Printable View
It can be looked at both ways. There are some recruiters that have strong ties far away. I.E. Nebraska has had strong ties in Florida for a while. But you make a good point in terms of the video game world.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
I honestly think you should get an extra bonus for in state recruits. Look how many big time recruits have signed with smaller schools just because in was in state.
Yes. Maybe not specifically based on players from state, but that'd be a place to start. This is what I suggested a couple years ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
( That last sentence is very ironic now ... )Quote:
Redo Pipelines: Having 4 players on the roster from the same state doesn't establish a pipeline, at least not in real life. I guess they're trying to replicate that in real life certain coaches establish ties to areas, know the HS coaches, and are known to the parents. Sure, that's all true. But that's established over time, not by X number of players on your roster. Pipelines should be created and lost with time and successful recruiting in the states, not X. They should be gained and lost by who you play and who you beat. Ohio State shouldn't have to work to establish a pipeline to Indiana, Pennsylvania, or Michigan ... conference states should come automatically, at least at some level. And there should be varying levels of pipelines. No matter how many Florida players come to Ohio State, Jim Tressel is not going to recruit Florida at the same level that Urban Meyer will.
I didn't think it at the time, though it is kind of implied, but I think with the Coaching Carousel that pipelines should now stay with coaches rather than rosters.
There's more to that than just an in-state bonus though. And not every player in-state wants to stay close to home like DGB did. DGB was the type of player, as we've previously discussed on here, where being close to home was a "dealbreaker". So he would have had proximity to home as a most, except in his case it would have been more like Most+++. There's no current mechanic that replicates that, and a blanket in-state bonus simply wouldn't be the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryby6969
Completely agree Jeff and we had some good discussions in one of the other threads on pipelines. They definitely need to be tied to what the recruit wants. Reverse of DGB, if a kid has Close to home as least you shouldn't get pipeline bonus for him being in your home state.
Also it really should be tied to a geographic region instead of state. I'm sure kids in Northern California their proximity to home is more Oregon schools then Southern California schools.
Pipelines are hard because they carry a lot more weight in the game than in real life, IMO. Yes as JB mentioned Nebraska had a "pipeline" to Florida for awhile. However it was probably one of their coaches had strong relationships with some HS coaches down there and was able to get in with some kids and recruit them from a certain area. And like Jeff said, Nebraska recruiting those kids definitely didn't carry as much weight as Florida, Miami, etc.
stop generating players rated in the 40s as a majority..65 should maybe be the lowest..of course the y give you ability to edit your own/all..but in a online dynasty,thats time consuming and rediculous..there really isnt enough logic in these games yet
Totally agree with you Jeff with regards to recruits being tied in with the carousel. My recruiting at Cal for example should not be lost/replaced when I move to Indiana.
The obvious problem is that the level of tracking required could be pretty ridiculous (unless they only tracked it for users, which would be the simplest answer). However, I think it could be done. Might not be too hard, too, depending on how it was done.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymo76
I have to admit that I am nervous for the blog re: recruiting. I really hope it doesn't become what NCAA BASKETBALL 10 was... I just didn't enjoy it. I think recruiting is a tough one for a lot of people. Where is the balance between immersion and fun? I don't mind the current system as it's straighforward and only minimally time consuming. I am worried that recruiting will become too lengthy and take away from my enjoyment of the game. Only time will tell I guess.
I already spend more time in the game recruiting than I do playing. Now, don't get me wrong, I love it. But I'd love to see a balanced and streamlined system that could reduce that for the people who don't enjoy it as much as I do.
I'm w/ you in the fact that I love recruiting. Or - I did - before this new Roulette Wheel thing took over. It's all random and that is as far from realistic as can be. And I also don't understand why there are several "levels" of recruiting? I didn't even know until last year that there were Varsity - All American - Heisman or whatever they are, levels. Shouldn't it be one level???Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
I know the answer is that some people don't want to take the time to build up a team - fine - let those people start out as :USC: or :Oklahoma:. But some of us want the challenge and thank God for boards like this, otherwise I wouldn't have even known there were differing levels of recruiting. That just blew my mind. It's like turning Catching to Conservative. Really??? I have to tell my WR's that catching the ball is important??? :fp:
Not any more so than the gameplay should be. Some people want difficult recruiting, others don't. I have a feeling that letting the CPU control your recruiting results in drastically different levels of success within those difficulties as well. So maybe someone that is letting the CPU do their recruiting has to set the difficulty a little lower. And then you've got people that enjoy recruiting, but not to the level of devotion that I do. So maybe Heisman isn't for them :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dr Death
Plus you've got to consider ODs. In a OD with 12 competitive recruiters, adding a Heisman-level CPU difficulty can make it difficult to the point of frustration to recruit. Lots of different combinations.
I choose to look at is as "Catch the ball and hold it like a newborn baby, I don't care what kind of yards you get after the catch." And, I'm sure you know, there are plenty of times where a coach needs to pull a player to the side and emphasize that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Death
I think the most logical thing for them to do with Pipelines is tie them to coaches and assistant coaches (and thus, allow us to hire our own coaches instead of it being just whoever) instead of to the school itself.
I agree that schools should have pipelines based on their geographical location and their conference affiliations but it needs to be more than an 1 or 0 type setup. There needs to be shades of pipeline affiliations as well. Troy has a pipeline in Louisiana but it's not nearly as good of a pipeline as LSU's. Part of that is simulated by the schools having varying degrees of grades in other categories that the recruits are interested in, but the depth of it all could be better than what is currently happening in recruiting.
You don't say ...Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
;) (Still laughing about the irony of that sentence)Quote:
And there should be varying levels of pipelines. No matter how many Florida players come to Ohio State, Jim Tressel is not going to recruit Florida at the same level that Urban Meyer will.
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Great minds think alike cause, clearly, I didn't steal your idea or anything...
;)
how about a X2 bonus when negatively recruiting against a rival?
some more tweaking has to be done with cpu generated recruit's grades. wr's should not have higher carrying grades than runningbacks. in my offline 2017 :USC: dynasty, the top 5 wr's all have, at least, a B carrying rating, while none of the top 5 runningbacks have a carrying rating above a D+.
i'd like to see he power backs have better blocking skills. i shouldnt ever see a 6'3" 240 lb runningback with D- run/pass blocking grades, yet a 5'7" 165 lb runningback get C+ pass/run blocking grades.
my recruiting wishlist. some build on each other, most are random and in no particular order.
1. removal of the in-season hard commit. the game treats hard commits the same as a signed letter of intent, and when you can get commits in week 1, you shouldnt be able to just forget about them. coaches need to call their current commits every week or risk loving them to other schools. instead, players should only be able to reach the soft commit stage. this would allow you to still be able to recruit any player you want. the soft commit stage, however, would get a meter bar type of thing, which would show how committed to your school that player is. (ex: a recruit who's listed as a 90% soft commit, wouldnt necessarily need to be called that week, whereas a a 10% soft commit would be likely to change his commitment if he went uncalled). this percentage would change weekly and would be the equivelant to securing a recruit's commitment; however some may never need to be talked to after they commit (as some recruits would be considered solid from the start)
2. ability to hire/fire coordinators if head coach.
3. coaches/coordinators need either ratings or grades for offense, defense, special teams, recruiting, scouting, and player development.
4. add juniors. cannot recrut, only scout.
5. removal of the ability to see every non measurable rating for every recruit from day one. plain an simple, if you dont scout the recruit, you shouldnt know anything about him; other than how fast, strong, and smart he is. scouting starts with the juniors and obviously can be done with seniors, but will be part of the weekly 10 hours. depending on a combinatioin of the coach's/coordinators scouting grades/ratings, the better coaching staffs unlock more of the recruit's ratings when scouting.
6. roulette wheel? meh, its ok so it can stay, but it does need some changes. the coach's choice recruiting option should be dependant upon a combination of the coaching staff's recruiting grades/ratings. a possible change-up could be the option to keep talking about the pitch instead of moving on (if i want to talk about playing time for 20 minutes, i should be able to (max of 20 minutes)). additionally, coordinators could sometimes provide hints by saying "this recruit called me and was really interested in our academics, so be sure to talk about them." talking about academics in the ensuing phone call could be a X2 bonus just for that pitch.
7. open padlock. i'd like to see some kind of visual showing which pitches were unlocked and what his interest is in them. this doesnt have to automatically pop up when you call him but should still be available somewhere.
8. pipeline strength. should be based on how many many players on your roster you have from that state.
9. more variety in recruits. as i listed in several pics on the previous pages, wr's and rb's account for way too much of the 5 and 4 star players. offensive skill positions shouldnt dominate the recruiting rankings every year. additionally, better tuning is required in the rankings. speed AND talent are what differentiate the 4* recruits from the 5* recruits. if a recruit has one but not the other, he should be a 4* player. potential also has way too much of an impact on where the recruit is rated.
10. dealbreakers. some recruits should have a dealbreaker. if you dont rank highly for a recruit's MOST important pitch, the recruit should recognize this and it should have a huge negative impact on you.
11. recruiting against rival schools should be a X1.5 or X2 bonus.
12. ability to downplay a recruit's interest in a certain pitch. this would be significantly harder for pitches that he has a high/very high/most interest in
13. bragging rights over other schools you play and recruit against.
14. recruit's style of play should be listed. did he play in a 3-4 or 4-3, pro style or air raid offense? getting recruits who play in a similar offense to yours would progress faster/possibly more. recruits from styles opposite of yours would minimally progress. also, your style of play should also affect the recruit somehow...maybe as another pitch?
15. schools should develop position identities. if you consistantly produce top talent at a certain position, you should have more players at that position interested in you.
16. ability to recruit a player for a position other than he's listed. i should be able to tell athletes what position i want them at. if i recruit a slow safety, i should be able to tell him i plan on switching him to linebacker. this could affect the recruit's interest in you both positively and negatively. some recruits might be against switching positions, and it'd be a one time offer. once you make the offer to recruit him at another position, you cant rescind the offer.
bunch of ideas, i know.
Great list, MVP. I particularly like #4, and agree with you that it shouldn't be a full-blown junior recruitment. I'd love to see a way to influence Junior's Top 10 though, so you can find your way onto a recruit's list before the season begins.
thanks jeff. and ya, i agree on that but i couldnt come up with anything other than outright recruiting him. maybe invitations to jr camps? maybe a promise for a scholarship offer? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
It could be as simple as you get 5 juniors per week that you can say "we're interested". The more times you pick a certain player, the higher you could move up. Don't make it a 1:1 or else people will just spam the top 5 players. Just make it influence the Top 10, not determine it. Obviously, if the guy's Junior-year #1 team doesn't show interest, they'll move down, etc, etc.
I'm not necessarily meaning to make this a suggestion, just saying that I'd love to influence top 10 lists (if Juniors were added), while also a) Not making it a huge time sink; and b) keeping it simple. Those two points are crucial to me if Juniors/Underclassmen were to be added. The 2k method was too much of a time sink and too cumbersome.
Plus, I hated, hated that you'd get to the end of Year 1, and every recruit would be maxed out in Interest by the top team, while at the beginning of Year 1, the top guys were only at 30 or whatever. There's no logic in having Year 2 recruiting be so drastically different from Year 1.