TCY suggestion

[Buccaneer]

As I am playing The Recruiting Years, aka TCY, I can think of one thing that would make recruiting more strategic (and fun): make it more of a geographic strategy. When you do visit a recruit, the visit costs do change but not enough. With a limited buget for travel, I can see making all of my recruiting thoughts based on maximizing the number of recruits in a geographic area (like just concentrating on California). As example an example of a geographic strategy, I called one recruit from Council Bluffs, Iowa. When looking at recruits in another position, I thought to add those in eastern Nebraska (like Omaha) over anyone else, all things being equal. That way, when I visit the recruit to Council Bluffs, it would cost next to nothing to hop over to Omaha. As it stands now, sitting in Iowa and going to Nebraska costs just as much as going back out to California (I am playing New Mexico). This one change would improve recruiting for me 100% (since that's the only part of the game I pay attention to).

This has probably been brought up before, so I apologize for being redundant. I just didn't pay enough attention to the TCY threads when they were up.

[Craptacular]

Remember you have to pay the recruits too.

[Marmel]

Actually, visiting recruits from the SAME state in the same week will save you a lot of money. It does not take into account bordering states or whatever, but everything in the same state will save you a lot of recruiting points.

[Taur]

Restricting myself to just the subject matter.

I would like to see your current game of the week reflected in recruiting budget. EX: If I am playing Colorado that week, I think a trip to see a player in Denver would not cost as much as I would be in the area anyway.

Just a slight suggestion.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Originally posted by Marmel
It does not take into account bordering states

Are you sure on this one? I could have sworn that visiting one distant recruit made it slightly cheaper (maybe 20-40%?) to visit recruits in nearby states, or within a certain region, etc.

[larrymcg421]

I think it's divided by region. If you visit a recruit in a state, you'll get a discount on that whole region.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by larrymcg421
I think it's divided by region. If you visit a recruit in a state, you'll get a discount on that whole region. Correct. What feels a bit odd is when two bordering states are not in the same region, there is no discount. For example, Georgia is Southeast, and Alabama is Deep South. If you were coming from California and visited a prospect from Shaw High School in Columbus, GA, other Georgia prospects would then become drastically reduced for the rest of that week. However, a visit to Central High School in Phenix City, AL, which is only 8 or 10 miles away from Shaw, across the river, would cost full price. This is particularly funny since a visit to, say, Miami, FL, which is several hundred miles away from Shaw High, would get a nice reduction.

[Marmel]

Well, what do you know, i never realized it was by region since I have been playing with teams on the boarder of a region all this time!!!

[Buccaneer]

I noticed it does change (applying a discount), but if you are visiting another recruit in the same city, shouldn't the travel cost be near zero (as oppose to 250-350 like it is now)? Plus why would the cost be the nearly the same going from Iowa to Nebraska and going from Iowa to California in my example above? It seems that I went to California that week and then to Nebraska and now both states/regions now is discounted - regardless where I go to next. Since the game knows the coordinates of where you are at all time, it would be simple algorithm of calculating dollars per distance from where you are (I do this regularly at work in GIS).

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Marmel
Actually, visiting recruits from the SAME state in the same week will save you a lot of money. It does not take into account bordering states or whatever, but everything in the same state will save you a lot of recruiting points.

Actually, the game breaks the country up into regions. It's not perfect...two states adjacent to each other may not benefit if they're grouped in different regions, but it works pretty well.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
I noticed it does change (applying a discount), but if you are visiting another recruit in the same city, shouldn't the travel cost be near zero (as oppose to 250-350 like it is now)? Plus why would the cost be the nearly the same going from Iowa to Nebraska and going from Iowa to California in my example above? It seems that I went to California that week and then to Nebraska and now both states/regions now is discounted - regardless where I go to next. Since the game knows the coordinates of where you are at all time, it would be simple algorithm of calculating dollars per distance from where you are (I do this regularly at work in GIS).

It's interesting in it's concept, but upon further contemplation, I don't think this is neccesarily the answer either. Yes, it would add an element of strategy - since I'm going to see Jumbo Tron in Greenville, South Carolina, then a side trip to see Phil Hertitz in Ahseville, North Carolina should be el cheapo. Then next trip I'll hit all the guys in the Ozarks, and then the week after the Catskills, etc. I'd feel more like a travel agent than a recruiter.

Also, travel costs are not always attributed to distance. A flight from Atlanta to New York is most likely cheaper than a flight to Washington National in D.C. because of supply/demand and because of the airlines that fly there (Wash. National has no discount airlines such as Southwest, so prices are very inflated).

Also, a trip to Brunswick, Georgia will most likely cost more than a trip to Atanta because you will have to travel through Atlanta to get to Brunswick (have to fly into a major airport and connect to a smaller, regional airport).

There are advantages and disadvantages either way, so I'm not saying one is better than the other. I just think the way it is handled is serviceable.

Perhaps a combination of the two. If you visit a state, the states around it get a modest reduction in cost, regardless of region. that way if you travel to Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina, a trip to Georgia would be drastically reduced in cost. Might make for some interesting strategy. Visit the state that touches the most others first, and then branch out from there.

[Buccaneer]

The other thing is that if you tie visit costs to distance from A to B then to C and so on, that would likely (if you plan accordingly) increase visit opportunities; therefore, a reduction in visits budget would need to be reduced to ensure game balance.

Buzzbee, I disagree a little with your points. You are introducing more complexity and micromanagement then necessary. It is all abstracted so tying cost solely to distance is just the right level of detail, imo. All we need to consider is geography, what's left of the visits budget, as well as recruit quality. By having us think more about geographic proximity, it introduces a simple layer of decision making, thus adding a subtle dimension to what typically ends up being a tedious process over time.