Posted by Benis on 4/19/2017 6:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 6:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 4/19/2017 5:40:00 PM (view original):
" The best team who values the player the most sets the price. The market is working."
Not exactly true. Like Rogelio pointed out, we have artificial and arbitrary caps on spending our budget. Why can't I spend 100% of my budget on 1 guy and set the market price at 60 HVs?
It is true for the type of player we're talking about. D3s can't touch a player a D1 has maxed visits on. No need to spend 60HVs to keep the D3 away. 20 is plenty.
What about other D1 teams? If I'm battling another D1 team and I could beat him if I sent 60 HVs, why can't I? Why can't I set the market to be what I want it to be as long as I have the budget for it?
Because it causes bad gameplay. My argument has always been that recruiting should be entirely cashless. That's the best game approximation of real life recruiting, where recruits make decisions based on prestige, promises, and their own preferences, not how many times coach shows up for dinner. The whole idea of a coach making 60 trips to see a kid, and having that somehow sway him is absurd. I didn't love the 20 limit, but it was better gameplay than no limit. The best solution, if resources and effort *have* to be part of the game, is to have diminishing returns at some point (5 or 10, I argued). But seble opted for a hard limit instead.
All of that hat is a red herring here, though, as it has nothing to do with OP.