Hardwood - Suggestions: Fixing Recruiting

Forum >> Suggestions >> Fixing Recruiting

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#7397	06/21/2019 12:39:56 pm	Nov 15th, 2006
coachwannabe Joined: 03/09/2018 Posts: 437 Penn Quakers IV.2	I posted this in the Recruiting thread for this season, but wanted to post it as an official suggestion (especially so Steve would see it). We need two implementations in recruiting (and both are easy). 1. We should really implement a cap on underclassmen recruiting. It's not realistic that you can contact a FR as much as St. Mary's did, and I've never played a game that didn't have a cap on underclassmen recruiting. Even in real life, you can't take an official visit until your JR year or receive more than a handful of calls from coaches until you're a SR. Additionally, conference bonuses mean so much less as it stands because teams have to recruit so far in advance... by the time a low-level team works up the rankings, they demote before they can take advantage of the conference boost in recruiting. This would also increase fun competition in recruiting, rather than the less exciting "Oh, two teams have been on High since he was a SO, I guess I'll look elsewhere..." ...again, something that never happens in real life. 2. We should implement on certain recruits traits that "Refuses to play below Div 1" or "Refuses to play below Div 2"... hate seeing the best recruit in the game playing in Division 2. This RARELY occurs in real life -- if ever. Additionally, this note would be useful for increasing competition among Div 1 teams because they recognize they're only competing with other top teams, not some small school -- and it would be useful for schools trying to climb the ranks, as they know where to not waste their points in trying to build a dynasty. Updated Friday, June 21 2019 @ 1:37:26 pm PDT

#7398	06/21/2019 1:21:21 pm	Nov 15th, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Definite +1 on point #2. Way too many top recruits are heading to Div 2 or Div 3 which is not realistic. Implementing point #1 might be a way to mitigate this.

#7400	06/21/2019 1:25:34 pm	Nov 15th, 2006
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars V.9	+2 to both. I think this is horrible for the game, though I don’t fault the owner of St. Mary’s. I can do a write up later.

#7401	06/21/2019 11:19:02 pm	Nov 15th, 2006
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2472 Hardwood Administrator	Saw it. I've never played a game that didn't have a cap on underclassmen recruiting. There are a lot of other games with high school recruiting? How would this cap work? Thanks, Steve

#7408	06/22/2019 8:58:48 am	Nov 15th, 2006
Gambit Joined: 04/06/2019 Posts: 16 Inactive	Great points. I could see it being something like you can't contact a freshman more than 5 times or contact a sophomore more than 15. Throwing out random numbers, but it could be played with.

#7409	06/22/2019 9:22:24 am	Nov 15th, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	What games are you playing? I've never played a game that had a cap on underclassmen recruiting...

#7416	06/22/2019 10:13:08 am	Nov 18th, 2006
coachwannabe Joined: 03/09/2018 Posts: 437 Penn Quakers IV.2	I was referring to the old NCAA football and basketball games on Xbox/PlayStation and their recruiting mechanics. Additionally, WhatIfSports has a similar mechanic. On the NCAA football and basketball games, you could only send “letters of interest” when they were FR and SO and only make a handful of phone calls while they were JRs, meanwhile once they became SRs, you could visit them at home or bring them for a campus visit and call unlimited amounts, etc. I don’t remember WhatIfSports exact mechanism but it was similar. My fix for this would be that you cannot call a recruit more than 5 times per year, until they are a SR, in which you can call unlimited amounts (or something like that). While it would be true that people could still keep recruiting points and carry them over the next year, the current limit on recruiting points would naturally prevent this from becoming outlandish.

#7417	06/22/2019 10:43:26 am	Nov 18th, 2006
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	I'm on board for both suggestions. I also think mechanics like prestige and playing time need to be fixed asap. The playing time mechanism is so messed up right now. I'm in I.1 and having to spend more points than ever to advance recruit interest levels. I think the red shirt effect is one factor, but It shouldn't be taking 15-20 points to get an In-state prospect to high.

#7418	06/22/2019 10:44:07 am	Nov 18th, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	I don't think DDS had any limits, but its been a while since I played. I can see the mechanic reasons for having some limit, but I think 5 is too low. We get 130+ points each season, and the only way low level teams can even hope to get any average players is by attacking guys when they are freshman. Its a legitimate strategy. Working hard with the local highschool coach to convince the kid to stay local. Updated Saturday, June 22 2019 @ 11:06:08 am PDT

#7428	06/22/2019 3:43:11 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
coachwannabe Joined: 03/09/2018 Posts: 437 Penn Quakers IV.2	I disagree, Rock. The only strategy that this really does away with is those teams that truly tank for 3 seasons just to get top recruits. Otherwise, most teams, like the ones I operate, would see more parity as they race to fill their 2-4 scholarships each season. The way it currently is, higher level teams can capitalize on their high prestige for several seasons in advance... because they get their SRs to High easier, are able to dump more points into future recruits, and those future recruits cost less to get to High than for low-level teams. Meanwhile, low-level teams are stuck because they have scholarships to fill in the now, plus if they want to get ahead, their points won't go very far. Even for the good low-level teams who are working their way up through promotions, when they promote, they are unable to take immediate advantage of that promotion until 2-3 seasons later in most cases because all the top recruits which they may now compete for are already all-in on high-level teams (and have been for seasons) and they'll have to settle for a recruit who likely can't compete and may lead to their demotion in but a few seasons. Thus, I think it will be hard in the future for low-level teams to actually stay in higher divisions. BUT, if we implement caps, it makes SR season the most important time. Therefore, there is more battling for recruits (hell, extend the Low-Medium-High scale to 5 different levels, so it tells a little bit more)... teams are able to actually invest more in PRESENT recruits and not worry about being beat out in the future... This also helps new players jump into the game and compete in the recruiting game, and not be 2-3 seasons behind every one else or have to tank for several seasons... And teams who promote actually have a chance to stay in their new divisions because they will be able to benefit immediately from their promotion, because they haven't been out-bid for several seasons already. Best point: No tanking! No new player will show up to the game and be told that the best strategy is to suck for 4 seasons until you build a squad. Trust me, I've been on sims like that and I almost always quit instantly once I learned the process.

#7429	06/22/2019 3:44:05 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
coachwannabe Joined: 03/09/2018 Posts: 437 Penn Quakers IV.2	With that said -- 5 is probably too low. Maybe like 5 for FR ... 10 for SO ... 15 for JR ... unlimited for SR. Or something like that. I welcome feedback on what the idea scale would be.

#7430	06/22/2019 3:47:35 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars V.9	You could potentially have a higher cap for in state players as well. I would say a flat cap is not a good idea, it should definitely increase as time goes on.

#7431	06/22/2019 3:49:38 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
FurySK Joined: 12/17/2018 Posts: 170 Florida Gulf Coast Eagles VI.24	In the end, the primary problem here is not that smaller schools are winning players. It's that you can tank down to 0 scholarships in use, not have anyone blocking direct playing time or immediate history of getting redshirted, and thus pick off people by gaining the upper hand. The issue stems from the differences between IRL and a game, where IRL you'd be fired long before your team got booted from a conference. Here you don't get fired for being bad, so the strategy is more valid. I think the real problem here is playing time seems to be a big factor if you have no players under scholarship. Couple that with the strategy that has been picked by several teams to net top 25 players in bulk rather than only really picking and choosing their battles over 1 of those players, and you'll probably end up seeing 60+ teams start doing this soon. The 'fixing recruiting' really means 'we would hope that this strategy isn't as viable in the future'. I for one am hopeful you find a way to tweak the playing time motivator to be less impactful at 0/13 scholarships. I'd rather see a "competitive team" rating being important to a player where the player sees himself fitting into a side that can win championships by plugging a hole in the lineup over 'strict playing time' where said player just wants to play every game and doesn't care if he goes 40-120 over his career starts.

#7432	06/22/2019 3:53:27 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars V.9	Very much agree with the last part. Players want to start, but they generally want to start for a good team. Great players don't want to ride the bench for 4 years, but don't want to play for a losing team either.

#7434	06/22/2019 4:14:22 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
coachwannabe Joined: 03/09/2018 Posts: 437 Penn Quakers IV.2	I don't think I agree with Fury -- I'm actually complaining less about the tanking than other people, I just wanted to highlight that for others' sake. I just don't like that we have gotten to the point where you have to recruit YEARS in advance. Like, I appreciate doing some of that and having some strategy, but when we're already in recruiting wars on SOs and FRs... I just don't see how that's fun for a new person to walk into. And I also don't see how implementing this "recent success" factor can not end in a case of the rich getting richer.. especially when all but one team from I.1 has a winning record at this point in the season, while VI teams are mostly losing records.

#7436	06/22/2019 5:43:12 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	So if I have no scholarships available in a given year, I am forced to distribute my points among a bunch of players I'm not interested in? I think those limits are far too low. I also think people are confused about the impact of level. I agree it probably isn't high enough an impact right now, but tanking doesn't help you. If you promote, it has an immediate impact on all your recruits. If you demote it has an immediate impact on all your recruits. There is no three year lag. What is wrong with Rich get Richer. That is how it works in real life. The best teams get the best players. I'd rather it was a challenge for lesser teams to climb the rungs. Updated Saturday, June 22 2019 @ 5:44:24 pm PDT

#7437	06/22/2019 6:06:24 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	coachwannabe - I will try to provide my experience as a new player. I don't think recruiting is that bad for new players. Maybe because I am in a talent-rich state and/or region - but there are still a lot of good 2/3* with no interest from anyone. Are they good for L1 - no, but for L5 or L4 they are fine (and most new players are starting in L4 or worse). Honestly, I think coaching is the thing that hurts new players. The best coaches are already taken by people that started from the beginning. But I won't hijack the thread to talk about that. Rock - just make sure you have scholarships available every year. I think this means we should increase the range of contacts for each class (if we decide to go that route) but I don't think we should scrap the idea because of a few edge cases. I am sure there is a sweet spot. And you say tanking doesn't help you - it certainly is helping St Mary's Minnesota since they have the top 2 recruits (and probably will get #4). Not to mention if you are already in L6 you can't go any lower so you might as well tank and get these great recruits. As a newer player the only thing that gives me pause about capping contacts and making senior year more important is that it is helpful to know what players other teams don't want. If UNC or NC State has a recruit on High in my state then I know to move along. But that information might come available to me later in their senior year as those teams might be using up their underclassmen contacts on other players.

#7438	06/22/2019 8:30:02 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Forcing people to recruit seniors every year is really a bad idea. A lot of different recruiting strategies wouldn't jive with that. If you're in a situation like my team, where your contacts are currently worthless, it doesn't make sense to waste 30 contacts on a Senior you will never make use of. Better to spend those contacts on younger players who might actually be useful to the team. Forcing people to spend contacts on Seniors is just a bad idea.

#7439	06/22/2019 9:20:45 pm	Nov 18th, 2006
jakala Joined: 10/21/2018 Posts: 148 Inactive	So if I have no scholarships available in a given year, I am forced to distribute my points among a bunch of players I'm not interested in?. Forcing people to recruit seniors every year is really a bad idea. A lot of different recruiting strategies wouldn't jive with that. Contact points (cp) is limited and they will be gone if you don't use in the current season. So IMO, tanking is part of HW strategy and i don't see anything wrong with it. Implementing a cap on underclassmen recruiting will make HW looks 'weird' like Rock said. Also, at end season i tend to pour cp at underclassmen prospect on my recruiting list so my cp will be not wasted. I lost 2 good prospects couple season ago which cost me ~60 cp because my recruiting plan was very poor. It needs me a couple seasons to realize: A good (long-term) plan is needed if one wants to success build a strong team in sports competition online game, including HW & BB. But i agree, a tweak is needed like: - point #2: Good prospects (4~5stars) will be more likely to join a good team. - interest level goes to 5 (v.low-low-med-high-v.high) to make game more competitive. Updated Saturday, June 22 2019 @ 9:40:44 pm PDT

#7444	06/23/2019 4:31:25 am	Nov 18th, 2006
dt81089 Joined: 12/28/2018 Posts: 2 Utah State Aggies III.2	I think if we have contact limits, it should be really high on juniors to prevent what Rock said when you either have 0 seniors or have already filled your incoming class. Otherwise, we would be bored as hell just sitting there. I'd say closer to 30 contacts for juniors. At that point, you should know if the player will be willing to sign with you. I always try to balance available scholarships and I've had a season with zero scholarships. You can try to balance it out with redshirts, etc, but

#7445	06/23/2019 6:41:55 am	Nov 18th, 2006
hockeytrb99 Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 123 Pittsburgh Panthers V.11	What if we just limited the interest level you can get on a guy a specific year of school. Freshman-Low, Sophomore-Medium, Junior-High, Senior-Unlimited.

#7447	06/23/2019 8:46:10 am	Nov 18th, 2006
hawaii Joined: 02/27/2019 Posts: 14 Inactive	i must say this is very entertaining lol this person spent 3 seasons recruiting these people and ended up getting them and you guys are upset? its called recruiting strategy, its not broken, he clearly outspent you and you are all upset about it. its just a game.

#7448	06/23/2019 8:47:32 am	Nov 18th, 2006
hawaii Joined: 02/27/2019 Posts: 14 Inactive	also could be 3 since that montana player is still not committed

#7449	06/23/2019 9:27:02 am	Nov 18th, 2006
jakala Joined: 10/21/2018 Posts: 148 Inactive	As Rock mentioned here: We get 130+ points each season, and the only way low level teams can even hope to get any average players is by attacking guys when they are freshman. Its a legitimate strategy. By tanking underclassman (FR-SO) to High interest lvl, a team can save contact points (cp) to get better prospects. Tanking is also a gambling. You might not get that prospect attributes and skills as you want when they get into SR year. In that case you will abandon such prospect (wasted cp) and spent cp to another SR prospect. What if we just limited the interest level you can get on a guy a specific year of school. Freshman-Low, Sophomore-Medium, Junior-High, Senior-Unlimited. When limit cap is applied, do 130+ points still enough to get decent prospects? It might rise another problem next time, when someone will ask for more points. Also i predict a fiercer battle of recruiting will arise where we will spot more High High High High .. interest lvl at good prospects. At the end, getting a prospect committed is more likely depend on good fortune. Is that good? Maybe, but what is cp system used for then? Or should we erase cp system and change into system like BB? Updated Sunday, June 23 2019 @ 10:08:10 am PDT

#7450	06/23/2019 9:30:01 am	Nov 18th, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Hawaii - the best recruiting strategy shouldn't be to not play the game. I am amazed people don't see a problem with this.

#7453	06/23/2019 10:27:32 am	Nov 23rd, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Hawaii - the best recruiting strategy shouldn't be to not play the game. I am amazed people don't see a problem with this.

#7454	06/23/2019 12:54:04 pm	Nov 23rd, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	There is a big difference between not playing the game and focuses on FR recruits. What makes you think they weren't still trying to win with the guys they had? If I choose not to waste worthless points on recruiting a SR this year to fill my empty scholarship am I tanking...? I don't actually need to fill that last scholarship, yet it seems people feel I would be tanking if I don't throw all my points into a lost cause...

#7455	06/23/2019 1:40:15 pm	Nov 23rd, 2006
hockeytrb99 Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 123 Pittsburgh Panthers V.11	There is also a big difference between not filling 1 scholarship and not filling any.

#7456	06/23/2019 4:08:21 pm	Nov 23rd, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Can we at least agree that a team that is 2-50 in the last 2 seasons shouldn't be getting the #1 and the #2 recruits in all of college basketball? If we agree on that then there are many possible solutions (cap contacts by class, force coach firings, cap interest levels, etc ). If we can't agree then that discussion should happen, otherwise we are wasting our time.

#7457	06/23/2019 4:59:14 pm	Nov 23rd, 2006
Wine13 Joined: 07/03/2018 Posts: 20 Inactive	I don't like the idea of Caps on contacts to players. Here is why D'Marcus Tarver. Someone I am recruiting. When he was a freshman his SI was below 40. Only 2 other teams put contacts on him. He is now a junior and ranked #24 in that class. We are still the only teams w/contacts. He fits every criteria I want for his position for my team. I have spent 42 contacts on him so far and probably 15 to 20 of them his freshman year. Why should I be penalized for finding a guy that fits my system that no-one else was looking at except the 2 in-state teams.

#7458	06/23/2019 5:19:52 pm	Nov 23rd, 2006
Wine13 Joined: 07/03/2018 Posts: 20 Inactive	If you really wanted to make recruiting fun try this. Up until some point(maybe half way thru the conference schedule) in their junior years you wouldn't see who was putting contacts on players just the number of contacts and number of teams and you wouldn't be able to offer scholarships to players until then. Then at that point you have the offer scholarship button and everyone sees who is vying for that player.

#7459	06/23/2019 5:40:41 pm	Nov 23rd, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Can we at least agree that a team that is 2-50 in the last 2 seasons shouldn't be getting the #1 and the #2 recruits in all of college basketball? Absolutely. That is broken. Near term performance and/or prestige are non-factors. They should be major factors. A team that went 2-50 should have a very difficult time recruiting anyone that has an offer from a school that plays competitively.

#7462	06/24/2019 1:46:32 am	Nov 23rd, 2006
jakala Joined: 10/21/2018 Posts: 148 Inactive	Can we at least agree that a team that is 2-50 in the last 2 seasons shouldn't be getting the #1 and the #2 recruits in all of college basketball? Absolutely. That is broken. Near term performance and/or prestige are non-factors. They should be major factors. A team that went 2-50 should have a very difficult time recruiting anyone that has an offer from a school that plays competitively. +1 to both statements.

#7463	06/24/2019 1:59:32 am	Nov 23rd, 2006
jakala Joined: 10/21/2018 Posts: 148 Inactive	Up until some point(maybe half way thru the conference schedule) in their junior years you wouldn't see who was putting contacts on players just the number of contacts and number of teams and you wouldn't be able to offer scholarships to players until then. +1 Only show number of teams contacting the prospect would be better. No need to show number of contacts made.

#7465	06/24/2019 3:45:41 am	Nov 23rd, 2006
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	Can we at least agree that a team that is 2-50 in the last 2 seasons shouldn't be getting the #1 and the #2 recruits in all of college basketball? If we agree on that then there are many possible solutions (cap contacts by class, force coach firings, cap interest levels, etc ). If we can't agree then that discussion should happen, otherwise we are wasting our time. +1, I think people keep overlooking this. This is the main issue at heart. Yes we can disagree on how we want recruiting to evolve, and that's fine. But only unsportsmanlike fools want the game to head down the tanking path. And I also guarantee the game will go backwards if it does. And I won't stick around to see it.

#7466	06/24/2019 4:57:36 am	Nov 23rd, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	The more I think about it the more I agree with Rock and Wine about capping contacts by year. Recruiting early on players is a strategy that can be employed and using caps would either discourage it or not actually solve the problem. Something else to consider are recruits committing early in their senior year. Jacksonville State already has 2 commits - the first on update #5, the second on #8. They still have scholarships open, but it is very common for a team to only have 2 slots in a given year available (this is what I had last year after taking over a bot team midseason). For Jacksonville State - the early commits would leave 82 cp to be used on other recruits, which might need to be underclassmen. Not sure how I feel about PP changes. I worry giving better teams an additional advantage will make the game less fun and/or accessible for newer players. It could make rebuilding a team from bad bot management take that much longer. My concern might be my own bias/selfishness though since I am a newer player who is trying to rebuild a team from bad bot management. In case people missed it, Jakala made a new post about it here http://onlinecollegebasketball.org/forum/-/5/836 One other idea I had was whether we should cap the number of cp that can be used on a recruit. Right now you could essentially use 520 cp on a player (130 pts/yr, 4 yrs of HS). Maybe cap the number of cp you can use on a player to 80 or something? That way teams can still use their cp on a recruit in their early HS years to get a lot of interest, but would put an upper bound on that interest.

#7468	06/24/2019 6:56:29 am	Nov 23rd, 2006
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	One other idea I had was whether we should cap the number of cp that can be used on a recruit. Right now you could essentially use 520 cp on a player (130 pts/yr, 4 yrs of HS). Maybe cap the number of cp you can use on a player to 80 or something? That way teams can still use their cp on a recruit in their early HS years to get a lot of interest, but would put an upper bound on that interest. This would definitely help out higher conference teams. If a I.1 maxes his points out in a player it almost destroys any chance of a low level conference teams getting that player to commit even if they also max their points. I keep thinking about capping points. I'm not I'm favor of a hard cap. But maybe some sort of soft cap could be implemented. Maybe a penalty multiplier after a certain amount of points for non seniors. We talked about this over in discord but this would also eventually bias towards power conferences.

#7470	06/24/2019 7:29:12 am	Nov 23rd, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Phillies - I will check out the discussion on discord. I think any change we make is going to benefit L1 teams because the idea is that those teams should be getting the better players over someone who is tanking and dumping 100+ cp into a recruit when they are a freshman. If I dump 80 cp into a freshman 5* and they blow up into a top 10 recruit nationwide they should go to a L1 team if they dump 80 cp into them. Zion still chose Duke over Wofford, Bacot chose UNC over VCU.

#7471	06/24/2019 7:58:29 am	Nov 23rd, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Another option would be to cap max interest. I think Steve wants it open because he wants the high level teams to have bidding wars. But making some point in High interest a High cap would mean that any team could recruit any prospect within one season with enough focus on that prospect. It would come down to 100% RNG which High Interest team the prospect committed too. The cap could remain hidden (but present) to encourage people to add in extra attempts. This works a little better than capping contacts, because capping contacts actually makes it impossible for lower level teams with less valuable contacts to compete against higher level teams. Having the best recruiting coach would guarantee you could get anyone you want with max contacts if we went that way. This way that doesn't happen. Updated Monday, June 24 2019 @ 7:59:55 am PDT

#7472	06/24/2019 9:29:56 am	Nov 23rd, 2006
jakala Joined: 10/21/2018 Posts: 148 Inactive	because capping contacts actually makes it impossible for lower level teams with less valuable contacts to compete against higher level teams. This is what i want to say all the time, to this thread. ~Also, allow me to remind something: Lower div team generally will spent more contacts than higher div team at same region. For example: To get High interest, Div1 will spent 15 cp while Div2 will spent 20+ cp at a SR prospect. Div3 and bellow will sent more cp for sure. ~If there is max cap, let say a Div5 pump 50 contacts during FR-SO year and get interest lvl to X point (which is max). Then at SR year a Div1 spent 30 contacts on the prospect and get interest lvl to the same X point. Where will the prospect more likely to go, Div1 team or Div5 team? We know the answer right? I see max cap is a soft version for capping contact. ~If we really want that 5 stars is more likely go for Div1 or Div2, why don't just add recruits traits like: a."Refuses to play below Div 1" or "Refuses to play below Div 2" OR b."Prefer to play Div1 or Div2" For trait (a) as long there is Div1 or Div2 contacts (and recruit slot), he will refuse to join lower Div. For trait (b) there is penalty for division below 1 or 2 (lower is higher penalty). It means Div5 can still win a 5Stars but will spent much more contacts than before this trait is applied.

#7473	06/24/2019 2:18:18 pm	Nov 25th, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Actually with the way the code works right now. The DI school will have the same chance as the DIII school. The level is only calculated into the increase in interest, not the choice of schools. So if DIII school spends 100 Contacts and DI school spends 30 Contacts and they both hit Interest level X, they have equal chance of landing the prospect.

#7474	06/24/2019 9:55:03 pm	Nov 25th, 2006
g10rsh Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 95 Columbia Lions III.2	I think the hidden max interest cap on a player makes sense. The teams that jumped in earlier get to spend less recruting points because they got there early and get the boost (I think this is a thing) from recruiting underclassmen, but other teams are able to join at increased cost as they become an upperclassmen. After Winning the National Title and moving up a level in Conference as well as getting 3 players selected in the first round of the draft, I expected this year to be much easier than the last few as these are all things that I would expect a player to like, but players have been extra expensive. I recruit mostly in state, but even then it has seemed very difficult. I did get a rather strong freshman class, and I liberally redshirt players in order to get the most out of them, but I have been doing that since the beginning. All of this is a long way to say I definitely do think that Recent performance (Maybe a rolling weight over the last 3-5 years) Should be included as a factor in recruiting. Updated Monday, June 24 2019 @ 9:55:54 pm PDT

#7477	06/25/2019 11:57:36 am	Nov 30th, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	I believe it is actually included, its just doesn't carry enough weight to be significant.

#7479	06/25/2019 1:18:02 pm	Nov 30th, 2006
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars V.9	I think that would encourage spreading points more as well, rather than the current system, where most teams only target a few players. I’d like to see it move more towards spreading contacts, but I understand a lot of people like the current system without that change.

#7481	06/25/2019 3:28:42 pm	Nov 30th, 2006
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2472 Hardwood Administrator	So it seems like there is some consensus about: 1. Not letting schools pile up too many contacts on one prospect whose in the early stages of high school. 2. Not letting schools pile all their recruiting points on one prospect? Steve

#7485	06/25/2019 4:30:25 pm	Nov 30th, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Not sure there was consensus on the first one. Rather looking to create diminishing returns or catch-up mechanisms though absolute limits.

#7487	06/25/2019 8:01:51 pm	Nov 30th, 2006
hawaii Joined: 02/27/2019 Posts: 14 Inactive	this game has already been around for 5 seasons if the higher conference teams paid attention this person probably would not have won those recruits you all are so upset about why change anything about recruiting when you can change the formula or something else because no matter what you end up capping in the end it favors higher conference teams i thought this game was suppose to be fun but if caps are put into place im out

#7488	06/25/2019 8:23:07 pm	Nov 30th, 2006
ryhaggs Joined: 01/30/2019 Posts: 34 Eckerd Tritons III.2	Diminishing returns sounds reasonable to me. I don't like the idea of caps. Also, a slow loss of interest if a recruit isn't contacted for a period of time may be good.

#7490	06/26/2019 12:37:15 am	Nov 30th, 2006
jakala Joined: 10/21/2018 Posts: 148 Inactive	this game has already been around for 5 seasons if the higher conference teams paid attention this person probably would not have won those recruits you all are so upset about I think so. why change anything about recruiting when you can change the formula or something else because no matter what you end up capping in the end it favors higher conference teams This is what i thought. Whats the point of lower div team spending lot of contacts/tanking a prospect if in the end the higher div will get him? i thought this game was suppose to be fun but if caps are put into place im out Same thought happen to me. Its like change something fundamental in this game. Because from my view it would like this: -Before cap: Tanking will get you 80~100% chance landing a target -After cap: Tanking will get you 50% (max) chance landing a target if a big team eyed your target. I change my recruitment strategy style 2 seasons ago. Now i should change it again, with 50 % max chance of success? Why don't make recruitment system like BB or trade system?

#7492	06/26/2019 5:41:07 am	Nov 30th, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Hawaii - I was going to ask you if you would have a problem with a team going 2-50 in their last 52 and get 2 of the top recruits. But I decided to look at your roster and recruiting and I think I have my answer.

#7494	06/26/2019 9:36:49 am	Nov 30th, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	I like the idea of diminishing returns. Maybe something like each contact is 1% less effective than the prior contact. I don't have a sense of how many contacts it takes to get to each level so maybe that is too steep or not steep enough.

#7495	06/26/2019 10:14:39 am	Dec 2nd, 2006
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	@Hawaii @jakala I can't even remotely understand your reasoning....."oh, let's be a bad team till players wanna come to us." That's so disturbing. This is college basketball. Do you understand that? It should absolutely not be attractive to a player to go play for a 2-50 team. @pschwartz Yes I think some form of soft cap, with no limits is one of the best solutions. I think a multiplier in contact ineffectiveness would be my pick. But it would never get to the point where a contact effect is nil. Just very close to it. And I think this would only be in effect during high school freshman thru junior. All contacts during senior season would have full effect.

#7497	06/26/2019 11:22:16 am	Dec 2nd, 2006
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2472 Hardwood Administrator	Okay...some good input. Please let's not attack individuals -- just debate the facts and ideas. Thanks, Steve

#7499	06/26/2019 11:46:52 am	Dec 2nd, 2006
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars V.9	Also worth noting, hawaii, I pointed out that St. Mary’s was doing this when the current recruits were freshmen. It’s not like this snuck up on us. We were all just hoping it wouldn’t work, and there was no point addressing it with rule changes if it was a failed strategy. Now that it’s been established as successful, discussion is required.

#7500	06/26/2019 11:47:23 am	Dec 2nd, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Phillies - I agree contacts should never reach 0, just get close to 0 as the number increases. However, why not include Sr year as well? If you only do it for Fr-Jr then it just penalizes early recruiting and might go too far as an anti-tanking mechanism. I think making huge number of contacts less effective should be enough.

#7501	06/26/2019 12:56:34 pm	Dec 2nd, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	no matter what you end up capping in the end it favors higher conference teams This is not true. A cap on High interest would create a situation where all teams had equal chance of landing the recruit. It doesn't favor high conference teams. I like the idea behind diminishing returns, but it would require a bit of re-balancing to implement as it would be a significant change to the existing recruiting model. As is, it would give a huge advantage to high level schools since their Contact value will approach 0 slower than lower level schools. That would result in high level schools always getting the player with enough contacts. Maybe intended behavior? Which is fine then, but if the more even distribution is desired, we would want to the tail off in Contact value to occur in such as way that the values equaled out as you approached 0 value on the Contacts. For instance if Contact value declined based on existing interest (rather than number of Contacts), that might work. e.g. regardless of how many Contacts it took to get to get there, once you have an interest level of Medium, your Contacts are all worth 50% of what they were originally worth. Updated Wednesday, June 26 2019 @ 12:59:06 pm PDT

#7502	06/26/2019 2:43:39 pm	Dec 2nd, 2006
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	Phillies - I agree contacts should never reach 0, just get close to 0 as the number increases. However, why not include Sr year as well? If you only do it for Fr-Jr then it just penalizes early recruiting and might go too far as an anti-tanking mechanism. I think making huge number of contacts less effective should be enough. I'm not opposed to it. But I'm not sure if we should be penalizing senior recruiting. But I still like it both ways. For instance if Contact value declined based on existing interest (rather than number of Contacts), that might work. e.g. regardless of how many Contacts it took to get to get there, once you have an interest level of Medium, your Contacts are all worth 50% of what they were originally worth Combining both ideas, I like it. I'm a bit skeptical of the max interest proposal. Do we really want to turn to RNG for the solution? I'm afraid that down the road we would have to many "It's just random" complaints. Recruiting should still be a somewhat sophisticated strategy. As far as giving more recruiting advantages to power conferences. I don't think this is necessarily bad. Now I realize my team is in I.1, and I don't want to sound like an arrogant power grabbing bigot. But as is now, with smart management it is not very hard to climb the pyramid. Just look at the teams climbing out of the lower divisions, loaded with quality talent. Im not wanting the higher conferences to be unattainable in the least bit. But I think it should an accomplishment that takes real effort and the "proper" strategizing. Not just a cycle of teams flying up and down the ladder. I don't think parity thruout the divisions will be good for the game. But I'm open to correction. Updated Wednesday, June 26 2019 @ 2:44:06 pm PDT

#7503	06/26/2019 4:30:31 pm	Dec 2nd, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	But I'm not sure if we should be penalizing senior recruiting You wouldn't be penalizing senior recruiting - everyone is going to be impacted the same. By not penalizing senior recruiting you are essentially penalizing recruiting in their Fr-Jr years. Not sure we really want to rebalance recruiting more towards seniors. For instance if Contact value declined based on existing interest (rather than number of Contacts), that might work. e.g. regardless of how many Contacts it took to get to get there, once you have an interest level of Medium, your Contacts are all worth 50% of what they were originally worth. Does this actually do anything though since this impacts everyone? If I tank I get to Medium the same amount as time as before. Once I hit medium then it takes more contacts to get to high. But it takes more contacts for everyone to get to high. It seems like we would be in the same place as we are now. I'm a bit skeptical of the max interest proposal. Do we really want to turn to RNG for the solution? I'm afraid that down the road we would have to many "It's just random" complaints. Recruiting should still be a somewhat sophisticated strategy. This is probably the best idea to remove the incentive to tank while also ensuring we don't break something else. However, I agree with Phillies that this is too RNG. I could just see a lot of L1 teams just getting to this level and crossing their fingers that they get who they need. As far as giving more recruiting advantages to power conferences. I don't think this is necessarily bad. Now I realize my team is in I.1, and I don't want to sound like an arrogant power grabbing bigot. But as is now, with smart management it is not very hard to climb the pyramid. Just look at the teams climbing out of the lower divisions, loaded with quality talent. Im not wanting the higher conferences to be unattainable in the least bit. But I think it should an accomplishment that takes real effort and the "proper" strategizing. Not just a cycle of teams flying up and down the ladder. I don't think parity thruout the divisions will be good for the game. But I'm open to correction. I guess this is the crux of the issue. We need to take care of the tanking - pretty much everyone who isn't tanking at the moment agrees with that. But do we want to fix that while also changing the balancing of the game? Personally, I don't have a problem with the top teams getting the top players and making it hard to get into the top divisions. But I have been playing for like 2 months and don't have a very good sense of long-term trends in the game. I guess it really is up to Steve about how he wants this game to play. I won't be upset either way - just get rid of the incentive to tank.

#7504	06/26/2019 4:58:08 pm	Dec 2nd, 2006
Lee Joined: 07/23/2018 Posts: 31 Inactive	Recruiting is screwed. I realize this may sound arrogant coming from a team that had a five star commit to them. But I had Lucas Somers at high with 19 points last season. I added 10 more points by the end of the season. Total of 29. Somers than dropped to medium over the off season. Now at 60 points he's still at medium. I would post a screenshot but I can't seem to get it to work on mobile. But I can show you one on discord proving I have 60 points in Somers. Updated Wednesday, June 26 2019 @ 4:59:05 pm PDT Updated Wednesday, June 26 2019 @ 5:05:50 pm PDT

#7505	06/26/2019 5:30:59 pm	Dec 2nd, 2006
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	Does this actually do anything though since this impacts everyone? If I tank I get to Medium the same amount as time as before. Once I hit medium then it takes more contacts to get to high. But it takes more contacts for everyone to get to high. It seems like we would be in the same place as we are now. Thus having no negative impact on senior recruitment. I get the whole contact the 14 year old kid and get a leg up. But the kid really isn't going to seriously consider where he'll play four years from now. Heck he (excluding super stars) doesn't even know yet what caliber teams will want him on their team by then (which brings up another point I'll make). The really crucial contacts should be made during a players senior year. Maybe we do need a rebalancing? Yes, that other point I wanted to make. Does a 14 year old kid and his coach really know what kind of player he'll be by the time he graduates high school? The short answer is NO. Unless it's a LeBron James or the like. But honestly I the scouting reports we have are way to cut and dry. I can see a 3 star freshman's report and know if I want that player or not with a high degree of certainty. This allows me to long term plan my recruiting to an accurate extent. It isn't realistic. Teams can't do this in real life. I think early high school scouting reports should either be only partially revealed, or much more inaccurate, or even constantly changing. But always getting more accurate till the true report is revealed in the players senior year. This would discourage heavy investment into the early years of a high school player. Nobody wants to put 50 points into a player that will potentially be a busy by the time he's a senior. I also think we shouldn't be able to offer scholarships till their senior year. BradenWoA and I were discussing this issue on discord, and he said he would like to see teams spread a wider net for prospects. I never thought much about this before, but the more I think about it the more I like it. It would be much more realistic, and funner. Or so I think. there would be many more recruiting wars. The easiest solution to this is simply adding more RNG. But why not add RNG with some flavor or taste if you will. Adding shadiness to early high school scouting reports would do this. Teams would have to come up with bigger contingency plans knowing some of the players they are targeting won't pan out by their senior year, and wouldn't be suitable any longer. Thus more players contacted. I also have another suggestion that is similar but more colorful to the diminished constact idea. I might post later on tonight. Updated Wednesday, June 26 2019 @ 5:53:26 pm PDT

#7506	06/26/2019 5:44:02 pm	Dec 2nd, 2006
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars V.9	What? I never said that! Just kidding, I do think that it feels very bland sometimes how focused recruiting can be. I’d say more, but I’m going to post within the next 12 hours about it anyway, so I’ll elaborate then

#7507	06/26/2019 7:19:53 pm	Dec 2nd, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	I wider net would be more realistic and more tactical. I think it would improve the game play. The trick is how to get there. The reduction by interest level (ish since its fuzzy) does achieve the same impact as diminishing returns. The more you pump in, the less impact the Contacts have. So at some point the difference between 60 and 90 contacts becomes small enough to be overcome by RNG. I'm not saying to do specific cut-offs of 75%, 50%, 25%. I was just suggesting the Medium interest might be around 50%, but the diminishing returns could still be continuous. Just on interest rather than contacts. Not saying its the best solution, just a better solution if diminishing returns was used.

#7509	06/26/2019 9:15:52 pm	Dec 2nd, 2006
Jason1216 Joined: 07/03/2018 Posts: 90 Loyola Marymount Lions IV.1	Umm just going to put out here, don't any of you listen to news anymore of colleges talking too and even getting verbal commits from some kids as young as 13. Recruiting does start in freshmen year now in real life. The studs have colleges talking to them at 14/15.

#7512	06/27/2019 2:29:17 am	Dec 2nd, 2006
jakala Joined: 10/21/2018 Posts: 148 Inactive	@Philliesworld That's so disturbing. This is college basketball. Do you understand that? It should absolutely not be attractive to a player to go play for a 2-50 team. Did i ever said i agree a bad team will get 5 stars prospect? Pay attention and see at my posts above: But i agree, a tweak is needed like: - point #2: Good prospects (4~5stars) will be more likely to join a good team. ~If we really want that 5 stars is more likely go for Div1 or Div2, why don't just add recruits traits like: a."Refuses to play below Div 1" or "Refuses to play below Div 2" OR b."Prefer to play Div1 or Div2" For trait (a) as long there is Div1 or Div2 contacts (and recruit slot), he will refuse to join lower Div. For trait (b) there is penalty for division below 1 or 2 (lower is higher penalty). It means Div5 can still win a 5Stars but will spent much more contacts than before this trait is applied. Just because Saint Marry (a bad performance team) acquired 5 stars prospect by tanking, it doesn't mean tanking is bad By abolish tanking its like when you find a rotten corn, you command to burn down the whole farm. I 'know' some lower division team works hard to get good prospect by tanking. That's including me. Updated Thursday, June 27 2019 @ 2:29:55 am PDT

#7513	06/27/2019 5:30:12 am	Dec 2nd, 2006
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars V.9	Jakala. You did indeed agree with a bad team getting 5* prospects. That is what tanking is. Unless you think that teams are going to tank for 3* prospects., which seems very silly to me. In terms of your analogy, this is like the farmer finding rotten corn, then burning the rotten corn so it doesn’t spread to the rest of the corn. I also don’t understand the notion that you’re a team that has engaged in tanking to get prospects. Looking at your roster, recruiting, and history, that seems incorrect. Please clarify.

#7516	06/27/2019 10:11:46 am	Dec 7th, 2006
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	@jakala I'm also a bit confused. Do you own Hawaii? You don't want good players going to bad performance teams. Yet you want tanking to be a legit strategy. Teams that tank ARE poor performance teams. We are not trying to kill early recruiting, only to eliminate tanking. Which btw is not a college basketball method of recruiting.

#7517	06/27/2019 10:42:16 am	Dec 7th, 2006
Jason1216 Joined: 07/03/2018 Posts: 90 Loyola Marymount Lions IV.1	Did anyone talk to the St. Mary owner? He may have made the mistake I did but not caught himself as soon as I did with it. My first 2 yrs I recruited almost all Jr. college players not realizing they would only have 2 yrs eligibilty at first. If he continued doing that for an extra yr, that would explain why all his players are gone

#7528	06/28/2019 6:30:52 am	Dec 7th, 2006
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars V.9	He started recruiting all these guys basically immediately after he took the team. He did use JuCo guys to help ease the transition, but the owner very clearly had a plan to tank as St. Mary’s.

#7529	06/28/2019 8:46:10 am	Dec 7th, 2006
ryhaggs Joined: 01/30/2019 Posts: 34 Eckerd Tritons III.2	I say let him tank. If he wants to suffer several losing seasons to get a couple recruits, let him. It may not even pay off because of a lack of depth. I'm glad there is someone trying a different way of playing the game. I wouldn't do it, but that is the user's perogative and it doesn't seem to cause an unfair advantage. Updated Friday, June 28 2019 @ 8:46:30 am PDT

#7531	06/28/2019 9:43:09 am	Dec 7th, 2006
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars V.9	I’d argue that it does indeed cause an unfair advantage. It’s also unrealistic in a real world sense.

#7532	06/28/2019 10:19:10 am	Dec 9th, 2006
ryhaggs Joined: 01/30/2019 Posts: 34 Eckerd Tritons III.2	How is it an advantage? His team is terrible playing in a low division. People can compete with him for the same recruits. A couple won't go his way and he will still he terrible. Promotion and relegation isn't realistic either. I don't see anyone clamoring for that to change. Lower division teams have to be able to get recruits to keep the game appealing to a larger audience.

#7533	06/28/2019 10:37:32 am	Dec 9th, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	He got two of the top recruits right at the start of the season. His team won't be terrible. I don't think we should prevent people from doing this, but there are unrealistic recruiting factors that make this a more successful tactic than it should be. I think it should be a valid tactic for a team to put less focus into one or two classes to try and bring in a star class than can push them to the next level, but they should still need to try and keep the team relevant. I think the biggest issues is the fact the near term performance has virtually no impact on recruiting. Long term (prestige) should have impact, but near term should be very important as well. If the team has a long term focus and manages to stay middle of the pack, then it shouldn't be a problem. But demotion/promotion should be a much bigger hit on recruit interest. If demotion hurt interest, it would counter a lot of the benefit of pure tanking.

#7540	06/28/2019 12:22:03 pm	Dec 9th, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Ryhaggs - the game needs to balance realism with fun. You are correct - league relegation is not realistic since it doesn't happen in college basketball. But it is a lot more fun - who wants to be the real-life Pitt, Vandy, BC, or Fordham? People will leave the game in droves when their team constantly loses 90% of their conference games. In my opinion fun is always more important than realism. In regards to tanking - it is not realistic since the worst teams don't get the best players. However, is it fun? I don't think so - all these teams have to do is log in one a month (so they don't get kicked) and put all of their contact points into the best players. Wait a few seasons and then profit. I know some people will disagree with me on this - but if tanking doesn't get fixed this game will die. We have seen that tanking works with St Marys. Will other teams take notice and copy the strategy? That sort of polices itself since the strategy will become less effective. However, the cost would be the top players are all in Division 2/3 playing with walk-ons and 2 star players. Who wants to be part of a game like that?

#7542	06/28/2019 12:55:57 pm	Dec 9th, 2006
Wine13 Joined: 07/03/2018 Posts: 20 Inactive	Regarding this whole St. Marys thing. I don't agree w/ tanking and yes its not realistic, but a lot of you seem to feel he will be dominate. How? He will have 2 good players and nothing and i mean nothin else. Play a totally inside offensive game(he will have no-one over 6' 9", play uptempo+4 play 100 % man to man(maybe not sure of this) and run him out of the gym. Also if there is a max on players(hoping so because right now he has 18 for next year) he should be done getting anyone this year. Next year is when to watch what he does because he has 8 juniors on his team. Right now he is recruiting 3 top juniors but he does have some competition for those guys. Just my 2 cents cuz thats about all its worth.

#7543	06/28/2019 5:09:06 pm	Dec 9th, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Wine - the issue isn't next season. You could put the top 10 recruits on a team of walk-ons and if you put them in L1 they are definitely being relegated (and probably relegated in L2 as well). Even the season after they will struggle. But once these players become Juniors and seniors they could become a juggernaut. At this point we don't know how recruiting will work for teams that tank in year 2 and 3 of the rebuild. You say that they have competition for their Juniors and sophomores but they also had competition for the players they just got. Will they be able to get the top recruits next season and the season after? Again, we don't know. But I do know this - these top players are either going to be playing with a bunch of walk-ons and 2* scrubs their college career (if the strategy fizzles out) or they will be playing on a superteam full of 5* recruits (if the strategy works). Neither of those scenarios is good for the game which is why I think something needs to be tweeked in recruiting.

#7544	06/28/2019 5:27:36 pm	Dec 9th, 2006
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	Well said @pschwartz

#7551	06/29/2019 11:48:42 am	Dec 14th, 2006
buzzcody Joined: 02/23/2019 Posts: 37 Inactive	Much discussion concerning college basketball reality vs Hardwood game use. My common sense meter when reviewing the game tells me that overall game design was not intended to closely represent reality in players, recruits or game play. I have not viewed any written statements by game dev's that hardwood was created with a goal of replicating IRL university basketball, as well as student athlete recruitment. In fact, even in "Story of Hardwood" there is no reference to goals of the game at all. Changing certain aspects, rules, of the Hardwood game play to more closely resemble reality would prove futile without redesign of a whole new game concept which was intended for that purpose. Actually, it should be quite obvious when looking at the game overall that closely resembling reality is not what the dev's had in mind for the ultimate Hardwood game. Once you play the game, game play activity alone should indicate to you that Hardwood does not attempt to closely replicate IRL university basketball game play. There are minor game glitches, even with the format developed, which can easily be discussed and worked out. It's a fun game to play, as is Broken Bat, but both are a long leap from representing reality and perhaps best played as such, a fun online game.

#7554	06/29/2019 9:52:07 pm	Dec 14th, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Hardwood is an online college basketball simulation... Of course it attempts to replicate real life. Otherwise it would just be a first person shooter. And the game would die because none of us are here to play a first person shooter. We are here to play a game that makes it seem like we are managing a college basketball team. Updated Saturday, June 29 2019 @ 9:53:10 pm PDT

#7557	06/30/2019 11:32:56 am	Dec 16th, 2006
coachwannabe Joined: 03/09/2018 Posts: 437 Penn Quakers IV.2	Wow, I haven't been on here in awhile. Lots of good ideas going in this thread, I like the direction the conversation has gone! Hard caps certainly have their flaws and I'm against them now that those flaws have been brought to my attention. I like the idea of diminishing returns or "soft caps." I am also still in favor of (and there seems some consensus around): 1. Interest level going up to 5 categories (v low - low - med - hi - v hi). 2. Recruits preferences stating "Will only play Div 1" or "Will only play Div 1 or Div 2" -- specifically among 4* and 5* players. Thanks for the great discussion, folks! Glad to see it kept mostly civil and having ideas evolve together -- this is how we make the game better! And thanks to Steve for listening to our feedback! Updated Sunday, June 30 2019 @ 11:33:13 am PDT

#7559	07/01/2019 9:57:30 am	Dec 21st, 2006
FurySK Joined: 12/17/2018 Posts: 170 Florida Gulf Coast Eagles VI.24	still don't think the answer is divisional restrictions per recruit. doesn't stop a team from going from D.II to D.IV and making this strategy work. I wish we could just fire owners who sit juniors and seniors and start walkons to tank even harder. Not feasible so i am not honestly pushing for that but it'd be decisive for certain. I still think the best way to tackle this is make players less consistent to their builds than they are even now. If i go tank and spend 100 points on a HS-FR 5 star 75+ si guy, i should risk him slowing way down on development and/or not having the same star rating later.

#7560	07/01/2019 10:02:53 am	Dec 21st, 2006
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	Well something has to change fast because St Mary's now has arguably the top three recruits of this season. This is going to take this game backwards extremely fast if something doesn't change.

#7562	07/01/2019 11:10:34 am	Dec 21st, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	I agree with Fury about the divisional requirements for recruits. It seems kind of messy and would take 4 seasons to implement since it could only start with HS freshmen next year. I also don't like the idea of a hard cap - we don't need more randomness in the game. I think the two ideas that have been floating around without too much hatred were: 1. Soft cap where contacts have a diminishing return 2. Adding some sort of recent success measurement to the recruiting equation (maybe something like a 4 yr weighted average RPI score) In regards to providing more interest levels - that won't do anything for tanking. I would also argue that it doesn't even make recruiting easier since everyone gets the same advantage.

#7563	07/01/2019 11:48:06 am	Dec 21st, 2006
Jason1216 Joined: 07/03/2018 Posts: 90 Loyola Marymount Lions IV.1	I still am not worried about St. Mary myself. Looking over the top 250, they have 2 other players they might get and neither are defensive players. So, of the 3 they've gotten so far, 1 is a good defender 1 has no comment and 1 is horrible. Unless the owner is recruiting a bunch of scrub defenders, anyone with a good defense will beeat them

#7567	07/01/2019 5:46:18 pm	Dec 21st, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Jason - people are not worried about playing St Marys. Most of the people complaining won't even be in the same division as them next season as they will be demoted to level 5. After that they will probably be demoted again to level 6. For me - the issue is that 3 of the top 10 recruits went to a team that has lost 50 games in a row. I don't care if they are short or bad at defense or having funny names - those were players that were highly sought after that ended up committing to a team that is not competing right now. The other issue I think people are complaining about is losing out on recruits that they want to these teams that are tanking. Personally, I am not complaining about this. But it isn't because I disagree, it is because my team is not very good and probably won't have a chance at these recruits.

#7568	07/01/2019 9:48:03 pm	Dec 21st, 2006
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	owners who sit juniors and seniors and start walkons I wouldn't worry about that. It bad for a team to demote, there is no gain for actually trying to lose games. Tanking in the case of this thread just means using your contacts on FR, and letting your team become really bad for several seasons. You would still play your best players, they just wouldn't be great.

#7573	07/02/2019 10:34:40 am	Dec 23rd, 2006
buzzcody Joined: 02/23/2019 Posts: 37 Inactive	Game placed restrictions on recruiting have removed any randomness in the recruiting process. Yes, the restrictions will increase parity overall which is desirable from the game prospective. However, not from the players prospective, as players are trying to better themselves from the current competition. The various divisions should supply parity within rather than restricting access to recruits of well staffed teams which will only assure their decent. Restrictions are also providing a rise to the lower division teams due again only to the imposed restrictions on upper division teams. Divisions should be the game focus for parity with any restrictions being imposed within such a group rather than game wide. Should you be a reality thinker, such restrictions are in place now IRL with recruiting restrictions placed on lower division schools vs those offered to Division I schools. If you believe in the concept that better teams attract better players, then this must be the starting point with recruiting. Of course their can also be variables in the process, IE: girlfriend going here, love my hometown, don't like snow, etc;. Many way's to accomplish goals. As yet nothing provided by the game to represent their goals, which could at least lead to a starting point for discussion.

#7595	07/04/2019 10:34:33 am	Dec 30th, 2006
nsparks89 Joined: 07/07/2018 Posts: 66 Mississippi State Bulldogs V.2	I haven't commented because I haven't really cared, but what happened today really pissed me off. I had a Mississippi player at high interest since last year, and Virginia started contacting him a few weeks ago. Today he decides to go to Virginia over his home state school who he had high interest in since last year. I don't have any answers, but I have five scholarships to fill and it appears I won't be filling one this year. I might be doing the reverse St. Mary's. It's taking forever to gain any interest in prospects, and those who have interest in me are going elsewhere. It's really frustrating, coming from a person who usually does not complain much about games like this.

#7601	07/05/2019 4:59:51 am	Dec 30th, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	I know this doesn't help some of the issues described above but another idea I had was to punish teams that don't have enough scholarships in recruiting. I think the fewest I have seen on a team is 10 out of 13 (non-tanking team). I think a good number would be fewer than 6. So if a team has fewer than 6 scholarship players on their roster it would hurt their interest levels with recruits. This should counteract any "bonus" a team gets through the playing time's impact on recruiting. It also doesn't impact the balancing of the game where a soft cap and recent success would help the top teams more (not that I disagree with it, but I think others might have reservations). Updated Friday, July 5 2019 @ 5:33:58 am PDT

#7602	07/05/2019 6:51:13 am	Dec 30th, 2006
Dcmrulz Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 99 Inactive	I think a fair penalty for not getting any scholarship recruits if you have a certain amount remaining (like over 9) after a season is the walk ons on your team (seniority prioritized) getting those checkmarks until you are back at 9+ unfilled next season. Also gives you the opportunity to redshirt them for whatever reason you need.

#7603	07/05/2019 8:32:31 am	Dec 30th, 2006
ryhaggs Joined: 01/30/2019 Posts: 34 Eckerd Tritons III.2	I like that idea dcmrulz! Some thought would have to go into the right number, but 9 does sound good to me without putting much thought into it.

#7604	07/05/2019 9:25:30 am	Dec 30th, 2006
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	I considered the walkon scholarship idea but I am not sure that is going to do anything. If you take St Marys all of their JRs would have scholarships as well as their RS SR. Next season they are bringing in 3 and losing 1 (the RS SR) so you are now up to 11 scholarships (3 to FR and 8 to SR). They are targeting 3 more JRs - let's say they get them all. So the season after they now 6 scholarships to good players (3 FR and 3 SO). 3 more go to walkons who will be SRs (currently they are SO). St Marys is targeting 3 SO, assume they get all 3. That season they will have 9 scholarships to good players (3 JR, 3 SO, and 3 FR). Another option would be to give the scholarships to your walkon FR so that they take up the scholarship for 4 years. But how would that even work with St Marys? They currently have 17 players - 1 is graduating. They are bringing in 3 next season so their roster is up to 19 players. Now you need to add 6 random FR scholarship players so the roster size is up to 25. Is there a maximum roster size? I thought I read somewhere that it was 18 but I could be wrong.

#7606	07/05/2019 10:11:50 am	Jan 4th, 2007
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	This is definitely a bad direction. Consider the unfortunate teams on the venting thread who are losing all the recruits they are going after. Now we would penalize them for failing to land recruits on top of it...? I think the best approach is the most realistic. Players don't want to play for bad/flagging teams. We should just increase the impact of that effect. If you have a losing record or demote, then players should lose a lot of interest in your team. That would force people to always trying and be competitive.

#7607	07/05/2019 10:36:29 am	Jan 4th, 2007
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Rock - that's a good point. My idea to have number of scholarship players impact recruiting won't impact the teams in venting though. I have cutoff at 5, so unless someone can't fill their 8 open scholarships it won't be an issue. I worry that putting more weight on promotion / demotion would make it harder for new players. I took over Campbell last season from a bot with 2 post players and an 0-8 conference record. If you hurt a team that is getting demoted more it would make it a harder hole to climb out of.

#7608	07/05/2019 12:46:10 pm	Jan 4th, 2007
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	My idea is actually a bad one. Teams could still tank and just put a contact into some garbage 1* recruit and give a scholarship. All you need is a handful of bad 1* recruits (which they are doing already since they have all walk-ons) to avoid the penalty. I am assuming there is some kind of multiplier for whatever division you are in - higher the division the higher the multiplier. When you get demoted you get the multiplier of your new division which causes your recruits to lose interest. If you make the penalty for demotion greater then those teams are really screwed because now the impact is greater than teams in their new conference. If they were going after the same recruit now the demoted team is at a huge disadvantage relative to teams in their same division. This could lead to further demotions and forcing players to bottom out in division 6 before turning it around.

#7612	07/05/2019 9:30:53 pm	Jan 4th, 2007
Blackbeard Joined: 03/17/2019 Posts: 561 St. Johns Red Storm IV.2	I don't agree with placing any penalty on teams that demote to lower leagues and I will tell you why. Maybe this isn't how things are done in real life but this is a computer game thats online. With that said, making it too difficult for managers to be ble to make their teams better and to win is not a good thing. maybe its the way things are in the RL but its not good for a computer game that wants to attract as many human managers to the game. If the penalty is great and greater for low level teams that demote and it make winning even worse then human managers will quit the game versus staying on because they are making progress. Thats the difference between this game and say a sports manager game like HA or Hockey Arena. As a team in HA builds their stadium, their trainng facility and on and on the team is able to train players better and eventhally even the most inept players can win. You can not do that in HW because lower ranked team are stuck recruiting the worst players in the game. I don't like playing and getting beat by bot managed teams and it really seems like no matter what I do, worst teams that mine that have bot managers seem to do better and they also suck up better players. maybe their AI is able to do better than somebody like me, I don't know but letting human managers at the least have an advantage over bot teams might be something to be doing in order to start keeping managers here. Thats what I think..... My self, I don't much care because I'll be here whether its hard or not. When my time to move on comes they that will be the end. Thats my opinion on getting a worse penalty for demoting.

#7614	07/06/2019 7:35:30 am	Jan 4th, 2007
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	What about something like mandated coach firing if your team is demoted in two consecutive years? I don't think that happens that often - it seems the teams that get demoted generally do pretty well in a lower conference. We could also add a W/L component that the overall W/L percentage over those 2 years needs to also be below .250 or something. This would making tanking no longer a viable strategy because new coaches kill your recruiting of underclassmen - which the tanking teams are going after. I think the solution to tanking should try to only impact those teams. If we try to rebalance the game by including soft caps or recent success to recruiting I worry those adjustments would need to be very large to make tanking no longer viable.

#7615	07/06/2019 8:15:07 am	Jan 4th, 2007
ryhaggs Joined: 01/30/2019 Posts: 34 Eckerd Tritons III.2	I really like this line of thinking, too. Again, haven't thought deeply about it, yet but I think it merits more thought and discussion.

#7617	07/06/2019 10:08:56 am	Jan 6th, 2007
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Ok - so I have looked at some of the worst teams by W/L that are in Division 2 and up. Division 3 can't be demoted further so I ignored those (for now). I think the logic could look something like this: - Demoted 2 seasons in a row - W/L percentage in those 2 seasons is below .250 - Has not hired their head coach in those 2 seasons If all 3 of those metrics are hit then the coach is automatically fired during the offseason and another coach must be hired. For bots this could happen automatically. For a human player they need to hire a new head coach. For St Marys - they would get screwed this offseason and lose out on the underclassmen they are currently recruiting. For Hawaii - they might get demoted this year but probably not. However, next season they are getting demoted and probably the season after that (and most likely will have a record below .250). Most of the teams at the bottom are run by bots. The ones run by humans are either about to quit (haven't logged on in a few weeks and the last log on was a few days after signing up) or they were recently promoted (which would explain why they are struggling). I can look at more teams but I don't see any red flags of potentially screwing over a human player that is trying to win. I agree with ryhaggs that this needs more discussion.

#7623	07/07/2019 6:16:14 am	Jan 6th, 2007
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Humans have a pretty huge advantage over bot teams in this game. More-so than in BB. In BB it can take a several seasons for a bot to mess up a team, but in HW the player turn around is very quick, so a bot will ruin a team in 1 or 2 seasons. I think playing gymnastics to try and penalize a certain behavior is anti-productive. The undesired behavior: Team owners tanking seasons to improve their recruiting ability. The reality: Teams that did this would lose a lot a be less desirable to recruits. The fix: Make it like the reality. If you lose a lot, players are less interested in joining. As a bonus, this makes the "build a team" route much more interesting a challenging then it is today. Instead of all teams being "easy mode", lower level teams would be more challenging, while only upper level teams would be easy to play.

#7625	07/07/2019 8:00:37 am	Jan 6th, 2007
Jason1216 Joined: 07/03/2018 Posts: 90 Loyola Marymount Lions IV.1	Everyone is getting pretty worked up over a game.....

#7626	07/07/2019 10:25:00 am	Jan 11th, 2007
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	If you did that you end up hurting teams that get promoted. As examples - Arizona State, Benedictine, Colorado, and LeMoyne-Owen were promoted this season and are struggling in their conference (which hurts W/L record). Why should they be penalized for having a good season in a prior year? They would be better off throwing some games at the end of the season to ensure they don't get promoted.

#7627	07/07/2019 10:41:42 am	Jan 11th, 2007
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	There is a significant recruiting advantage for being in a higher league. Its always advantageous for you to promote.

#7628	07/07/2019 10:43:23 am	Jan 11th, 2007
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	I currently have 41 contacts on a local kid who is still at "Low" interest... And this is coming from the currently #20 ranked school with an "excellent" recruiting head coach. Definitely some serious issues with recruiting. The current model kind of forces you into the tank to recruit mode, because if you don't tank, your contacts have no value. Updated Sunday, July 7 2019 @ 11:07:30 am PDT

#7630	07/07/2019 11:07:50 am	Jan 11th, 2007
Jason1216 Joined: 07/03/2018 Posts: 90 Loyola Marymount Lions IV.1	I'm not having any issues with my recruiting contacts. I'm high on one that's out of state, medium on another.

#7634	07/07/2019 5:31:16 pm	Jan 11th, 2007
pschwartz Joined: 05/07/2019 Posts: 857 Inactive	Rock - it is advantageous for you to promote right now. However, would it be advantageous after we make a change to recruiting based on W/L record? Remember - St Marys got 3 of the top recruits this season. They only went after 3 and got all 3. There is some randomness to recruiting and they still got all 3. My guess is that the other teams weren't even close. I worry any adjustment you make to recruiting based on W/L record would have to be so drastic to impact the St Marys and Hawaiis of the world that you end up really screwing over other teams. That's why I like to 'play gymnastics' to try to find a solution to the tanking because I don't think we should impact other aspects of the game. Mandating coaching changes I think accomplishes this. If you want to make other changes to recruiting - go for it (as you said earlier - go look at the venting thread). But I think you will find any changes you make won't give you 'fixes tanking' for free.

#7635	07/07/2019 5:46:25 pm	Jan 11th, 2007
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Yes, it should still be advantageous. That is all in the balancing. Besides, I don't think W/L record should ever has as much impact as Promotion/Demotion. I promotion should be more impactful than a bad record. A demotion should be more impactful than a good record. Most of the pieces are in place already, its more of a balancing issue. Right now things like Playing Time are significantly over weighted, while things like League Level are present, but not strong enough to compensate.

#7715	07/18/2019 10:11:45 am	Feb 17th, 2007
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2472 Hardwood Administrator	I think I've completed the playoff and tournament bracket view, so I'm going to start looking at folding in some of these suggestions next. Also, upgrading my computer. My old one was still running Windows 7 -- which Microsoft isn't going to support/provide updates for anymore. So we're finally moving forward -- local simulations should be a lot faster now. Steve

#7721	07/18/2019 1:34:41 pm	Feb 17th, 2007
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Nice

#7724	07/19/2019 10:04:28 am	Feb 22nd, 2007
Philliesworld Joined: 02/04/2018 Posts: 222 Inactive	Sounds great Steve. 👍