Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2017 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Does it help? How so?

It's harder for DIs to go all in on above 50 % of the scholarships needed. At Weber St, I went all in on the 39 recruit and lost to A+, gave 10 HVs to a Juco which I got, 5 HVs to a guard which I got, and just went all in on a local big just for kicks because he was my last spot left. I gave 55 HVs and 3 CVs with 4 open ships and had $2,500 left over.

I just chose relatively local guys (39 SF was 20 miles from campus) and BOOM not as much strategy. I could just spend and wait.

Posted by cubcub113 on 2/21/2017 11:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/21/2017 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Does it help? How so?

It's harder for DIs to go all in on above 50 % of the scholarships needed. At Weber St, I went all in on the 39 recruit and lost to A+, gave 10 HVs to a Juco which I got, 5 HVs to a guard which I got, and just went all in on a local big just for kicks because he was my last spot left. I gave 55 HVs and 3 CVs with 4 open ships and had $2,500 left over.

I just chose relatively local guys (39 SF was 20 miles from campus) and BOOM not as much strategy. I could just spend and wait.

So, given 5 more HV, what would you have done differently?

25 in to 39 ranked guy so that's 1,500 extra dollars. I probably still would have lost but I would have had To decide whether to keep pouring them in. 5 HVs and a CV to the guard, I battled with a DII and the recruit was whenever. I was actually down at high the session before. If I knew that the DII team could put on 25, I would have put in 2 or 3
more visits. Finally, there is the relatively local big that I went all in on. I wouldn't have been able to do that so I would have have to be more strategic.

In 3.0 you can max out the current cap and still have strategy. Do you allocate more AP to raise your chances? Do you reallocate it to another recruit right away?

Posted by cubcub113 on 2/22/2017 8:05:00 AM (view original):
25 in to 39 ranked guy so that's 1,500 extra dollars. I probably still would have lost but I would have had To decide whether to keep pouring them in. 5 HVs and a CV to the guard, I battled with a DII and the recruit was whenever. I was actually down at high the session before. If I knew that the DII team could put on 25, I would have put in 2 or 3
more visits. Finally, there is the relatively local big that I went all in on. I wouldn't have been able to do that so I would have have to be more strategic.

So really is just a matter of spending all resources and reallocating them a bit. You weren't trying to overwhelm another user with HV to the recruit. That's fair.

However, and you know a however was coming, unspent funds are really on you. With all the EE complaints, I have to believe these folks have unspent funds also. So, assuming I'm on the right track, the way to utilize the extra, unspent money would be to set up back-up plans in case you lose But users don't/won't because they don't want to use AP on back-up plans. It's just the strategy they choose.

To further the discussion, you weren't trying to beat down your opponent with HV but do you agree that many would with uncapped or higher capped HV?

FWIW, I don't really care if it's 10, 15, 20, 35 or whatever. But the higher it becomes, the more it becomes "resource battle" and WifS wanted to do away with that game. I'd MUCH prefer a cyle limit of 2. A late signing recruit could get more than 25. But, with that said, I know it will be unpopular because the same people saying "It's just a waiting game" will now say "So I have to check in every cycle? What if I miss a cycle? That's a bullshit way to do it."

And I say this because I believe the underlying reason to increase/uncap is so users can bludgeon other users to death with their bigger resource club.

D2 is the level it works the best. I have three teams and it's been fun. Lock us up out of the top 200 players in the country and it won't change anything.

The caliber of teams you get truly depend on the D1 population and D2 population. So a team that looks strong in IBA would not last long in RUPP, where the population is lower. I am experiencing Naismith now.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/22/2017 8:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 2/22/2017 8:05:00 AM (view original):
25 in to 39 ranked guy so that's 1,500 extra dollars. I probably still would have lost but I would have had To decide whether to keep pouring them in. 5 HVs and a CV to the guard, I battled with a DII and the recruit was whenever. I was actually down at high the session before. If I knew that the DII team could put on 25, I would have put in 2 or 3
more visits. Finally, there is the relatively local big that I went all in on. I wouldn't have been able to do that so I would have have to be more strategic.

So really is just a matter of spending all resources and reallocating them a bit. You weren't trying to overwhelm another user with HV to the recruit. That's fair.

However, and you know a however was coming, unspent funds are really on you. With all the EE complaints, I have to believe these folks have unspent funds also. So, assuming I'm on the right track, the way to utilize the extra, unspent money would be to set up back-up plans in case you lose But users don't/won't because they don't want to use AP on back-up plans. It's just the strategy they choose.

To further the discussion, you weren't trying to beat down your opponent with HV but do you agree that many would with uncapped or higher capped HV?

I completely see your point, Mike. It's a pretty fine line honestly.

It is. But, as I said, the higher it is, the more it becomes a "resource battle". It also begins to restrict distance recruiting. I believe WifS, and many users, wanted to expand that aspect of the game. Which, in turn, makes location a bigger deal. Raising/eliminating HV caps starts a slow roll back to 2.0.

People have mentioned that caps for level restrictions are arbitrary (or would be if implemented) but what about the number 20? Why is the cap of HVs 20?

IIRC seble basically pulled that out his bum and said that very few battles were more than that... in beta. Which we know is not representative of what is going on now.

So what's the logic that 20 is the right number? Maybe it should be less?

I am not really for eliminating caps. I am for letting top 200 players be available to all D1 team at the same price.... HV, CV. And I am for VH to VH rolls and H being 0 % to win. It will change the strat and get the AP value Worth something. And it will also demand to invest in a recruit pretty early.

At D2, I am to make sure top 200 are unavailable, unscoutable.

At D3, I am against D1 recruiting since it's on the last day anyways and it just makes recruiting irrelevant since it's more a waiting game than a recruiting battle going.

Posted by Benis on 2/22/2017 9:49:00 AM (view original):
People have mentioned that caps for level restrictions are arbitrary (or would be if implemented) but what about the number 20? Why is the cap of HVs 20?

IIRC seble basically pulled that out his bum and said that very few battles were more than that... in beta. Which we know is not representative of what is going on now.

So what's the logic that 20 is the right number? Maybe it should be less?

I just said that I didn't care what number it was but the higher it is, the more likely it becomes a "resource battle". My assumption was that some research had been done, some calculations had been done based on distance/cost/resources but that assumption was based on nothing. ***-pulled is just as likely.

I also assumed 20 was something D1 could always afford, D2 could sometimes afford and D3 could never afford for 2 or more recruits. That assumption is also based on nothing.

20 might be the wrong number. But I know raising/eliminating it does make recruiting more of a "resource battle" and further restricts distance recruiting.

Posted by zorzii on 2/22/2017 9:50:00 AM (view original):
I am not really for eliminating caps. I am for letting top 200 players be available to all D1 team at the same price.... HV, CV. And I am for VH to VH rolls and H being 0 % to win. It will change the strat and get the AP value Worth something. And it will also demand to invest in a recruit pretty early.

At D2, I am to make sure top 200 are unavailable, unscoutable.

At D3, I am against D1 recruiting since it's on the last day anyways and it just makes recruiting irrelevant since it's more a waiting game than a recruiting battle going.

D3 recruiting is a really more of a "discovery" game. You're looking for low level D1/D2 players that D1/D2 teams would not want. You're hoping no one else finds them. And, if they do, you have to decide whether to stay on them and fight or to move on. It's not D1 recruiting and, honestly, I'm not sure it should be. I've had two instances where another D3 found the recruits I was on. I evaluated their needs/resources. I bailed on one, he needed that player more than I did and I felt he had the resources(and preferences) to beat me if he put forth the effort. I stayed on one, I needed the player worse and, if I put 100% of my resources in, I felt I could win. That user apparently did the same evaluation I did and bailed.

There is strategy and it's good "training" for when you move up. The same evaluations will be made but the pool will be smaller. Restricting the D3 pool even further(D3 shouldn't think about Top 100 at any position, IMO) only restricts the learning process.

I'd agree with you Mike if D3 was presented as a Learning ground and coaches had to move up after four seasons. But if they did this, WOW would lose money since some owners really like D3. Gamers found and will always find the weaknesses in a system. Gamers like Only, QB, Piman, to name a few, were already well aware of the importance of location before 3.0. They are not sentimental or anything, they want to win so they get to a place where they do not get any competition for D2 pulldowns in 2.0 and to get top D3 recruits easily... Now, they have more to work with, you give them D1 players where they are not challenged or they find a place where they are not challenged and put together teams that will discouraged any new owners... A guy Learning the game, pretty happy with his recruiting after 4 years will get destroyed by a 700 overall D3 (i saw one) team that is more like a D1 team... 12 players all good, all ready to destroy the fun of anybody. Location is more important in D3 than it was before, first because you can't scout as efficiently as before, second because you get D1 leftovers and distance is important, so if your state is almost empty, you get a lot of talent or a lot of expected talent... Third, it's tougher to recruit all over the country than it was in 2.0 because you haven't discovered all the players, you haven't scouted all the players away from campus etc.

If I was not seeing 650 to 700 overall teams, I'd say it's working as intented... It makes D3 really boring because it's a matter of location rather than skills and recruiting has become a waiting job til the last day...

His team is in his youngish side and he is 3rd in the country.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=14629