Posted by bathtubhippo on 10/7/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
Did anyone mention that the 'new coach reduction' also sucks? I just changed jobs and the only recruits opened up for scholarships were maxed out in HV and CV, and the reduction knocks them from VH to VL! And now I'm completely prevented from putting in more effort on those players. What's the logic in this--to add to the punishment of changing jobs in HD3?

I look forward to other recruits all signing before I can open scholarships and put in effort, too.

Changing jobs and the second session is a much bigger problem than EE.

Agreed.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/6/2017 12:51:00 PM (view original):
That's a crap product you're trying to sell. Basically "We don't give a damn about D2/D3 users. They need to know their place."

Good luck retaining users like that.

That's not what I am saying at all. All I am saying is that a DII team should never have a shot at such a high quality player in the first place. When I started this game at DIII, most DII players had no interest in playing for my team. I could have chosen to waste a billion resources on them, but it was a waste because they never would even consider playing for such a low prestige, lower division team. I hadn't quite thought of it this way before, but honesty I think re-instituting that portion of 2.0, and then removing the artificial spud timing cap, would by itself fix a ton of the current issues with 3.0 recruiting. If you could find out with 1 AP whether or not you had any chance of "pulling down" a higher level recruit, with the same or similar criteria for cutoffs that there was before (I thought it seemed very well balanced, actually) then there would be no need for the wasted resources, you wouldn't have DIII sitting around doing nothing for all but one day, there would still be decent players for Sim AI teams in high level DI to actually sign, and there may even be enough decent players around to help with the EE issue for those who care about that, though that I think is less certain.

It's exactly what you said. If you don't want D2/D3 schools to have a chance to sign players, don't let them recruit them. At all.

Posted by gdog13cavs on 10/8/2017 1:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/6/2017 12:51:00 PM (view original):
That's a crap product you're trying to sell. Basically "We don't give a damn about D2/D3 users. They need to know their place."

Good luck retaining users like that.

That's not what I am saying at all. All I am saying is that a DII team should never have a shot at such a high quality player in the first place. When I started this game at DIII, most DII players had no interest in playing for my team. I could have chosen to waste a billion resources on them, but it was a waste because they never would even consider playing for such a low prestige, lower division team. I hadn't quite thought of it this way before, but honesty I think re-instituting that portion of 2.0, and then removing the artificial spud timing cap, would by itself fix a ton of the current issues with 3.0 recruiting. If you could find out with 1 AP whether or not you had any chance of "pulling down" a higher level recruit, with the same or similar criteria for cutoffs that there was before (I thought it seemed very well balanced, actually) then there would be no need for the wasted resources, you wouldn't have DIII sitting around doing nothing for all but one day, there would still be decent players for Sim AI teams in high level DI to actually sign, and there may even be enough decent players around to help with the EE issue for those who care about that, though that I think is less certain.

I agree with this for the most part. I think having a bit wider range of pull downs would be OK. This would also solve a lot of the problems. D1 sims would be stronger. Then let everyone be able to sign in the first session, including D2 and D3 for pulldowns. I think make it a bit harder to unlock above your level though for D2 and D3, but still make it possible if they put in the effort.

so you guys are gonna have the same argument that's been going on for a year and people are just entrenched on their opinions on it.

while you do this, i'm still gonna go on complaining about this new coach recruiting reduction factor, because i feel like i've seen very little about this on the forums, and it's a unique problem to the topic at hand, the second recruiting session. so what sense does this make? it basically doubles down on the difficulty of changing jobs.

example: so i was VL on a guy the previous coach put in 20 HV, CV, almost 700 AP, and 15m promise. then there is this new coach reduction factor, whatever it is, but it doesn't erase the prior credit, only the effects of it. so i can't offer anything to this guy except minutes and a start. I offered 25 min and start and it didn't move the needle. the recruit was signed uncontested by another school with a lower prestige (and probably preferences that were a wash). this makes sense to everyone?

"i'm still gonna go on complaining about this new coach recruiting reduction factor..."

I think you raise a good point. And after they get rid of multiple teams under the control of the same user in the same world, they should reconsider whether it is necessary any more and whether it helps the game. Until they get rid of multiple teams under the control of the same user in the same world the new coach recruiting factor is an important protection.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 10/8/2017 11:42:00 AM (view original):
so you guys are gonna have the same argument that's been going on for a year and people are just entrenched on their opinions on it.

while you do this, i'm still gonna go on complaining about this new coach recruiting reduction factor, because i feel like i've seen very little about this on the forums, and it's a unique problem to the topic at hand, the second recruiting session. so what sense does this make? it basically doubles down on the difficulty of changing jobs.

example: so i was VL on a guy the previous coach put in 20 HV, CV, almost 700 AP, and 15m promise. then there is this new coach reduction factor, whatever it is, but it doesn't erase the prior credit, only the effects of it. so i can't offer anything to this guy except minutes and a start. I offered 25 min and start and it didn't move the needle. the recruit was signed uncontested by another school with a lower prestige (and probably preferences that were a wash). this makes sense to everyone?

That’s another issue, like the considering list issue, that is an obvious flaw, which should be addressed.

Is it really an issue? Do kids go to Duke because it's Duke or because Coach K convinces them that Duke is a better fit than UNC or Louisville? Seems to me that the "realism" faction would demand new coach reduction.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 4:21:00 PM (view original):
Is it really an issue? Do kids go to Duke because it's Duke or because Coach K convinces them that Duke is a better fit than UNC or Louisville? Seems to me that the "realism" faction would demand new coach reduction.

I think you're misunderstanding what bathtub is saying. read it again.

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 4:21:00 PM (view original):
Is it really an issue? Do kids go to Duke because it's Duke or because Coach K convinces them that Duke is a better fit than UNC or Louisville? Seems to me that the "realism" faction would demand new coach reduction.

I think you're misunderstanding what bathtub is saying. read it again.

Pretty sure I understood what he said. He can't re-recruit a guy AND has to deal with new coach reduction. I responded with "Is it really an issue? Do kids go to Duke because it's Duke or because Coach K convinces them that Duke is a better fit than UNC or Louisville? Seems to me that the "realism" faction would demand new coach reduction."

Would you like me to explain further?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 4:21:00 PM (view original):
Is it really an issue? Do kids go to Duke because it's Duke or because Coach K convinces them that Duke is a better fit than UNC or Louisville? Seems to me that the "realism" faction would demand new coach reduction.

I think you're misunderstanding what bathtub is saying. read it again.

Pretty sure I understood what he said. He can't re-recruit a guy AND has to deal with new coach reduction. I responded with "Is it really an issue? Do kids go to Duke because it's Duke or because Coach K convinces them that Duke is a better fit than UNC or Louisville? Seems to me that the "realism" faction would demand new coach reduction."

Would you like me to explain further?

I guess it really is impossible for this group of like 30 people to agree on any single thing.

I think it sucks but I'm not sure it's an issue. The "solution" would be to wipe the slate clean, meaning no credit or reduction of previous coach recruiting, but that's probably worse. I think most kids are swayed by the coach not the school.

The reduction itself isn’t an issue if they let the new coach do visits.

The NCAA places restrictions on visits.

Realism, bro!!!