Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rogelio on 4/19/2017 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/19/2017 3:40:00 PM (view original):
Shared universe is fundamental to a game that wants to represent 3 divisions of realistic college basketball simulation. Hell, I wouldn't have designed a game with a division 3, I've said that many times. But that's the game that exists.
Let's be clear. Artificial caps and/or player inflation doesn't make the game "better". It makes the game easier for people who want to employ specific strategies. You dance and obfuscate all you want, but this is the bottom line. It's not that you're "forced" to put all your eggs in one basket and gamble on winning those battles, or scaring off challengers. You are choosing that strategy because that's the way you *want* to play, and capping the divisions reduces the risk of that strategy. Shared universe is a fundamental strategic aspect of the game. Removing it benefits players who don't want to worry about prioritizing and securing backups, thereby removing the strategic implications. You are arguing for a less intelligent, less strategic game.
You keep ignoring the obvious. There are significant market inefficiencies generate in the current game. D1 is not "clearing" enough of the "D1" recruits. They are being left to D3 when they should not be.
There are several "artificial" caps already in place. 80 AP; spud's redlight; 20 HV cap; 1 CV cap (with a limit of 5 per recruit)... All of that is artificial...your word. It is all intended to make the market function better; each represent arbitrary choices. My argument is that these caps are not yielding efficient recruit distribution. The simple fix is to re-install natural (mocking your word) caps...that a ranked recruit should not consider effort from a D3 school.
I might even say that the tradeoff would be a loosening of spud's redlight and the AP restrictions, in favor of re-installing the divisional caps roughly as they existed in 2.0. Probably not even as strict. At a bare minimum, the Top 100 recruits, whom do not need to be discovered (another arbitrary / artificial choice), need to only be recruitable by D1 teams.
Those aren't inefficiencies. Those are accurate reflections of how coaches are prioritizing players. It's a gameplay issue. If more people stopped playing the way you insist people "must" play to be competitive, fewer of those players would fall to D3. They fall to D3 because D1 teams let D3 set the prices for low D1 projected players, then try to catch up at the last minute, and/or when most of their resources have been spent, instead of investing a little in them early to move D3 off early.
The game as a whole exists in two parts: recruiting and season simulation. Why is it such a benefit that the recruiting market is unified when the season simulation is segregated? Why is it "just the way it is" to have walk-on filled sim teams at Big 6? You assert that it is easy to "move off D3 teams", but that assumes you were at the position in period #1 and suffered no unexpected EEs or bad beats. You baldly assert that we ought to expect a penalty for changing jobs, but you provide no rationale for why that would be good for gameplay or good for expanding the user base.
A market inefficiency is a failure to clear on its own. There is no rationale for significant overlap in competition for recruits among schools that do not compete in the season. A group of arbitrary choices have been made by the game designers, which you elide over as though they were natural consequence of some necessary Weltanschauung, but there just is no unified game being played among all divisions in each world.
The gameplay benefit is that the shared universe emphasizes prioritization, and increases strategic value. Artificially separating the recruiting process into different worlds reduces the value of strategic thinking. The best team who values the player the most sets the price. The market is working.
If you want big 6 sims to recruit more intelligently, fine. But you have to accept the consequences, one of which will be guys like crabman will be fighting off tougher sims now for primary, secondary, AND backup targets. Bad sims just isnt a big gameplay issue. And within that issue, the biggest problem is the hiring process, which causes teams to look almost unredeemable before anyone who would be interested is qualified. Having them sign low D1 players instead of walkons and have them be marginally less bad isn't really helping anyone.
You have been demonstrably wrong on a number of things in this thread. D3 AP is already considerably less valuable than D1 AP. There are not 10 D3 teams in "most worlds" that have higher OVR than the best D2 team, not even remotely true. Rebuilds are not all that difficult in 3.0, unless you are expecting, for some bizarre reason, to waltz in and dominate. And you're treating a proposed divisional cap as though it would be a minor and easy tweak with nothing but good gameplay benefits, ignoring the obvious effects that closing off competition would have one both levels. I know you're a smart guy. I wish you'd be honest about your preferences, and stop grasping at all sorts of half and un-truths to prop it up.
4/19/2017 5:33 PM (edited)