One 3.0 recruiting benefit Topic

Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
Posted by mullycj on 5/16/2018 1:55:00 PM (view original):
4. The reason they were put in is what chap is talking about in the OP. It wasn’t to stop poaching, and it wasn’t so WIS could be a nanny-state federal government. It was to reduce the competitive advantages of superclasses, and ensure that teams could legitimately go after good recruits with fewer scholarships. Tarvolon and Seble and I had this discussion explicitly in the beta forums (honestly, I thought you were a part of that too, mully, so I’m surprised you seem to think otherwise).

No, I agree it's a good way to combat the superclasses. But part of that was getting rid of carryover money also.
In general I just dislike HD limiting the amount of individual decisions/strategies users can make. This isn't one I'm falling on a sword over, but just like to show the opposing viewpoints some times.
I remember Seble saying that he added the limit to protect people from over spending on one player. Which is ridiculous that you need to add that level of protection. Especially for D1 folks who usually have a dozen or more seasons under their belt.

And why was 20 HVs chosen? Was it based upon any logic? Anyone remember?

I do. It was arbitrary. And Seble said 'only a few battles are even getting up to 20 HVs'. Well that was because there were only 25 people playing D1 in Beta!
5/16/2018 2:27 PM
shoe3
Posts: 4159 (0)
Hall of Famer
392 12 6
Veteran
Posted by Benis on 5/16/2018 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 5/16/2018 1:55:00 PM (view original):
4. The reason they were put in is what chap is talking about in the OP. It wasn’t to stop poaching, and it wasn’t so WIS could be a nanny-state federal government. It was to reduce the competitive advantages of superclasses, and ensure that teams could legitimately go after good recruits with fewer scholarships. Tarvolon and Seble and I had this discussion explicitly in the beta forums (honestly, I thought you were a part of that too, mully, so I’m surprised you seem to think otherwise).

No, I agree it's a good way to combat the superclasses. But part of that was getting rid of carryover money also.
In general I just dislike HD limiting the amount of individual decisions/strategies users can make. This isn't one I'm falling on a sword over, but just like to show the opposing viewpoints some times.
I remember Seble saying that he added the limit to protect people from over spending on one player. Which is ridiculous that you need to add that level of protection. Especially for D1 folks who usually have a dozen or more seasons under their belt.

And why was 20 HVs chosen? Was it based upon any logic? Anyone remember?

I do. It was arbitrary. And Seble said 'only a few battles are even getting up to 20 HVs'. Well that was because there were only 25 people playing D1 in Beta!
Almost all of this is wrong, or at least twisted.

The one part that isn’t wrong wrong is that 20 is an arbitrary number. It’s far too high.
5/16/2018 2:38 PM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
No Shoe - its not wrong. In fact its pretty damn accurate. No one suggested capping visits anywhere in BETA, then one day BOOM...Seble put it in.
5/16/2018 3:06 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
Posted by mullycj on 5/16/2018 3:06:00 PM (view original):
No Shoe - its not wrong. In fact its pretty damn accurate. No one suggested capping visits anywhere in BETA, then one day BOOM...Seble put it in.
People's reaction to every decision made in Beta
5/16/2018 3:30 PM
mbriese
Posts: 1091 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 75 118
Prospect
So are you guys saying that teams with one scholarship should be more vulnerable to being outbid by team with more scholarships? Do you think lowering the importance of preferences would make the game more strategic? Beyond the "I miss 2.0" and "I've been playing this game a long time don't tell me what to do" logic, I don't see the reasoning behind removing the cap.

If you're looking to make recruiting less RNG-dependent, there are other options:
  • More preferences such as academics, or add recruit priority (ex: student wants playing time close to home, other preferences are 2nd tier)
  • Add more process to unlocking options (ex: Shoe's "the recruit tells you when you can visit", or recruits only having a few set windows for HV/CV - later versions of the NCAA Football games did this really well)
  • Add more process to recruiting in general, like maybe emails recruits respond to you with should matter?
  • Add slight multipliers to height and weight
  • Other options not included in a "3.0 sucks bring back 2.0 seble what is you doingggg" conversation
5/16/2018 3:39 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
"So are you guys saying that teams with one scholarship should be more vulnerable to being outbid by team with more scholarships? "

No. Refer to my 3 posts in this thread where I said budget should be independent of openings.
5/16/2018 3:53 PM
mbriese
Posts: 1091 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 75 118
Prospect
Ohh, so teams with one scholarship should be able to outbid a team with many open scholarships on any player they choose? Man, I've got a season coming up where I have 6 open scholarships. That would be a huge bummer.
5/16/2018 4:07 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
Posted by mbriese on 5/16/2018 4:07:00 PM (view original):
Ohh, so teams with one scholarship should be able to outbid a team with many open scholarships on any player they choose? Man, I've got a season coming up where I have 6 open scholarships. That would be a huge bummer.
Better pick a guy with good preferences!
5/16/2018 4:16 PM
grimacedance
Posts: 317 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 165 4 3
Rookie
Posted by mbriese on 5/16/2018 3:39:00 PM (view original):
So are you guys saying that teams with one scholarship should be more vulnerable to being outbid by team with more scholarships? Do you think lowering the importance of preferences would make the game more strategic? Beyond the "I miss 2.0" and "I've been playing this game a long time don't tell me what to do" logic, I don't see the reasoning behind removing the cap.

If you're looking to make recruiting less RNG-dependent, there are other options:
  • More preferences such as academics, or add recruit priority (ex: student wants playing time close to home, other preferences are 2nd tier)
  • Add more process to unlocking options (ex: Shoe's "the recruit tells you when you can visit", or recruits only having a few set windows for HV/CV - later versions of the NCAA Football games did this really well)
  • Add more process to recruiting in general, like maybe emails recruits respond to you with should matter?
  • Add slight multipliers to height and weight
  • Other options not included in a "3.0 sucks bring back 2.0 seble what is you doingggg" conversation
On the first one, I always thought a preference for academics -- defined by average team college GPA -- would be beneficial. Right now, as long as the player has a GPA over 2.0, that's all that matters. We all try to use as little study hall as possible. But if some recruits wanted a program where study time was emphasized, that adds a new wrinkle into the practice minutes calculations.
5/16/2018 4:17 PM
mbriese
Posts: 1091 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 75 118
Prospect
No need! A team with 1 scholarship could definitely outbid me if I have to spread out an equal amount of resources to fill 6.

Also, I'm glad you read the first sentence of my post, but what about the rest of it?
5/16/2018 4:18 PM
mbriese
Posts: 1091 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 75 118
Prospect
Posted by grimacedance on 5/16/2018 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mbriese on 5/16/2018 3:39:00 PM (view original):
So are you guys saying that teams with one scholarship should be more vulnerable to being outbid by team with more scholarships? Do you think lowering the importance of preferences would make the game more strategic? Beyond the "I miss 2.0" and "I've been playing this game a long time don't tell me what to do" logic, I don't see the reasoning behind removing the cap.

If you're looking to make recruiting less RNG-dependent, there are other options:
  • More preferences such as academics, or add recruit priority (ex: student wants playing time close to home, other preferences are 2nd tier)
  • Add more process to unlocking options (ex: Shoe's "the recruit tells you when you can visit", or recruits only having a few set windows for HV/CV - later versions of the NCAA Football games did this really well)
  • Add more process to recruiting in general, like maybe emails recruits respond to you with should matter?
  • Add slight multipliers to height and weight
  • Other options not included in a "3.0 sucks bring back 2.0 seble what is you doingggg" conversation
On the first one, I always thought a preference for academics -- defined by average team college GPA -- would be beneficial. Right now, as long as the player has a GPA over 2.0, that's all that matters. We all try to use as little study hall as possible. But if some recruits wanted a program where study time was emphasized, that adds a new wrinkle into the practice minutes calculations.
Right? Not to mention how interesting it'd be when recruiting against, say, an Arkansas team that meets a "Very High" academics preference. I'd sacrifice some practice time to make UTA an academic powerhouse.
5/16/2018 4:21 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
Posted by mbriese on 5/16/2018 4:18:00 PM (view original):
No need! A team with 1 scholarship could definitely outbid me if I have to spread out an equal amount of resources to fill 6.

Also, I'm glad you read the first sentence of my post, but what about the rest of it?
Well then you should definitely be more strategic and intentional with your class structure. Or maybe you try not to spread out your resources equally among your 6 target players. Is that how you do it right now?

But sure, happy to indulge the rest of what you posted -

" Do you think lowering the importance of preferences would make the game more strategic?"

Why would this lower importance of preferences? Preferences are magnified by effort (HVs). The more effort you put in the more total amount that you've just multiplied via preferences (or diminished with bad preferences).

"Beyond the "I miss 2.0" and "I've been playing this game a long time don't tell me what to do" logic, I don't see the reasoning behind removing the cap." I'm not suggesting a 2.0 system. I'm suggesting something different than 2.0. I'm not advocating for bring back rollover or conference cash. I'm advocating for forcing the player into making MORE choices which in turn gives more options to make intelligent decisions during recruiting.
5/16/2018 4:31 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
"If you're looking to make recruiting less RNG-dependent, there are other options": I'm not necessarily looking to make recruiting less RNG dependent. If it goes to a dice roll then fine. But getting to that destination should have more choices to consider and decisions to make along the way.
  • More preferences such as academics, or add recruit priority (ex: student wants playing time close to home, other preferences are 2nd tier) This isn't a bad idea. But whether or not a recruit cares about academics is RNG dependent - just like most of preferences. Counter to what you're saying.
  • Add more process to unlocking options (ex: Shoe's "the recruit tells you when you can visit", or recruits only having a few set windows for HV/CV - later versions of the NCAA Football games did this really well) I don't really understand this suggestion so can you elaborate? I suggested limiting the # of HVs per cycle which prevents the one cycle HV love bomb which people say sucked in 2.0 but for some reason doesn't think exists anymore.
  • Add more process to recruiting in general, like maybe emails recruits respond to you with should matter? I don't know what this one means.
  • Add slight multipliers to height and weight I like this idea and mentioned it in another thread but it has nothing to do with the recruiting system or how it makes anything else RNG dependent? Height and weight would be determined by RNG.
  • Other options not included in a "3.0 sucks bring back 2.0 seble what is you doingggg" conversation" No one is saying bring back 2.0.
5/16/2018 4:31 PM
mbriese
Posts: 1091 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 75 118
Prospect
No, I seriously doubt anyone spreads resources out equally over 6 players, but having the same amount of money for 6 scholarships vs. someone that has 1 scholarship drastically favors the guy with only 1 opening. Any argument to the contrary is silly nonsense. As for the "structure your classes better", the argument could be made that having 1 class with 6 scholarships makes it possible to have another class with 1 scholarship, which in your system would be a huge deal!

It lowers the importance of preferences by raising the importance of $$$. Removing caps would make it so that someone with more money (or, in your proposed system, less scholarships) can outbid a player I have an immense preference advantage on just by throwing more HVs and CVs at a recruit. (This is where someone should jump in and say something about the game needing to be more "realistic", as if real life coaches convince players to sign by visiting their houses 40 times and getting them to visit the campus a dozen times.)

As for more choices and decisions, I obviously agree, hence my cluster of suggestions (and the one stolen from shoe) that don't involve an imbalance of power for teams that have more or less scholarships available like there was in 2.0.
5/16/2018 4:43 PM
shoe3
Posts: 4159 (0)
Hall of Famer
392 12 6
Veteran
Posted by mullycj on 5/16/2018 3:06:00 PM (view original):
No Shoe - its not wrong. In fact its pretty damn accurate. No one suggested capping visits anywhere in BETA, then one day BOOM...Seble put it in.
No mully, people were talking about caps from the start of beta; I know this is true, because I was one of them. Seble wanted to see how it played without them, and it was ridiculous, and here we are. They were not added to protect people from themselves, they were added to improve gameplay. Interestingly, Benis’s story used to be that they were added to prevent poaching, which was also false. They were added because a commodity game without caps sucks, on multiple levels.
5/16/2018 4:46 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
One 3.0 recruiting benefit Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.