Now that signings are happenings it feels like some additional controls on the Recruiting - Targets page would be helpful from an organization standpoint. It'd be useful to organize by interest and maybe to organize or have a checkbox that allows you to hide players who have signed. Trying to use this as a dashboard of how I'm doing with existing battles gets confusing when I still show up as Very High or Very Low for recruits who have already signed.

On the recruit's individual page, can you show where the recruit was uncovered. For example a level 4 recruit would show the four spots he was scouted.

Can you make it so we can get to the recruiting history easier. I would like to go to players uncovered during trips or camps quickly without going back two pages....

Can you make the default view on the recruit pool page come up as all of the recruits you've discovered so far instead of blank?

Under States, you have mexico and canada as available along with the the other 52 states in the US. Do you want to add internationals too to the drop down menu along with the states.

thanks

Posted by dw172300 on 6/10/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Now that signings are happenings it feels like some additional controls on the Recruiting - Targets page would be helpful from an organization standpoint. It'd be useful to organize by interest and maybe to organize or have a checkbox that allows you to hide players who have signed. Trying to use this as a dashboard of how I'm doing with existing battles gets confusing when I still show up as Very High or Very Low for recruits who have already signed.

+1

the overall accessibility to potential scouting and recruiting targets really needs to be improved. i sat around stumped trying to figure out how to find internationals for ages, until someone told me i had to go to my scouting history page, find the single line item for scouting internationals among the approximately 200 other line items, and go in there to see those recruits, which is crazy. in this case, the fix is simple - add the international option back to the all states like. there are other issues, like seeing ranked players, sorting by ranking, this was taken away (not sure why), but it absolutely needs to come back.

the overall problem is deeper, but i am short of recommendations at this time. there are simple fixes like the above, but overall, i found simply trying to look at potential recruits to be seriously clunky. you do a search, and you see all these scouted level 4 guys, but there are potentially high overall ranking guys hidden because there are level 3, 2, 1 guys lower on the list. i'm not sure how this could be solved really - moving the scouting level option from advanced to basic could be a start - but i think that system is going to be more difficult to navigate no matter what we do. the short version is, there needs to be a recruiting search type interface for scouting. its way too clunky going through and searching for recruits through the scouting history page, that just doesn't fly. i used the recruiting search for some of this, but again, it doesn't really work well because its so clunky with 5 levels of scouting possible (0-4). its like we need a recruiting search page for scouting targets, that inherently sorts differently, or somehow exposes you to the players differently.

the recruiting search page has always been our master window into seeing the recruits - we have to have something for scouting that is comparable, that is less clunky than the current interface, there are just way too many clicks. i'm not sure the two can be integrated into one view, but its worth considering both ways. i've been taking some notes to write a more thoughtful post about UI, but it all really revolves around the same issue, its too many clicks to get to way too much stuff. the recruits have so many tabs now, i really think there needs to be a consolidated considering list in the bottom left corner or something like there used to be. maybe the "recruiting targets" page needs to show your position, and also, the highest position of anyone who isn't you (so the leader if you are not, or the 2nd place guy if you are the leader). because recruiting is real time, i want to check my recruits often - but to do so, i have to open each one, and then go to a considering tab. its too clunky. preferences are too hard to access as well. there really are a whole host of these issues (action point allocation is another good one that someone mentioned), where the click count to find key information or make changes is too high. i'll follow up in a few days or something, when the grind of having 3 simultaneous recruitings these last few days wears off - to outline more of these problems in detail.

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.

How about this for an idea. There would be a limit of one Home Visit per hour, in real time. Or one HV per cycle. Then coaches can just check back once per cycle instead of having to check at the very last minute of the cycle. Seems like this would take care of the problem.

Or you could program it so a guy won't immediately decide if a new team just jumped to high or very high. I don't have a problem with a team slowly building attention points and jumping in on a guy, but what would be frustrating is being at Very High alone until 7:59pm and then never getting a chance to respond if someone contests you on a target.

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/10/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

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.

How about this for an idea. There would be a limit of one Home Visit per hour, in real time. Or one HV per cycle. Then coaches can just check back once per cycle instead of having to check at the very last minute of the cycle. Seems like this would take care of the problem.

it sounds good in theory - people could get as many HVs on a recruit in as needed, over the long run, but it makes concentrating effort in a short span very tough. however, that latter part cuts both ways. frequently, for non-poaching reasons, coaches are going to want to put 2+ HVs on a target. having to remember that you have 3 HVs to go, and trying to log on like, on the hour for the next 3 hours, that is a colossal pain in the ***, that is just inappropriate in any game of any kind.

i really think something about delaying in the event of a raging battle is the only way to go... something like this
http://test.whatifsports.net/whatifsports/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=420330&threadID=3421047#l_3421047

I wish that the ratings were in the same order on the targeting and recruiting pages as they are on the player rating pages. I copy and paste into excel, and now, once I do that, I have to move the ratings around in the correct order.

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/11/2016 8:03:00 AM (view original):
I wish that the ratings were in the same order on the targeting and recruiting pages as they are on the player rating pages. I copy and paste into excel, and now, once I do that, I have to move the ratings around in the correct order.

+1

Another thought about the timing of recruits signing.

Someone made a point in another thread that in real life some recruits announce that they are going to sign (after some HS all star game, on signing day, etc.). It might be interesting/add variance to discover for some recruits, during scouting, when they would sign. It would add another element to the game and make the strategy on some players different (do you dump most of your money into them to try to sign them if there are a few major teams on them? do you focus your effort on guys who you know when will sign so you're not in long battles with a chance for higher prestige teams to jump in at any time? etc.)

I know you put a poll on this : but I think recruits need a cap. It does not mean a 520 D1 player can't sign with D3... But over 550... I mean, it's a bit of a stretch. It should be on overall rating. I suggest 550 for freshmen in D3 and 600 for D2.

If you look at how it is now, I never really got someone that high over 500 at D3 as a freshman... So it would work. In D2, I never got over 600... I mostly bring in 480-530 players. So it gives some more possibilities to teams but at the same time, it prevents illogical stuff to happen... Stuff that could destroy a D3 season if say a team get two 650 players... or something like that. Or maybe SIM D1 teams sign players before D2 and D3 get processed.

The tendancy to sign late. early or whenever, or at the end of the recruiting session should either be known in recruiting or just shrinked to EARLY, whenever in the session or at the end of the recruiting session. I now have two players who haven't signed, one is Very High and all others are very low. how do you want to strategize? It gives an edge to teams with more schollies too... They go for their early signing, then move onto the late ones... People with two or one schollies will rapidly get poached on every levels.

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/11/2016 8:03:00 AM (view original):
I wish that the ratings were in the same order on the targeting and recruiting pages as they are on the player rating pages. I copy and paste into excel, and now, once I do that, I have to move the ratings around in the correct order.

Yes, be consistent with color codes.

Last suggestions : Attention points should have some sort of a multiplier to them. But I would not give more attention points to teams with more schollies... Why would they get more? They still have the same time, the same staff as teams with the same prestige level... There should be a cap for home visits so after say 5 or 6 on a player, a more rich team don't get 6 more into the players and basically get very high while the other drops. I mean, imagine a recruiter come to your house 5 times... You can come five more times, but your decision is basically set once you've visited the campus. All teams sending a campus visit should have a huge advantage over teams who do not use it.

For players who want to start : not getting a starting offer should mean no interest whatsoever. It will really help out... And if the promise is not met, there should be a way for these players to walk out right away... And keep their eligible year. That way, say Duke is filled at 1 and 2, promise a start to a PG, does not meet its promise, the guy walks out right away. He does not lose WE, he just goes away after say ... a unknown time he rides the pine.

If you put préférences like : Big Conference (Big Six)... Then if nobody wants the player in a big six, other teams can get him... Mid-Major... (Being the star player)... and/or Starter, it also helps out. I would get rid of the system préférences, cause teams change from year to year. Say I am a coach, I meet a guy who likes press, I go, yeah, my lineup has changed so will be playing press... Since it's based on my last season, and we were zone... He won't be interested...

Add a check box to remove all in mail box (inbox).

Add a remove all check box under recruiting target tab.

Same feature (fix) needed both places. I second the call for being able to change attention point distribution from "target" screen.

seble, I put in a support ticket to your attention. Not sure if you will get it before Sunday if I don't post this!
Thank you if you would help!