Seble, on the player profile pages after they sign under the 'considering' tab shouldn't it be changed to show who they decided to sign with? It seems a little odd that it still shows all the interest levels for the teams that were involved in the player's recruitment.

Also, I saw you post that once a player signs everyone can see their Level 4 potential? Is that only for players on at your Division? I tried looking at a guy that a DII school signed and it was just a blank page where his ratings should have been.

+1 to gillispie it feels like there's much less feedback in this system (vs. the old where you were getting maybe too much information via emails every cycle or anytime someone overtook you on a recruit) and guys are now signing and it's partially a surprise.

additionally now that signings are happy it feels like there are a couple things that are screwy. On the Recruiting "Targets" page it lists how many attention points I've prescribed to each player, but I signed someone so when I click into any of my remaining targets, it appears that all of them have reset to 0, and I have to reset all of my attention points. Is this the intention? I guess it may have to do something like this since I lose 20 attention points and if I only had 5 on the guy I signed, the system wouldn't know how to reapply... but it feels like a hassle to go back in after signings and reapply attention points after I pull down a guy.

Actually, I'll revise that. Some of my remaining targets reset to 0 and some of them still had their points. The recruiting summary page said I was using 90/80 attention points, so something isn't quite right.

This happened to me as well. I signed a guy and then had 49 Attention Points assigned but only 40 available.

The system wouldn't let me adjust anyone except the two guys that had more than 9 points to actually give away (Note: It wouldn't let me reduce a guy with 4 points down to Zero). However, once I took 15 points off the top guy, it allowed me to re-adjust everyone else.

I would like to be able to sort potential opponents on the non-conference scheduling page by home court advantage, like we could do in the previous version.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/9/2016 8:50:00 PM (view original):
hey seble - i think this is really important. let me present my example story first. so, im on this 5 star big man from the beginning, so are a few other schools, notably, florida (who had prestige advantage and dist disadvantage - potential for very close battle). i dont really do much in terms of anything but AP until signings. on this guy, i think i had given him a CV already, but nothing more.

7:30 before signings - florida is very high, i think, and i think i was moderate or high or something.
7:31 - i am very high, florida is low (i put stuff in)
7:55 - florida puts effort in, is high, i am very high
7:56 - florida is low, i am very high
player signs with me.

ebay style sniping cannot replace poaching, it will make people insane. in the current paradigm, for strategy reasons, i'm going to have to wait till 7:59 to put my effort in for many players. folks who are not incessantly reloading will not notice that they went from very high to my low, to me being very high and them low, or whatever. you've got to add some logic.

one other thing - i notice multiple players are signing who are very high on multiple targets. i agree we don't want all the guys just considering 1 person or only moderate or higher on 1 person, or whatever, ALL signing right at signings. so its smart you built in a time for each recruit. however, i strongly suggest you allow a close battle to push that *back*. at least, at high probability, or something.

you know - its not exactly the battle that makes this push back critical. however, if the battle situation changed that cycle - like, if one guy was very high, and another moderate, and it flips because of effort 5 minutes before signings, or before any post-signings cycle - that recruit should wait, probably a minimum of 2 cycles (to go with your theme of not having to incessantly check). even 2 cycles is pushing it - thats 1:59am sniping sign at 5am. maybe 4 cycles is the way to go? i think its critical for this system to work.

P.S. i was pretty skeptical going into this whole thing, and i am in no where near close to a final opinion, but i am definitely intrigued by the new system, and have enjoyed it so far. it seems there is some balancing necessary but the overall construct is pretty interesting!

I'll just come out and say it, it's hard to imagine a single person who thinks the above described scenario is realistic, desirable, or good for HD. Having to be on clicking refresh the minutes before signings can't be the best product possible. Thanks for your post gillispie

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/9/2016 8:50:00 PM (view original):
hey seble - i think this is really important. let me present my example story first. so, im on this 5 star big man from the beginning, so are a few other schools, notably, florida (who had prestige advantage and dist disadvantage - potential for very close battle). i dont really do much in terms of anything but AP until signings. on this guy, i think i had given him a CV already, but nothing more.

7:30 before signings - florida is very high, i think, and i think i was moderate or high or something.
7:31 - i am very high, florida is low (i put stuff in)
7:55 - florida puts effort in, is high, i am very high
7:56 - florida is low, i am very high
player signs with me.

ebay style sniping cannot replace poaching, it will make people insane. in the current paradigm, for strategy reasons, i'm going to have to wait till 7:59 to put my effort in for many players. folks who are not incessantly reloading will not notice that they went from very high to my low, to me being very high and them low, or whatever. you've got to add some logic.

one other thing - i notice multiple players are signing who are very high on multiple targets. i agree we don't want all the guys just considering 1 person or only moderate or higher on 1 person, or whatever, ALL signing right at signings. so its smart you built in a time for each recruit. however, i strongly suggest you allow a close battle to push that *back*. at least, at high probability, or something.

you know - its not exactly the battle that makes this push back critical. however, if the battle situation changed that cycle - like, if one guy was very high, and another moderate, and it flips because of effort 5 minutes before signings, or before any post-signings cycle - that recruit should wait, probably a minimum of 2 cycles (to go with your theme of not having to incessantly check). even 2 cycles is pushing it - thats 1:59am sniping sign at 5am. maybe 4 cycles is the way to go? i think its critical for this system to work.

P.S. i was pretty skeptical going into this whole thing, and i am in no where near close to a final opinion, but i am definitely intrigued by the new system, and have enjoyed it so far. it seems there is some balancing necessary but the overall construct is pretty interesting!

+1

This bears repeating: " ebay style sniping cannot replace poaching, it will make people insane."

In fact, it bears repeating again: "ebay style sniping cannot replace poaching, it will make people insane." And kill the game.

A super close battle at any time during a cycle must not have a last-minute decision ("ebay style sniping"), it needs to have some time allowed (gillespie's suggestion of four cycles is sensible) ... OR ... at least two more cycles AND a message to all involved coaches that the recruit wants to sign soon, so the coaches can act reasonable and not just suffer a sniper's whim.

+1 to the gillispie post - great insight as usual.

Posted by CoachSpud on 6/10/2016 12:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/9/2016 8:50:00 PM (view original):
hey seble - i think this is really important. let me present my example story first. so, im on this 5 star big man from the beginning, so are a few other schools, notably, florida (who had prestige advantage and dist disadvantage - potential for very close battle). i dont really do much in terms of anything but AP until signings. on this guy, i think i had given him a CV already, but nothing more.

7:30 before signings - florida is very high, i think, and i think i was moderate or high or something.
7:31 - i am very high, florida is low (i put stuff in)
7:55 - florida puts effort in, is high, i am very high
7:56 - florida is low, i am very high
player signs with me.

ebay style sniping cannot replace poaching, it will make people insane. in the current paradigm, for strategy reasons, i'm going to have to wait till 7:59 to put my effort in for many players. folks who are not incessantly reloading will not notice that they went from very high to my low, to me being very high and them low, or whatever. you've got to add some logic.

one other thing - i notice multiple players are signing who are very high on multiple targets. i agree we don't want all the guys just considering 1 person or only moderate or higher on 1 person, or whatever, ALL signing right at signings. so its smart you built in a time for each recruit. however, i strongly suggest you allow a close battle to push that *back*. at least, at high probability, or something.

you know - its not exactly the battle that makes this push back critical. however, if the battle situation changed that cycle - like, if one guy was very high, and another moderate, and it flips because of effort 5 minutes before signings, or before any post-signings cycle - that recruit should wait, probably a minimum of 2 cycles (to go with your theme of not having to incessantly check). even 2 cycles is pushing it - thats 1:59am sniping sign at 5am. maybe 4 cycles is the way to go? i think its critical for this system to work.

P.S. i was pretty skeptical going into this whole thing, and i am in no where near close to a final opinion, but i am definitely intrigued by the new system, and have enjoyed it so far. it seems there is some balancing necessary but the overall construct is pretty interesting!

+1

This bears repeating: " ebay style sniping cannot replace poaching, it will make people insane."

In fact, it bears repeating again: "ebay style sniping cannot replace poaching, it will make people insane." And kill the game.

A super close battle at any time during a cycle must not have a last-minute decision ("ebay style sniping"), it needs to have some time allowed (gillespie's suggestion of four cycles is sensible) ... OR ... at least two more cycles AND a message to all involved coaches that the recruit wants to sign soon, so the coaches can act reasonable and not just suffer a sniper's whim.

+1 to Gillespie

I've pretty much enjoyed the new recruiting process.

2 things I'd adjust (repeating others' thoughts):
- remove ebay style recruiting (including removing immediate movement with home visits etc... only show each 3 hours).
- at Level 4 scouting, let us know if a player will sign early or hold out... or assign a percentage probability on this.

Posted by npb7768 on 6/10/2016 8:34:00 AM (view original):
I've pretty much enjoyed the new recruiting process.

2 things I'd adjust (repeating others' thoughts):
- remove ebay style recruiting (including removing immediate movement with home visits etc... only show each 3 hours).
- at Level 4 scouting, let us know if a player will sign early or hold out... or assign a percentage probability on this.

+1

Knowing a recruit's tendency for early vs. late signing will be really helpful for team-planning / recruiting. Some coaches will have to make a decision between a couple of prospects. hmmm...I've got a guy that I really like who wants to sign late and a decent back-up option who wants to sign early. Should you risk waiting and maybe losing the back-up? or sign the back-up option now? With the seemingly random signings, you could easily lose both, or end up signing 2 power forwards when you wanted 1 PG and 1 PF, but didn't want to risk pulling scholarships from a couple of back-up options at PF.


Agree with everyone above, that the ebay style recruiting will be detrimental and nearly force coaches to check in every 3 hours just minutes before each cycle is run to make sure that someone hasn't jumped ahead. One way around this could be by having the recruits send a message that they will be shutting recruiting down and announcing their decision soon. At that point, none of the schools will be able to pour in last minute visits / CVs, promises etc. You've already had a chance to battle before this and sending last minute effort will be frustrating for all involved. And if you knew that a recruit had a tendency to sign early, then you can make sure you have effort in early, etc

A couple of usability suggestions:
1. Show the assigned categories (1-4) on the Top Recruits page so you can see where your targets fall in the list.
2. Allow Attention Points to be changed all at once. It's kind of annoying to have to load a player page, decrease the number of points (which also shouldn't be a combo box anyway) and then save. Then open another player and increase the points. It should be like the Practice Plan page or the Player Game Plan page where you can change them all in one place.

Posted by seble on 6/10/2016 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Randomness in this context doesn't mean you have no control over it. I understand the desire to have fully predictable results, but is that really fun or exciting? The current system has evolved into a giant math problem that a small number of people have solved to a degree where there is domination. All I'm trying to do is make it more like a game and less like a formula.

I agree with this and understand where you are trying to take this. I think one of the biggest issues right now is when a player signs. I like the randomness to it and how some players will sign right away and some it will happen just days before the next season starts. I think the problem we as coaches have with this is, we are being asked to walk in the dark without a flashlight and we can't plan or make adjustment to where we are trying to go.

I think we can solve a lot of this consternation and the feeling of having no control by giving a little insight as to when a particular recruit "might" sign. Make it another layer in the player preferences that only the coaches that fully scout that player get. It can be three different statements that has zero influence on their recruitment.

First one, "Player want to sign quickly". This will let the coaches know they should make sure they have themselves positioned to be at the top of the list right at signings.

Second, "Player will view options before making decision". Obviously we know this kid won't sign right away and may not sign until the beginning of the second recruiting period.

Third, "Player is going to wait until the deadline to sign". Zero description needed here.

Again this information would not be revealed except at Level 3 or 4 in scout so only those coaches who have done the work will see it. Plus it gives us the control to determine if a player is worth waiting until the end of the second recruiting session to sign. It adds yet another layer of strategy to this game and gives the coaches much more control on how they would like to recruit.

Seble, is this something that we could accomplish and make a lot of people happy?

Posted by z0601 on 6/10/2016 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 6/10/2016 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Randomness in this context doesn't mean you have no control over it. I understand the desire to have fully predictable results, but is that really fun or exciting? The current system has evolved into a giant math problem that a small number of people have solved to a degree where there is domination. All I'm trying to do is make it more like a game and less like a formula.

I agree with this and understand where you are trying to take this. I think one of the biggest issues right now is when a player signs. I like the randomness to it and how some players will sign right away and some it will happen just days before the next season starts. I think the problem we as coaches have with this is, we are being asked to walk in the dark without a flashlight and we can't plan or make adjustment to where we are trying to go.

I think we can solve a lot of this consternation and the feeling of having no control by giving a little insight as to when a particular recruit "might" sign. Make it another layer in the player preferences that only the coaches that fully scout that player get. It can be three different statements that has zero influence on their recruitment.

First one, "Player want to sign quickly". This will let the coaches know they should make sure they have themselves positioned to be at the top of the list right at signings.

Second, "Player will view options before making decision". Obviously we know this kid won't sign right away and may not sign until the beginning of the second recruiting period.

Third, "Player is going to wait until the deadline to sign". Zero description needed here.

Again this information would not be revealed except at Level 3 or 4 in scout so only those coaches who have done the work will see it. Plus it gives us the control to determine if a player is worth waiting until the end of the second recruiting session to sign. It adds yet another layer of strategy to this game and gives the coaches much more control on how they would like to recruit.

Seble, is this something that we could accomplish and make a lot of people happy?

+1 - This is niceee, in the preferences part. Would allow for randomness, but take away some of the helplessness.

Awesome idea really, if I am understanding it, would require almost no changes to the overall logic right?

Posted by oldresorter on 6/10/2016 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by z0601 on 6/10/2016 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 6/10/2016 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Randomness in this context doesn't mean you have no control over it. I understand the desire to have fully predictable results, but is that really fun or exciting? The current system has evolved into a giant math problem that a small number of people have solved to a degree where there is domination. All I'm trying to do is make it more like a game and less like a formula.

I agree with this and understand where you are trying to take this. I think one of the biggest issues right now is when a player signs. I like the randomness to it and how some players will sign right away and some it will happen just days before the next season starts. I think the problem we as coaches have with this is, we are being asked to walk in the dark without a flashlight and we can't plan or make adjustment to where we are trying to go.

I think we can solve a lot of this consternation and the feeling of having no control by giving a little insight as to when a particular recruit "might" sign. Make it another layer in the player preferences that only the coaches that fully scout that player get. It can be three different statements that has zero influence on their recruitment.

First one, "Player want to sign quickly". This will let the coaches know they should make sure they have themselves positioned to be at the top of the list right at signings.

Second, "Player will view options before making decision". Obviously we know this kid won't sign right away and may not sign until the beginning of the second recruiting period.

Third, "Player is going to wait until the deadline to sign". Zero description needed here.

Again this information would not be revealed except at Level 3 or 4 in scout so only those coaches who have done the work will see it. Plus it gives us the control to determine if a player is worth waiting until the end of the second recruiting session to sign. It adds yet another layer of strategy to this game and gives the coaches much more control on how they would like to recruit.

Seble, is this something that we could accomplish and make a lot of people happy?

+1 - This is niceee, in the preferences part. Would allow for randomness, but take away some of the helplessness.

Awesome idea really, if I am understanding it, would require almost no changes to the overall logic right?

That is the thought process OR. We keep everything as it is, or was designed to be originally, and the coach makes the decision on whether or not it is worth going after this kid who may take forever to make a decision. Puts us back in the drive seat with just a little bit of information that we have well before we make any effort into a kid like others have suggested with an email at 48 hours out from signings.