Hardwood - Discussion Forum: Brief Recruiting Discussion

Forum >> Discussions >> Brief Recruiting Discussion

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#5763	02/21/2019 4:25:09 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2496 Hardwood Administrator	So what would that feedback look like? Steve

#5764	02/21/2019 4:48:39 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Of course its the high level schools who already have a huge recruiting advantage that don't mind if low level schools have to waste 70 points to find out if a recruit is interested in their school or not, LOL. Typical self-centered view of the world. Great for you if playing time hasn't been an issue. But it is for other schools. For lower tier, it can be a 80 point delta, and there is no way of knowing that until you have spent 40+ points to get the guy to medium interest. Some sort of feedback is absolutely necessary, and completely missing from the game. The mechanic I suggested is both highly realistic, and the mechanic used by every other college basketball sim. You don't like, propose something else. But don't try to make the lame argument that it is realistic for a team to call a kid 40 times before finding out he values playing time.

#5765	02/21/2019 4:49:23 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
FurySK Joined: 12/17/2018 Posts: 170 Florida Gulf Coast Eagles VI.24	The way you are doing it right now is the way i would like to see it done, where the freshman have things like "would prefer to play close to home" is listed on the skills writeup until after the player joins your team. If for example your system were to have a value of 1 to 10 on what a player wanted the most on recruiting, where 1 was not important at all and 10 was extremely important, then have a threshold set at 3 and lower OR 8 and higher for a comment to show up, and if multiple exist than the closest to the minimum or maximum (tie going to the maximum) would show up on the writeup. Have it apply to the writeup. Let the managers then see that they might be in a bit of an uphill battle, and at least if they lose they know they fought an extremely important value. I think what is probably better is to have interest on teams that are out of the running for a player mathematically speaking (given 45 contacts is the max) is to simply have interest drop to none from whatever level it is at. That actually saves people recruiting points faster. Has zero to do with recruiting from top teams or bottom teams, the idea of private info is again just not that good. Updated Thursday, February 21 2019 @ 4:49:58 pm PST

#5767	02/21/2019 4:53:38 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	I am perfectly fine with that solution. I never had a problem with that. I would prefer to make it a more active gaming component by forcing us to "scout" students for a while to get this information. But even just listing the information in the scouting report (or similar report line) at least provides us with the information. Still don't understand your problem with so called "private information", but if that is the hold up, then at least do it the lazy way where we all get the information for free, and no scouting is necessary. Updated Thursday, February 21 2019 @ 4:55:20 pm PST

#5768	02/21/2019 4:59:36 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	it probably does take a faraway and not as prestigious team a few more contacts to get a recruits attention than a closer school or a more prestigious school. It doesn't work that way though. I have some in-state players that take 15 Contacts to get to High, and some in-state players that take 70 Contacts. This fluctuates from year to year depending on what the player thinks about playing time, and there is no way to know in any given year how many Contacts it will take to get a player to the next interest level. If it always took 70 Contacts it wouldn't be an issue. That fact that it can be increased 5x with no way of knowing from season to season is the real issue. For a LL-1 team that has to spend an extra 15 Contacts it is no where near as damaging as a LL-6 team that has to spend 70 extra Contacts. If we get some sort of hint that the guy isn't interested, we can just stop recruiting him without blowing our entire budget just to find out. Updated Thursday, February 21 2019 @ 5:03:59 pm PST

#5770	02/21/2019 5:38:54 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
FurySK Joined: 12/17/2018 Posts: 170 Florida Gulf Coast Eagles VI.24	i've not seen an in-state take 70 contacts ever to get to high. The worst one took 13 last season, this season the player recruited at the same height took 17 despite +2 to recruiting from my coach gaining skills. I assume it had to do with location. I assume if i get like 2 more people at the position and he hidden values playing time, i might eventually need 25-30 to get him. i outlined why private scouting information is detrimental the first time this idea was brought up. If one person can have an asset that nobody else has, they have value. If multiple people have information on players that the other does not, it means that they can pool together if a prospect is not within their means to recruit. Let's look at it like this. There are 10 players that two teams in the same region look at that are the top players in their region. Team A selects players 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 Team B selects players 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Team A is weaker at guard depth and plays up tempo, team B is weaker at big depth and plays slow. Lets say team a contacts player 1 who is a guard, and it says something like "doesn't care where he plays, he wants to play immediately and wants to play in a more methodical approach similar to the one he was familiar with from high school". Meanwhile player 9 whom team b scouted is a player who wants to play a run and gun type of shootout offense and hates playing a slow tempo that reflects poorly on his overall stats, and has no preference for playing time and location. The two managers in this scenario would be extremely incentivized given their differences in approach and the fact that they don't play in the same league currently to collude and trade off the information for one player for the information for the other, so that both owners can find players that are easier to recruit within a reasonable skillset of what they are looking for. Once they see that the other person is being truthful, they can then setup a scheme where they can each scout 6 guys heavily and avoid one another in the freshmen/sophomore phase by distributing 12 guys for their 6 contact scouting rather than overlapping and having 2 less guys scouted. They can then find maybe even a 3rd or 4th team before the scouting pool dries out too much for it to be of use to bring in more people. When this happens, it becomes more critical for players within the game to collude with one another than it does right now. There are situations in which collusion exits now with regards to prospects, but it isn't happening at the top of the ladder, those teams are duking it out for the same guys and the guys that don't win will always complain about it with or without the extra information. It's happening more at the bottom of the ladder where teams are recruiting locally, and the advantage is marginal unless someone in the same region with the same needs and the same interests sees it, so the value gained in that case is less impactful and more useful to teams like division 2 schools and division 3 schools.

#5771	02/21/2019 6:16:32 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	Players are incentive to collude already, and if they are of the mindset to cheat, they will already be cheating. Plenty easy to collude in the game right now. The edge case scenario you lay out does not effect that in any way. There is no added value in the example you give. Say one team likes a fast pace, and another likes a slow pace. One one like to drive, while another likes long shots. They can collude in exactly the same way today as you have laid out above. Absolutely no difference. Updated Thursday, February 21 2019 @ 6:37:57 pm PST

#5772	02/21/2019 6:19:27 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	I have a player that slid to Low interest this season who was at Medium with 13 contacts. It took and additional 30 contacts (43 total) just to get him back to Medium. Pretty safe to assume it will take at least 30 more to get him to High. Yuri also reported the same issue last season. Lucky for you that you haven't had that happen yet. It will eventually, unless you get to a high enough level that it no longer matters. Its really only low level teams that really suffer from the black box effects of "playing time". Updated Thursday, February 21 2019 @ 6:20:02 pm PST

#5773	02/21/2019 6:22:00 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
BradenWoA Joined: 12/02/2018 Posts: 276 Houston Cougars IV.5	All I think is needed is a little clarity on how the game projects playing time. If we know how this works, we can see the mix of positive and negative aspects of our team and make a judgement call on pursuing them. I agree with Fury’s option as well, but I would say limit it to <=2 and >=9, rather than 3 and 8.

#5778	02/21/2019 6:27:42 pm	Oct 20th, 2004
Rock777 Joined: 02/02/2018 Posts: 1532 Inactive	That wouldn't help, because you can't tell if it is important for the player or not. There are two guys on my recruit list that are very similar: PF (JR) - 5 star 16 Contacts, High interest at the end of last season -> High interest after the flip PF (SO) - 5 star 13 Contacts at the end of last season with Medium interest -> after the flip it took and additional 30 contacts (43 total) to bring him back to Medium interest. Safe to assume it will be at least another 30 Contacts to get to High. Probably more when you consider he was unlikely to have started at exactly the bottom of the Low range. So despite the fact that the SO will have less competition with the current roster guys for playing time, it is obviously a MUCH more important factor for him. To the tune of 5X delta. Doesn't really matter if we know how playing time is calculated if we can't tell what is important to individual players. Updated Thursday, February 21 2019 @ 6:56:57 pm PST