention/effort, you will probably not be in a die roll situation. In those cases, there are some plusses and minuses for each team--and in those closer calls, what finally makes a recruit decide is not always predictable. The percentages, to me, are like an outsider overall assessment of the recruit's likely decision.

"The percentages, to me, are like an outsider overall assessment of the recruit's likely decision."

I think this is a pretty good assessment. It's like 247's crystal ball.

I like 3.0 way better than 2.0. Quite frankly I was ready to quit 2.0 because of the ceilings, math equations, and sniping. Prestige could be more fluid. I am fine with a higher floor for big 6 schools even though I only like maybe 3-5 of them enough to ever consider coaching. The top 100 available to everyone at the same rate? Could be interesting with 4-5 very highs on some recruits but then some will be complaining about the 'luck factor'. In 3.0 I can max out a five star recruit from the Midwest if I want. No way can San Diego State even dream about winning a battle in the Midwest in 2.0.

Jpmills is the king of the West Coast right now. I haven't seen too many people challenging him for recruits yet but some of us are making inroads to do it and throw in an occasional challenge at him to remind him the Mountain West and other conferences are here to play. He is A+ prestige and most on the West Coast outside of the PAC 12 were B- (maybe 3 teams) and lower (everyone else). Conferences were underdeveloped on the West coast in 2.0 in his world. The only developed conference on the West coast was the PAC 12. That is changing.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 2/19/2017 12:17:00 PM (view original):
I like 3.0 way better than 2.0. Quite frankly I was ready to quit 2.0 because of the ceilings, math equations, and sniping. Prestige could be more fluid. I am fine with a higher floor for big 6 schools even though I only like maybe 3-5 of them enough to ever consider coaching. The top 100 available to everyone at the same rate? Could be interesting with 4-5 very highs on some recruits but then some will be complaining about the 'luck factor'. In 3.0 I can max out a five star recruit from the Midwest if I want. No way can San Diego State even dream about winning a battle in the Midwest in 2.0.

Jpmills is the king of the West Coast right now. I haven't seen too many people challenging him for recruits yet but some of us are making inroads to do it and throw in an occasional challenge at him to remind him the Mountain West and other conferences are here to play. He is A+ prestige and most on the West Coast outside of the PAC 12 were B- (maybe 3 teams) and lower (everyone else). Conferences were underdeveloped on the West coast in 2.0 in his world. The only developed conference on the West coast was the PAC 12. That is changing.

I agree - i think 3.0 is better than 2.0. I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

That being said, I think that caps should be raised to add strategy to the game. The caps should probably continue to exist, but every battle for a strong recruit seems like the coaches max out HV and CV and sit around and wait, which is not fun. Since prestige is a lesser part of the decision made, and conf. bonus cash doesn't exist, there wouldn't be a ridiculous advantage for schools with more resources...a higher cap would just add more strategy for the mid to high D1 coaches

Jpmills stay vigilant. Some of us are coming for your crown. In the past the only challengers were known to you in conference. Now we are everywhere: Mountain West, WCC, etc.

I wish everyone the best in recruiting and on court battles. Glad to have you all around.

I understand and respect many of the complaints against 3.0 but this is an example of history repeating itself. When they introduced potential a ton of users:

quit
complained that the game required less strategy

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/19/2017 12:30:00 PM (view original):
I understand and respect many of the complaints against 3.0 but this is an example of history repeating itself. When they introduced potential a ton of users:

quit
complained that the game required less strategy

Yeah, I really hope more coaches are brought in. Some of these worlds are looking a little bare.

Some people will always leave a game when changes occur. I'm not leaving any time soon, but I do think there should be fixes. I believe that there would be more strategy in the game if the caps were higher or did not exist. However, maybe fixing day 1 of phase 2 would alleviate some of my concerns.