The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

[Timeetyo]

Quote: Originally Posted by BleedGreen710

Heres my current class 5 stars: 22 4 stars: 273 3 stars: 1,480 2 stars: 2,117 1 stars: 2,710

Wow - suprisingly it is less 4 & 5 but more 3* than IRL according to 2013 rivals:
5 stars: 34
4 stars: 325
3 stars: 1,147

2012 rivals:
5 stars: 33
4 stars: 317
3 stars: 1,337

[BleedGreen710]

Quote: Originally Posted by Strategizer

I think it was a mistake to have instant commits be purely a coach skill. Some kids commit on the spot just because of the school. More early commits would free up points and board space. There should be a base percentage of kids who commit instantly when offered by their number one school, then the coach skill could add to that.

Agreed. Should have made the insta commit skill give a bonus chance of insta commits, but not require the skill to be had for you to get any insta commits..

[Strategizer]

Quote: Originally Posted by Timeetyo

Wow - suprisingly it is less 4 & 5 but more 3* than IRL according to 2013 rivals: 5 stars: 34 4 stars: 325 3 stars: 1,147 2012 rivals: 5 stars: 33 4 stars: 317 3 stars: 1,337

I think having a realistic number of recruits but an unrealistic roster size is a problem as well. The cpu class sizes in this game are smaller than they are in real life, yet the number of three star or better recruits is more in the game.

[Timeetyo]

Quote: Originally Posted by BleedGreen710

Yea you may start out with 13-15 guys, but I bet once you have some guys with huge leads you start giving the points out to other recruits.. something the CPU is completely unable to do. Also, agreed, it is always a fear that when EA will fix something they will mess it up even more by going from 1 extreme to the other, I feel you there.

I did that a lot the first year as a 1* with only 5000 points but i've actually had more overall success keeping 500 in as a 3* going after higher rated guys.

The more I think about this, I think there are several components to the problem which compound into the wackiness we currently have:
1 - Only max points doesn't help matters (but would be a better strategy if they fixed the others)
2 - I've watched 5 CPU teams go 500 in for a good recruit and NOT back down when there was a team or 2 with a clear advantage over the others. I have no problem with 2 or 3 going hard after a guy, or even more in the early weeks - but when you are 500 down to BAMA and they are getting 100 more in bonus each week - just give up and put those points into someone you can sign.
3 - The CPU doesn't go out and LOOK for guys who are not being recruited. If they signed someone (or finally got locked out in scenario 2) they then move thier points into someone else on their board. They don't seem to do what any human would - take a peek at who else is out there (not on board) that we can maybe chase after and sign.


I think these 3 issues are combining into the mess that you have and the worst of them is actually #3 as it lets guys go totally under the radar (not even on a board). Get the CPU to better assess if they can win a battle and to better re-alocate those points is fine - but if they aren't looking for the freebies they will always be there for the user to pick up.

[sawilson1]

Quote: Originally Posted by BleedGreen710

Agreed. Should have made the insta commit skill give a bonus chance of insta commits, but not require the skill to be had for you to get any insta commits..

I dont know yet if Instacommit is only an upgraded skill. I believe the skill said there is a % increase that a kid will commit when offered.

[Dogslax41]

Quote: Originally Posted by Strategizer

I think having a realistic number of recruits but an unrealistic roster size is a problem as well. The cpu class sizes in this game are smaller than they are in real life, yet the number of three star or better recruits is more in the game.

Exactly. In real life rosters are 85 scholarship and 105 travelling. Thats 1,512 less scholarship positions and 4,410 less roster positions in total in the game compared to real life.

In the game the 4 and 5 star players make up 17% of the 3-5 star player pool. In real life they make up 24%. The ratio reduction is not near close enough to parallel the reduction in number of roster spots available. Their numbers don't make sense. It just serves to flood the game with too many high level players.

And while that doesnt hurt the game as a whole, what it does is decrease the variance in top 25 teams and weaker teams. EA once again threw the baby out with the bathwater in trying to solve the not enough players at certain positions (FB).

[Timeetyo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Strategizer

I think having a realistic number of recruits but an unrealistic roster size is a problem as well. The cpu class sizes in this game are smaller than they are in real life, yet the number of three star or better recruits is more in the game.

Oh wow - I didn't think about that.

So we get 70/85 - or 82% of a real roster. If we scale the RL numbers (I averaged 2012 & 2013 rivals), you'd have:

5 stars: 27
4 stars: 264
3 stars: 1,022

Sample class:
5 stars: 22
4 stars: 273
3 stars: 1,480
2 stars: 2,117
1 stars: 2,710


This actually gives a comparable 4 & 5 star number but way too many 3*. Interesting.

[BleedGreen710]

Everyones making great arguments, nice. I think we can all agree though... that whether its a smart recruiting strategy or if its realistic or not, its not right for the CPU to be completely restricted to only assigning max points to recruits.