Allow to host more than one camp?
Designate asst coach scouting trip to exclude JUCOs or transfers...just like the search function. That is logical....or to include jucos--etc.

"... if I want to look at who Harvard is recruiting it was previously on their school page under recruiting. Now it appears only reserved for signed players. I would love to see a full list of players that school is involved with and at what level."

Disagree. We target recruits, not opponent schools. Targeting schools just opens the door for mischief.

I would like to see how far recruits are from each school on the list of who the recruit is considering. Geography is still important and this would give an idea of how much they may have to spend on Home visits, etc.

Posted by CoachSpud on 6/25/2016 11:15:00 AM (view original):
"... if I want to look at who Harvard is recruiting it was previously on their school page under recruiting. Now it appears only reserved for signed players. I would love to see a full list of players that school is involved with and at what level."

Disagree. We target recruits, not opponent schools. Targeting schools just opens the door for mischief.

It's really about strategy. I know some things can be copied from real life and some not... I think in real life it's obvious who schools are after based on what the recruit says and what other coaches see. Because of that, I would like this added again. I also think there are so many changes going on, it would be good to have some carry over from the previous set up to smooth out the transition.

Posted by CoachSpud on 6/25/2016 11:15:00 AM (view original):
"... if I want to look at who Harvard is recruiting it was previously on their school page under recruiting. Now it appears only reserved for signed players. I would love to see a full list of players that school is involved with and at what level."

Disagree. We target recruits, not opponent schools. Targeting schools just opens the door for mischief.

It's not necessarily targeting schools but under the current system this can be use in that matter, for good and bad. However this currently exists in the current game form so it's not deviating from what we have now. Not saying this new version isn't an opportunity to fix problems but it's also short sighted to think this information isn't available in real life. As an example here is a link to a scout list for Harvard 2017 recruiting (my example). http://harvard.247sports.com/Season/2017-Basketball/Targets. This actually goes well beyond capabilities and insight to what he have in the regular WIS HD version now. Back to HD in the current form if a team has 4 open spots and has 10 guys considering them I'm more likely to compete for a recruit I want vs a recruit who I want that another team with 4 open spots with only 3 players considering them.

If signing preference is ultimately going to be included in the finished product, you should be able to have an "advanced" sorting option on the Recruiting Pool screen that allows you to view just Late, Immediate, or Whenever signees. Very painful to use multiple clicks to figure that out as is.

I'm imagining that would be the plan and the only reason it's not in there now is because it was a test addition to the 2nd round of recruiting.

OVERALL SUGGESTIONS in this post:
1. Reduce the time it takes to scout players.
2. Consider going back to an all number system.


1 in more detail: I know we have a lot of time for scouting now.... but I still feel like it's cumbersome and not enjoyable at all to try and sort through all these players. Perhaps it will get faster as I understand the ranges on the "letters" system. But it seems like you have to go one player at a time, and click away. Can we make it easier to mass scout up levels, rather than 1 player at a time???

2 in more detail: I would much prefer a number system. The slow reveal of 4 levels is too much IMO. If we have to keep letters to make things more mysterious (I'm not sure we do), at least start with letter grades for each attribute, then go to letter grade with potential, then go to numbers with potential.

I would honestly consider starting with a range of numbers, then range of numbers with potential, then actual numbers with full potential shown. I don't want to have to keep referring to a chart so I can figure out "okay an A+ could be....."

For example, instead of saying "D" on stamina, is could say 30-45. Then it could show potential still using the same range, then show actual number with full potential revealed.

I also think the final scout option of full potential and actual numbers revealed could stand to be more expensive.

This is not related to the new recruiting system but...if you are making changes to HD, why not drop the durability rating? It is irritating to have this absolutely meaningless rating. How hard could it be to just eliminate it?

Change the prestige ratings

A,B,C for D1
C,D,E for D2
E,F,G for D3

This would allow the top D3 teams to be on par with the lower D2 teams, the top D2 teams on par with the lower D1 teams and so on. You can even add a plus minus system to it if you wanted. I think it makes it clearer to everyone and for computations.

Drop the NBA draft, and our EE problems are solved. There is absolutely no reason to continue with it under the new beta recruiting system. It is obsolete now, and getting rid of it would solve a MAJOR problem. This is not the NCAA, or the NBA, it's HD, run by WIS. We don't need to share all the same problems that those two organizations have. It will be a much better game without the draft.

Recruiting from a distance at D2 or D3 will essentially be over under the current scouting system. I think that's very, very bad for the game. It's hard to find enough good local players. Most coaches rely on some decent long distance grabs.

For example, I scouted HI from Barton at D2. I have scouting all the nearby states, still not finding that great of players. Nonetheless, I have lots of scouting budget left. I can see about 12 guys in HI, but it will cost $1,000 to scout the 'next level' (which still tells me almost nothing initially, and would require even more cash to see true potential).

Posted by kobo on 6/25/2016 7:12:00 PM (view original):
This is not related to the new recruiting system but...if you are making changes to HD, why not drop the durability rating? It is irritating to have this absolutely meaningless rating. How hard could it be to just eliminate it?

How hard could it be to make Injuries more prevalent? This would make the game a bit more realistic, make the Durability ratings meaningful, AND provide an extra strategic element to recruiting.

Posted by CoachSpud on 6/1/2016 6:00:00 PM (view original):
Please revisit the colors. Red, orange and yellow are warm colors. Blue, green, purple and violet are cool colors. You use cool colors for good potentials, and that is fine. But you use one warm color and one cool color for bad potentials -- confusion reigns. And the purple is almost indistinguishable from the blue or even the green on some screens. How about ditching that purple in favor of (logically) a warm color such as orange. For example, red - orange - (black) - green - blue would follow the order of the wave lengths. Remember "Roy G Biv" from your grade school days? Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Thanks for considering this.

I agree with CoachSpud about Potentials colors following the order of wavelengths. Blue as "high" and Green as "high-high" just seems totally backwards to me. Although high vs high-high hasn't been visible before the beta, this game has always had Red as least potential and Blue as most potential.... Now that Blue is not the highest, I keep seeing Green and naturally thinking it's below the highest (Blue).

I think this has been raised before, but I think the immediate impact of home visit and campus visit is a problem.

A good strategy would be to wait until the AP have unlocked HVs... lurk for awhile until right before signings and just pile on HV and the CV.

Is there a reason they aren't processed at normal cycles? I actually like the immediate impact personally, but I think it will be abused like I mention above.

If we make HV and the CV process normally, it would make sense to go back to more frequent cycles so folks get feedback more quickly (i.e. we need a sense of how far behind we are).

Lastly, I think I am getting the hang of things and I'm warming to the update. My biggest dislike at this point is the scouting process (seems tedious and time consuming) and I'm still not a big fan of the letter system. I'd probably get used to the letters eventually.

Posted by Rails on 6/24/2016 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Allow to host more than one camp?
Designate asst coach scouting trip to exclude JUCOs or transfers...just like the search function. That is logical....or to include jucos--etc.

Since you can't instruct the assistant to search by eligible years, I consider the assistant search feature useless.

It's harmless, of course, but it's useless.