I never got the chance to play HD 2.0, but from all of the recent discussion in the forums it sounds like it was pretty similar to the current Gridiron Dynasty setup where you have a vision ceiling on the recruits you can get, and have no real chance of competing with a better team for recruits. At the higher levels, you basically stay in your lane during recruiting with the hierarchy being Elite schools > BCS Schools > Mid Major Schools > D1-AA schools.

I'm not complaining about GD, I enjoy it and will keep playing it, but just trying to get some context to understand the love/hate fests going on in the 2.0 vs. 3.0 discussions. For those that have played both, is the current GD a similar setup to what HD 2.0 used to be?

I used to play GD. I quit when it changed to its current form, which I found very demanding in terms of time and very frustrating

I loved HD 2.0 although I thought it needed some improvement

I'm neutral on 3.0 - giving it a try but the balance of fun, effort, frustration isnt great for me.

I think the best comparison with GD is to compare the rollout with how GD 2.0 was rolled out -- user input ignored much like the player council's insights in GD were largely ignored, done on a timetable so that when beta testing started they were already locked into a release timeframe whether the game was prepared or not, known issues largely ignored, an extended period of "beta testing" (paying customers discovering things that shouldn't have hit the live release) after release, things being tried to "see how it goes" which then suddenly become permanent because nobody appears to be seeing how it goes, etc.

Now I will be the first to admit that HD 3.0 isn't nearly as large a pooch screw as the initial GD 2.0 release was, but it hallmarks that many of the lessons that ought to have been learned were not.

Yes HD 2.0 was similar to GD. I play both. I like 3.0 better than 2.0.

One thing that bothers some people about 3.0 is that winning a recruit isn't black and white based on effort or prestige. For most coaches you had to be in power conference or in a recruiting hotbed to regularly contend in 2.0. Similar to what you see in GD. HD 3.0 gives up and coming schools and schools in non-recruiting hotbeds a better shot at getting a recruit based on percentages.

Power conferences are still important but you no longer get extra cash for each team in the tournament so you can no longer just outspend someone for a recruit. There is also a cap on everything but AP in recruiting so that reduces the handicap recruiting from say Montana, Utah, Kansas, or Hawaii.

Recruiting hotbeds are still important but more so for depth now. The other schools are now better able to challenge you for your best players and you could lose those players depending on the CPU decision based on percentage chance of winning. 51%-75% chance of winning no longer guarantees you the recruit. However in a recruiting hotbed you would be in a better position to find a reasonable backup option.

I played GD and enjoyed it more than HD -- until the Leahy collusion/cheating scandal, which WIS handled poorly in my opinion.

GD was similar to HD 2.0, except recruits were easier to sign in GD just because they were so numerous. Otherwise the experiences were very similar.

I played the HD 3 beta and I didn't care for it. I just signed up for Rupp D2 using the last free season I have on account. Curious to see what's changed since beta.