Posted by clouseb on 6/8/2019 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Reading through this thread makes me really miss the old HD recruiting system. I don’t want to come off as a whiner because I still love the game and understand why the changes were made to level the playing field, but the strategy of the old recruiting system was just so much fun. The battling strategy is simply not there with the new system, as every major battle is now a carbon copy of each other. 20 HV, 1 CV, and maybe some promises. Rinse and repeat. I came into HD relatively late compared to a lot of the old timers, and by the time I was finally recruiting in D1 at a high level with an A prestige the switch was made. I remember setting up my depth chart and treating battles with the care of a military strategist. Creeping on other teams considering list, staying up until 2:00 and occasionally setting an alarm for 5:00 for the perfect opportunity to poach are some of my best memories in any game. Do you spend a few extra HVs to make a recruit *tight* to ward off poachers even though you seemingly have them locked up? Anxiously checking your emails after every recruiting cycle that you are in a lead, knowing that no news is good news. That kind of strategy simply isn’t in the game any more. Granted, this is slightly made up for with AP, the required expansion of your target list, and preferences, but it isn’t the same.

I don’t want to sound all doom and gloom because I still really enjoy the game, but I miss the high level strategy involved. Many people complained about the top schools being overpowered, which was certainly true, but it was still absolutely possible to turn around a school and make them your own powerhouse if you took the time and knew what you were doing. I have a dream of them opening up one new world using the old recruiting system, but know this would never happen.

It is interesting to note that all the teams (in Allen anyway) that dominated in 2.0 are now dominating at 3.0 as the great coaches that could not advance because the HOF coaches were already at the Big 6 conferences, have now worked there way to the top after the HOF coaches stopped playing because the game wasn't rigged for them to keep their monopoly. What IS nice is that the second layer of coaches have an opportunity to snag a 4 or 5 * recruit every now and then. I have been frustrated with losing a recruit even though I had a 70% chance of signing him more than a handful of times...but I also signed some good recruits when on the short end (not as often though...at least it seems that way). Great coaches will ALWAYS have great teams, no matter the times they lose a recruit because of the "new" recruiting system. I am happy to see Gillipse (sp) coming back, as I always thought he was the most informed person who ever played this game.....I shouldn't think it will take him long to be back at the top.

Posted by Benis on 6/8/2019 1:48:00 PM (view original):
"every major battle is now a carbon copy of each other. 20 HV, 1 CV, and maybe some promises."

Yup, pretty much.

there is a set max effort - the strategy has evolved into where to devote the max effort. Whichis arguably closer to reality. Is there any recruit who can get 50 home visits from a school?

That is NOT a reason what it is the right way to run recruiting - and there is much that i dislike in 3.0.

But there are layers and layers of strategy and tactics in recruiting if you choose to consider and pursue them

Posted by shoe3 on 6/8/2019 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Everyone is entitled to their own preferences, of course. But this statement is categorically false: “every major battle is now a carbon copy of each other. 20 HV, 1 CV, and maybe some promises.” There are legit 4 and 5-Star players every year going to teams for substantially less than this; going “all in” for your top targets, and declining to line up other options is one way to play, but it is neither the only, nor necessarily the best.

You can miss the old setup. That’s valid. Some people don’t like probability games; they don’t want to play Sid Meier’s Civilization, they want to play chess. But the idea that *strategy* has been reduced in this version is just absolutely false. What has happened is that the value of knowing and executing one particular type of strategy has been substantially reduced, which allows for the development and execution of other types of strategies.

There are *all sorts* of viable strategies open to players now. You don’t have to avoid battling higher level teams. You don’t have to try to figure out what your rivals have to possibly spend. You don’t have to hoard resources, calculate HV-CV ratios, or mess up your sleep patterns (which is actually medically dangerous for some of us). All you have to do is decide who you want to go after, and how hard; which again, actually puts an even higher premium on strategy. You must choose how to scout (depth vs breadth); and how much risk you’re willing to tolerate, ie how open you are to playing walkons vs taking on projects; and how you value flexibility against the desire to field a team with as many superstars as possible; and how (if) to plan for the reality that the elite commodities come with volatility (early entries); and of course how to deal with probability-based outcomes. Individual recruiting battles are not *the game*. It comes down to what you can do with what you can get. It’s a much more rational setup of risk/reward choices, and that makes it a more competitive multiplayer game.

*applause* Very well stated post by someone smart enough to understand it.

Others ("carbon copy") not so much.

Posted by DeBeque on 6/10/2019 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/8/2019 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Everyone is entitled to their own preferences, of course. But this statement is categorically false: “every major battle is now a carbon copy of each other. 20 HV, 1 CV, and maybe some promises.” There are legit 4 and 5-Star players every year going to teams for substantially less than this; going “all in” for your top targets, and declining to line up other options is one way to play, but it is neither the only, nor necessarily the best.

You can miss the old setup. That’s valid. Some people don’t like probability games; they don’t want to play Sid Meier’s Civilization, they want to play chess. But the idea that *strategy* has been reduced in this version is just absolutely false. What has happened is that the value of knowing and executing one particular type of strategy has been substantially reduced, which allows for the development and execution of other types of strategies.

There are *all sorts* of viable strategies open to players now. You don’t have to avoid battling higher level teams. You don’t have to try to figure out what your rivals have to possibly spend. You don’t have to hoard resources, calculate HV-CV ratios, or mess up your sleep patterns (which is actually medically dangerous for some of us). All you have to do is decide who you want to go after, and how hard; which again, actually puts an even higher premium on strategy. You must choose how to scout (depth vs breadth); and how much risk you’re willing to tolerate, ie how open you are to playing walkons vs taking on projects; and how you value flexibility against the desire to field a team with as many superstars as possible; and how (if) to plan for the reality that the elite commodities come with volatility (early entries); and of course how to deal with probability-based outcomes. Individual recruiting battles are not *the game*. It comes down to what you can do with what you can get. It’s a much more rational setup of risk/reward choices, and that makes it a more competitive multiplayer game.

*applause* Very well stated post by someone smart enough to understand it.

Others ("carbon copy") not so much.

Hope you stocked up on chap stick Spud. Some high quality *** kissing right here.

Posted by Benis on 6/10/2019 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DeBeque on 6/10/2019 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/8/2019 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Everyone is entitled to their own preferences, of course. But this statement is categorically false: “every major battle is now a carbon copy of each other. 20 HV, 1 CV, and maybe some promises.” There are legit 4 and 5-Star players every year going to teams for substantially less than this; going “all in” for your top targets, and declining to line up other options is one way to play, but it is neither the only, nor necessarily the best.

You can miss the old setup. That’s valid. Some people don’t like probability games; they don’t want to play Sid Meier’s Civilization, they want to play chess. But the idea that *strategy* has been reduced in this version is just absolutely false. What has happened is that the value of knowing and executing one particular type of strategy has been substantially reduced, which allows for the development and execution of other types of strategies.

There are *all sorts* of viable strategies open to players now. You don’t have to avoid battling higher level teams. You don’t have to try to figure out what your rivals have to possibly spend. You don’t have to hoard resources, calculate HV-CV ratios, or mess up your sleep patterns (which is actually medically dangerous for some of us). All you have to do is decide who you want to go after, and how hard; which again, actually puts an even higher premium on strategy. You must choose how to scout (depth vs breadth); and how much risk you’re willing to tolerate, ie how open you are to playing walkons vs taking on projects; and how you value flexibility against the desire to field a team with as many superstars as possible; and how (if) to plan for the reality that the elite commodities come with volatility (early entries); and of course how to deal with probability-based outcomes. Individual recruiting battles are not *the game*. It comes down to what you can do with what you can get. It’s a much more rational setup of risk/reward choices, and that makes it a more competitive multiplayer game.

*applause* Very well stated post by someone smart enough to understand it.

Others ("carbon copy") not so much.

Hope you stocked up on chap stick Spud. Some high quality *** kissing right here.

...says the Earl of Sycopancy.

Posted by thewizard17 on 6/3/2019 2:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/3/2019 12:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 6/2/2019 11:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/2/2019 5:56:00 PM (view original):
thanks! one more question - it is pretty different to me not easily being able to see what other teams are doing, at least at a macro level. how much do folks spend time like, searching the local players to see who is considering who, and kind of trying to judge your opponent's strategy for the battle(s) in question based on that data? is that sort of expected in the top tier of recruiting?

I actually put quite a bit of time into this and just landed the #11 rated center at D prestige Rutgers. I think it's important to know how many APs and recruiting money other surrounding schools have(up to a 500 mile radius) or where ever your recruiting range is.

Another strategy I will use often is scouting every state, including internationals and will keep an eye out on recruiting battles. For instance, if I see an A range prestige team in 3 other battles and that 4th player that same team is on isn't battling anybody and if the preferences are at least somewhat favorable, I just might take a chance on that player. It doesn't happen often, but once in a while, you might be able to steal a player, which can make a huge difference to a lower prestige team.

i totally believe this kind of benefit is achievable with the effort, no matter what your prestige - its just that the extra good player is way more valuable for the lower prestige teams. nice job!

2 more questions (unrelated to this) -
1) is there still an EE benefit to prestige? how does that work now? is it like, last season's boost impacts phase 1 recruiting (session 1?), but this season's boost impacts this season's effort?

2) are the % chances of winning in 2-way battles established? like, very high vs very high can range from 65/35 to 35/65, very high vs high can range from 65/35 to 100/0, etc? this seems pretty easy to put together, maybe a dozen's of seasons worth of data would get you pretty close, i think.

if it doesn't exist, same question stated differently - whats the highest % anyone has seen in a 2 way battle with a high? whats the lowest %? (may also be worth asking what the most difference anyone has seen on very high in a 2 way battle, to double-check that very high / high boundary). benis mentioned a 0% high but unclear if that was due to no openings and how many people in the battle, so i guess i'm a bit skeptical of that 0% on its own because i would assume 0% can be achieved multiple ways.

You do get a boost for early entries.The higher the draft pick the higher the prestige boost. When you're prestige changes after the season, it should have an impact for period 2 recruiting, however have read a couple of "forum rumors" in the past that might suggest, it doesn't. Period 1 recruiting is whatever your current prestige is. Hope that answered your question.

In a 2 way battle, the highest point for VH, that I've seen is at 76% to 24% for H. I'm not sure exactly at what point it goes from H to VH, but might be somewhere around 60%.

However, one thing you should know is that recruiting effort doesn't necessarily mean the odds will be the same. For instance, a team that might have a 60%-40% recruiting effort, let's just say 60 APs to 40 APs. The leading team will get an additional boost, not sure exactly what it is, but the odds might end up being 70%-30%.

I believe, though am not 100% certain, that the prestige boost for EEs does not apply until the following season, and does not apply for RS2. There are definitely prestige changes that happen after RS2 and before the start of the next season, and I think that is when it happens (ie, at the draft itself rather than the declaration).

The lowest 2-way battle percentage I recall seeing is 24%. The lowest 3-way I have seen is 16%, but I have heard rumor of a 14%.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/4/2019 11:52:00 PM (view original):
what does play style : strong defense mean? im not really sure i get what the deal is there, how the heck would that even be evaluated? opponent fg% or something?

is very high vs medium 100/0 or can medium teams get in there too?

Medium is always zero, with the kind of/sort of weird exception of the D2 red light for late signing players. If a D2 team and a D1 team are in a battle during RS1, the D2 team could technically be ahead in effort but still be listed as medium even with a D1 team as high or very high. If the recruit has a preference that allows signing in RS1, if he does decide to sign during RS1, then the medium D2 team will in fact have 0% chance. However, if the recruit is late pref, or whenever and doesn’t sign during RS1, then the D2 teams status will immediately jump in RS2 to reflect actual relative effort (so it could jump from medium to very high without any actual additional effort) and then no longer be in the 0% realm. It’s weird, and rare. shoe can explain it better than I.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/2/2019 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/2/2019 4:48:00 PM (view original):
“considering credit (credit growing 1-2% per cycle just because, to deter poaching in the old game) is gone right?”

Yes.

The only players for whom early vs late effort matters are players with a “wants to play” preference. Since promised minutes (not starts) affects the value of effort, early minutes promises are more valuable than late minutes promises. All promises do have stand alone value for all players, but getting that extra modifier in on effort for players who want to play can be big.

awesome, thanks. i assume you can't reduce promises once they are made, except to pull the whole scholarship and totally bail?

You can actually reduce promises. According to seble, there is a penalty for doing so any you lose all historical multiplicative effects of the promise on past AP spend. However, you can still sign the player if this doesn’t knock you out of contention.

Posted by ggallagh on 6/1/2019 6:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/31/2019 9:55:00 PM (view original):
an old friend offered to let me play around with his teams a bit to see if i had interest in one of my own. the team setup part is like riding a bike, been enjoying that a bit, but now its time to try recruiting and i don't know literally anything.

1) whats the deal with preferences? how much are they worth roughly, and like, what would one consider 'good' preferences and 'great' preferences on a player one would recruit? like im assuming a dude with a net 0 preference for you, that probably is considered bad and a reason not to recruit a player, and that folks are mostly recruiting dudes who have preferences. or maybe preferences are negligible and i should ignore that crap, at least for now?

2) whats the deal with AP, are they worth much - about how much?

3) scouting - is there a relatively accepted way to quickly go through scouting the local guys and stuff without spending a stupid amount of money? not looking to spend 10 hours optimizing my scouting money, but not looking to spend 10 minutes and only have 20% efficiency. i have maybe an hour or so i can spend on scouting, is that way too little to be effective?

4) is recruit generation unchanged from before? like meaning the amount of good players is the same as it was? this is high d1 question. i know its harder to find and get a lot of great guys, just from anecdotally hearing a lot of people say that and teams in general looking less perfect. but i don't know if that is due to the recruiting changes or also recruit gen changes (the ratings and potential players are generated with).

thanks!

re: preferences - can definitely sway a battle but does not mean players with poor match on preferences will not sign with a team. Poor preference match may mean that it will take a little longer/ little more effort to unlock a scholarship, home visits, promises, etc. Some have tried to get a handle on how much preferences are worth, but not sure anyone knows for sure since unlocking above actions also depends on your prestige and the recruits' lofty ideas of himself. If two recruits look equal in terms of projected ratings, then I would probably aim for the one with a good preference match over the poor preference match, but I tend to not pay too much attention to the preferences unless / until I am in a battle. Then it can make a difference to sway the signing odds. Perhaps others will chime in, IMO the preference for playing time seems to be the biggest preference, especially if minutes are promised before other actions since this can increase the effective of future actions. The offense / defense preference seems to be big. Not sure about the relative worth of the other actions

re: APs - these are like the old letters - they are used to generate interest from the recruit in your school. Relative worth also depends on your school & prestige compared to the recruit - eg. A D3 school recruiting a D3 recruit w/ good preference match might unlock scholarship with 20-40 APs but that same D3 school recruiting a D1 recruit w/ same good preference match might take 100-150 APs. There is no cap on how many total APs you send to a recruit (max 80 / recruiting cycle however). Once you unlock actions you can continue to put APs into the same player - some think 50-100 APs may equal 1 HV? This is up for debate and see what others say. You can also choose to redistribute APs to unlock other recruits as back-ups as recruiting progresses.

re: Scouting - The quickest way that I have found to scout is to do a local camp & scouting service for local states - A local camp scouts players by two levels, scouting service by one level so this will give you a smattering of players who are discovered to levels 1, 2 or 3; I then usually send assistant scouts out in batches of 25, under 500 miles, scout discovered players only and this will quickly move players up from levels 1, 2, 3, to levels 3 and 4 which is when you know potential (level 3 is kind of like old game where you have a general idea but may not know whether high-high, while level 4 gets you that info)

re: I can't really speak to recruit generation - more D2 / D3 experience for me

Re scouting, I agree that the above approach is a really quick and easy way to get about 85% of the way there. Actually, I think it makes more sense to spend more time thinking about scouting when you are not DI, as that is when maximizing your scouting resources to find as many guys who might slip through the D1 cracks has the most benefit.

Re recruit gen, I think there are some small differences. I have an entirely unproven theory that the prevalence of more walk-ons on teams has reduced the number of DI recruits generated, as I think they are not counting toward the numbers used as a basis for determining how many recruits to generate. This issue has gotten generally less extreme as there are now fewer sim ai teams with 6+ walk-ons. There also seem to be fewer jucos. I am not certain whether either of those statements is actually true, though.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 6/12/2019 12:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 6/3/2019 2:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/3/2019 12:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 6/2/2019 11:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/2/2019 5:56:00 PM (view original):
thanks! one more question - it is pretty different to me not easily being able to see what other teams are doing, at least at a macro level. how much do folks spend time like, searching the local players to see who is considering who, and kind of trying to judge your opponent's strategy for the battle(s) in question based on that data? is that sort of expected in the top tier of recruiting?

I actually put quite a bit of time into this and just landed the #11 rated center at D prestige Rutgers. I think it's important to know how many APs and recruiting money other surrounding schools have(up to a 500 mile radius) or where ever your recruiting range is.

Another strategy I will use often is scouting every state, including internationals and will keep an eye out on recruiting battles. For instance, if I see an A range prestige team in 3 other battles and that 4th player that same team is on isn't battling anybody and if the preferences are at least somewhat favorable, I just might take a chance on that player. It doesn't happen often, but once in a while, you might be able to steal a player, which can make a huge difference to a lower prestige team.

i totally believe this kind of benefit is achievable with the effort, no matter what your prestige - its just that the extra good player is way more valuable for the lower prestige teams. nice job!

2 more questions (unrelated to this) -
1) is there still an EE benefit to prestige? how does that work now? is it like, last season's boost impacts phase 1 recruiting (session 1?), but this season's boost impacts this season's effort?

2) are the % chances of winning in 2-way battles established? like, very high vs very high can range from 65/35 to 35/65, very high vs high can range from 65/35 to 100/0, etc? this seems pretty easy to put together, maybe a dozen's of seasons worth of data would get you pretty close, i think.

if it doesn't exist, same question stated differently - whats the highest % anyone has seen in a 2 way battle with a high? whats the lowest %? (may also be worth asking what the most difference anyone has seen on very high in a 2 way battle, to double-check that very high / high boundary). benis mentioned a 0% high but unclear if that was due to no openings and how many people in the battle, so i guess i'm a bit skeptical of that 0% on its own because i would assume 0% can be achieved multiple ways.

You do get a boost for early entries.The higher the draft pick the higher the prestige boost. When you're prestige changes after the season, it should have an impact for period 2 recruiting, however have read a couple of "forum rumors" in the past that might suggest, it doesn't. Period 1 recruiting is whatever your current prestige is. Hope that answered your question.

In a 2 way battle, the highest point for VH, that I've seen is at 76% to 24% for H. I'm not sure exactly at what point it goes from H to VH, but might be somewhere around 60%.

However, one thing you should know is that recruiting effort doesn't necessarily mean the odds will be the same. For instance, a team that might have a 60%-40% recruiting effort, let's just say 60 APs to 40 APs. The leading team will get an additional boost, not sure exactly what it is, but the odds might end up being 70%-30%.

I believe, though am not 100% certain, that the prestige boost for EEs does not apply until the following season, and does not apply for RS2. There are definitely prestige changes that happen after RS2 and before the start of the next season, and I think that is when it happens (ie, at the draft itself rather than the declaration).

The lowest 2-way battle percentage I recall seeing is 24%. The lowest 3-way I have seen is 16%, but I have heard rumor of a 14%.

Yup this is correct. You get the EE boost after the draft officially comes out which occurs after RS2.

“If the d2 team is ahead in effort (after all things are considered like prestige, preferences, etc) then the d2 can keep the d1 team below high.”

This part is right. But the D2 has to be *far* ahead, because it only takes the D1 school getting within ~60% of the leader (the D2) to get into range; and if the player has an early preference, he will sign with the D1 team, even if the D2 is significantly ahead.

“If the d1 team is listed as VH and d2 is medium then the d1 team is definitely ahead in effort.”

This part is definitely not true.

If it’s RS1, and there’s a D1 listed at VH and a D2 at moderate, the D2 may be ahead in effort credit. Because of the red light, the D2 can’t get above moderate until RS2. But you can’t assume the D1 is “ahead” going into RS2. All you know for sure is that the D1 has done enough to be within a few percentage points of the leader; could be anywhere from slightly behind to well ahead. If the player wants to sign in the first session, that won’t matter, the D2 has no chance. If the player wants to sign in the second session, it could matter a lot.

Aww, Bevis, I thought you transferred your obsession from Spud to me. Maybe your memory is fading in your dotage.

Posted by l80r20 on 6/12/2019 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Aww, Bevis, I thought you transferred your obsession from Spud to me. Maybe your memory is fading in your dotage.

Oh hey Spud. Missed you babe.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/4/2019 11:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/3/2019 5:21:00 AM (view original):
A high consideration team at 0% means the team could not sign the player, ie no openings at the time the player made the decision. Could happen to a team with very high consideration too, of course. This was a part of the last announced update Seble made, so this has not always been true.

You have to amass roughly 60% of the effort credit of the “leader” to be in signing range (or ~37-63 in terms of odds before the stretch). As wiz says, the odds get stretched to favor the leader, reducing the likelihood of big upsets. So the 37-63 battle in practice has final signing odds of something like 20-80 (21-79 is the widest I’ve seen personally).

I think 59-41 is the widest final odds I’ve seen in VH-VH battles.

fantastic info, thanks! so you are figuring roughly 60/40 is the barrier between VH-VH and VH-H? sounds pretty plausible (developers love their round numbers). and 80/20 is the barrier between VH-H and VH-M? i think i heard medium is always 0%, but not sure. i could totally seem seble not wanting to allow a 90/10 battle, for fear of the guy losing the 90% getting really frustrated and quitting (or whatever).

anyone else have numbers like this? 1 person having a similar experience could just about confirm the ranges (the odds, not what effort level it takes to get those ranges) as fact.

thanks again shoe!

Just noticed a 60-40 battle listed VH-VH, for what it’s worth.