From a d1 perspective, there's plenty of anxiety from cycle to cycle unless you're the type who feels he has to go all-in, cycle 1, on the two local five-star EE recruits everyone wants and then waiting for a die roll. That would be boring and often not all that smart, strategically. Many recent successful NT runs in Tark have been by senior-laden teams and not the reload teams; I don't think the "bet it all on black" is the only way to go.

I've found a dynamic, feeling-out period the first several cycles. The community actions from one cycle cascade into the next.

The 20-cap on HVs is fine. In real life a school can do only so much, and too much starts becoming annoying. Home visits are more than a literal "I visited the home" -- TOUCH. The limited budgets and prioritizing APs and signing time preferences should make each cycle for many recruits still nerve-wracking. You will likely need to get some players "on the cheap" and those players are especially vulnerable.

D1 involves less strategy. It's a dogfight at the lower levels. Just deciding what division of players to scout is a chess match.

Posted by ab90 on 2/21/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):
D1 involves less strategy. It's a dogfight at the lower levels. Just deciding what division of players to scout is a chess match.

I agree with the second part, that's more in line with my experience than most other views here, especially in D2. But I'd like to hear your reasoning on the first. What strategy do you think is missing in D1?

When people say strategy has decreased in D1, what I think they mean is there is now less value to the tedious legwork of calculating opponents' resources, pinpointing the relative value of all the actions, watching to see when the big fish got challenged for someone, etc. As I have said, I just see that as one particular, time- and effort-intensive strategy becoming less dominant. People can have recruiting "success" using other avenues now, and that puts more value on other strategic areas, like long term roster building, and game planning.

I agree with jaxorbetter. I don't find D1 recruiting to lack excitement. true, the actual anxiety of HD2 has been lessened since you're not just logging in every few hours to see if you've been tag-teamed and ruined--i don't think that's a bad thing.

ab90, i think there is definitely a "chess match" element to D1 recruiting too. i don't see how it's less so than lower levels. if anything, i think D1 may be more of a chess match. at D2, a viable strategy is opening up a handful of players and then signing the ones with the least D1 interest...sometimes not battling at all.

in D1, as jax said, everyone is poking around the first few cycles, and you have to evaluate the playing field and plot your strategy...do you go all in on the local guys? do you see if you can find some less contested players far away? do you use a ton of money to scout internationals and hope that pays off? do you move away from 3-team battle given the decreased odds of landing the recruit? there is a lot going on. i read the forums sometimes and feel like I'm not playing the same game as the folks who seem to suggest your put your bets in right away and then sit bored and wait.

lastly, i am against increased caps. i don't think this would add to strategy. i think it would lead to more walk-ons as more people blow their whole budget more quickly and then lose the RNG anyway. we have enough walk-ons (maybe too many).