Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 11:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.
The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?
I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
Honestly, this is how you're sounding PK. I don't doubt that you find the new game more fun. That's totally your opinion and you have the right to it.
But you're sounding like someone who blames the game. You had Va Tech nearby and couldn't compete for recruits. That Va Tech wasn't a powerhouse. In their final 2 seasons, they were about .500. But you still couldn't figure out how to compete for recruits against another school. Or you knew what to do but didn't feel like it?
All this does is add more gas to the narrative that people who love 3.0 and support it couldn't hack it in the previous game and were bitter. Maybe you don't see it that way but you certainly sound like it.
No, I don't sound like that. That's the narrative you're projecting into it.
The point wasn't Va Tech. The point was that the conference was full, and half of them were perennial A to A+. Va Tech was the one that left, but it would have been similar had it been Maryland, Duke, Ga Tech, Wake Forest, UNC, BC, etc. There's a reason why mully didn't bring up his stint at Arkansas in Naismith. The southeast was saturated. And when recruiting is deterministic, it *absolutely does* favor the risk averse.
Well, the good news is that we no longer need to worry about full conferences anymore.
Even where they are full, it shouldn't be a worry. A functional game would enable competitiveness for recruits within the conference. 3.0 does that. Not many conferences have more than 2 full letter grade spread, and even at that point, lower teams can still win recruits if the higher team has not prioritized or valued the recruit as highly.
I don't mind playing in full conferences, played in one with mully, surely one of the top D2 conferences across all worlds for a stretch. As long as it's competitive, and doesn't become winner's ball, or first in, first up (FarmVille), there's no problem. There's just no rational reason why a C prestige team should be so heavily disincentivized to compete with an A prestige team for *any* recruit. That's bad game design. It's non-competitive. Is that me "blaming the game"? Sure.