Make D1 elites dynamic. Hardwired elites are no fun. Yes, the current crop is out of date but simply updating the list is not the answer. Many players have posted good ideas for this over the years.

Last suggestion, probably already made. It must be more difficult for elites to keep their jobs. You see elites, who have a major edge in recruiting over everyone except for other elites, keeping their jobs despite going 8-6, 9-5 or 10-4 for a decade at a time. This is just flat out unacceptable when you consider this kind of performance at a non-elite BCS school will get you fired for that kind of performance.

Posted by bhazlewood on 12/3/2020 10:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jhunterz on 12/3/2020 2:34:00 PM (view original):
1. Non active coaches getting preference for elites over active coaches with not as good resumes! A current active paying coach should get selected over a coach that is "lying in wait" for an elite to open up in that world. It is too easy to have a few good seasons and then leave, rest on your laurels until something better opens up vs. a coach that keeps plugging away season after season to maintain a good enough resume!

One thing that might help fix this is to have inactive coaches lose "appeal" (or whatever the app uses to determine hiring) every season that they're inactive. Sitting out one season shouldn't hurt them too much, but two, three, or more should hurt their personal prestige when it comes to hiring.

Exactly! One season may not be a big deal, but after that their qualifications should fade fast.

As to the OP, I believe the chief problem with D3 and D2 is the extremely skewed, unforgiving nature of vision. The game has prestige, which is sensible and more importantly, earned. Prestige already makes it easier for the top teams to stay on top by most easily recruiting the choicest recruits, with the theoretical justification that the best recruits would generally want to play with the best teams. The influence on game play is a rich-get-richer effect, not something I generally favor but in this case at least there is arguably some justification for it. Putting vision on top of that is just piling on, nothing more than an unwarranted redundancy.. Vision as it is currently constituted is like allowing only wealthy people into your recruit store, no middle-class people need apply, the middle-class people may only spend their money on lesser recruits. I've seen a lot of discussion of why new players aren't retained, and realizing there is such an absolute artificial barrier as "vision" is certainly a big part of that. I bet most newbies believe the playing field is level and aren't satisfied to learn it is not.

Posted by fermor332002 on 12/5/2020 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by katzphang88 on 12/3/2020 2:27:00 PM (view original):
So I repackaged this with a new title as the first time people thought is was new coaches:

We who have played for many years and have gone through the various updates, as well as the new coaches who have not experienced what the past versions have been will have many ideas regarding the changes they would like to see in GD.

What would be excellent for us, is to get an idea of what things the new team is considering as being important or top priorities for improvement. Since this is a GD site, we have to remember there are other games that also want improving, so we may have to focus on certain specific aspects of the game at first. I'm sure most would agree that any aspect that improves the game will be welcomed as progress not seen for some time.

?Sooooo..... What do you say Chris and Adam ... what are you seeing on your tour through GD as your main focus for improvement?

Also ... to help guide them and not give a long list .... Coaches what is your #1 area of concern? Please only give one idea - there is another forum topic for longer discussions, please use that for more in depth comments. ONE short and sweet concern for Chris and Adam and let them reply about that ONE concern at a time!

Looking forward to the new and improved GD!

Other games have always gotten priority over GD. They get great changes and GD gets WINDOW DRESSING at the most.

ha

name the game that got great changes in the last decade



i seem to recall some abortion called dynamic pricing in the baseball sim

Posted by mccarthyizm on 12/6/2020 12:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mojolad on 12/4/2020 6:44:00 PM (view original):
I dont like the idea of balancing recruits available for all schools.
Somehow it takes away from the flavor of the game. I like it that some teams are harder to recruit for than others. It makes it all the sweeter when you turn the hard to recruit teams into a winner.

Definitely agree. This game would get so generic if every school had the same access to recruits.

The schools would be College A, College B, College C and so on. Seems like that would only appeal to someone who graduated from College A or College B or College C ...

Here’s an idea-
Charge different prices for teams. A elite costs $15 a season or maybe 5 seasons for $60
A BCS school costs $10 season or $40 for 5 seasons.
A non BCS school costs $6 season or $25 for 5 seasons

You can price lower levels based on WIS rankings or something.

wouldn't it be interesting if they priced like you say more or less and the elites got abandoned eventually

This is a simulation or some form thereof as we can all agree.

As a result, it tries to mimic RL college football. In RL college football, some recruits (not all, but I would argue most without extenuating circumstances) prefer to go to winning programs or at least programs on the rise. Vision is one way to accomplish that in game terms.

Given traditional powerhouses (“elites”) vs a “rising” or even non-rising(aka losing history or under performing, etc.)program, a recruit will tend to go to the traditional, name brand, aka “elite” programs. Imho, eliminating this from the game would make the game less realistic.

The devil is in the details though. I actually like the vision aspect based on some winning history of the program. I think North Dakota State getting D1 type recruits or even an Appalachian State or JMU in the recent past. The same applies at a D3 school. If you WIN, people want to be associated with your program. It is a simple fact of life from recruits to players to alumni to boosters.

I do believe the biggest complaint about Elites is that they never change based on performance (aka Winning) and many believe they have too much of an inherent advantage. I will leave that argument to my betters since I have limited D1 time although my negative experience at D1 was totally tied to this specific subject. I doubt I would ever return based on this current setup also as a result, but that is my experience along with the incredible time commitment I believe I would have to invest.

As for the other levels, vision does about as efficient a job as I can imagine a system doing. It is simple, clean, and transparent to all. I would not be for eliminating it without a viable, similarly fair, transparent, alternative. I also am not for the pay more and get a better team plan. I see the idea, but I like a more level playing field for all.

Man on man coverage and double coverage matchups are needed!

Here's an idea : Make playing all teams FREE and make your money by running ads on every screen.

will i have to carry one o these around

Posted by mojolad on 12/11/2020 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Here's an idea : Make playing all teams FREE and make your money by running ads on every screen.

As someone who's product depends a great deal on ad revenue, I can tell you this is not a great model for long-term success.

It MIGHT work if you killed off reward points altogether, but I doubt it would generate enough revenue to provide for any full-time employees.

Posted by holdaway on 12/10/2020 7:00:00 PM (view original):
This is a simulation or some form thereof as we can all agree.

As a result, it tries to mimic RL college football. In RL college football, some recruits (not all, but I would argue most without extenuating circumstances) prefer to go to winning programs or at least programs on the rise. Vision is one way to accomplish that in game terms.

Given traditional powerhouses (“elites”) vs a “rising” or even non-rising(aka losing history or under performing, etc.)program, a recruit will tend to go to the traditional, name brand, aka “elite” programs. Imho, eliminating this from the game would make the game less realistic.

The devil is in the details though. I actually like the vision aspect based on some winning history of the program. I think North Dakota State getting D1 type recruits or even an Appalachian State or JMU in the recent past. The same applies at a D3 school. If you WIN, people want to be associated with your program. It is a simple fact of life from recruits to players to alumni to boosters.

I do believe the biggest complaint about Elites is that they never change based on performance (aka Winning) and many believe they have too much of an inherent advantage. I will leave that argument to my betters since I have limited D1 time although my negative experience at D1 was totally tied to this specific subject. I doubt I would ever return based on this current setup also as a result, but that is my experience along with the incredible time commitment I believe I would have to invest.

As for the other levels, vision does about as efficient a job as I can imagine a system doing. It is simple, clean, and transparent to all. I would not be for eliminating it without a viable, similarly fair, transparent, alternative. I also am not for the pay more and get a better team plan. I see the idea, but I like a more level playing field for all.

It is simple, clean, and transparent to all?

Where can I find a simple, clean, transparent explanation of precisely how vision works?