Jump to content

Panthers Pounce on Chapel Hill

Tune in this Saturday for an exciting matchup in Chapel Hell where #15 UNC and coach Tryggr and face off against #24 Pitt led by coach TheLiberator.

Kings of the North

Can Gerald Lewis and da bears upset the Packers in Soldier Field or will Joseph Garibay and the Packers further their lead in the NFC North?

Join Here

Need a team?

Firstly... welcome to the SimFBA! If you are new to the site, and need a team, make sure you head over to the new users section and view the available teams list. You will also be able to fill out your job application there! See you on the field, Coach!

Read more

Endless Summer

Congrats to the Lakers for winning the #1 Lottery Pick in this year's upcoming SimNBA Draft!

Join Here

#18 - A word on recruiting from Pumph


Recommended Posts

Great Start and this is such a big task thank you for all your work. I love most of this but TBH I am not a fan of the "Recruits will not always sign with the team that spends the most on them. A weighted system will give leading teams the advantage come signing day, but the door is not completely shut on trailing teams." I just see this causing a lot of frustration for teams that put a lot of effort into one player and then they sign with someone that spent a lot less. I guess I am just not seeing the benefit of this feature so maybe I'm wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be weighted, and not necessarily every team that has put points into the player will get them. It's a more realistic way at envisioning the recruiting system, we believe. If you have a ton more points over the other team, you're going to be that much more likely to get them.


On the flip side of your argument - let's say a player has 100 points put on them and it's broken down like this:


Team A - 50 pts

Team B - 45 pts

Team C - 2 pts

Team D - 2 pts

Team E - 1 pt


In a system where the team who puts the most points on the player, Team B is going to be pretty disappointed because they also invested a lot of points into this player, perhaps even 100% of their budget, if they had fewer total points to spend than Team A.


The hope here is that we see a different way of strategizing how to spend your points, instead of seeing the top teams every year just throw everything they have into the top recruits with little penalty.


Hopefully this makes sense and it works out in practice. If not, we can always change things up and tweak it to get it right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely helps me conceptualize it. Thanks yall! I'm excited to try it out and we can always make adjustments but I do love the transparency and effort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the affinities that I would definitely like to see is the demand of Freshman Start or Immediate Playing Time for some players. This will help the stockpiling year over year of five star players to sit on the bench and also allow coaches of lesser talented teams to appeal to players wanting to start or playing time. It makes the coaches make a decision / commitment to a player and his starting and playing at the time at recruiting .
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea. We'll have to come up with a way to define how that might work. Perhaps it can be a based on the number of players in the position on the DC, maybe it could be based on how good the starters are. Would love to hear how you envision it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

@Nittany Boiler @subsequent


My understanding is that the player database is the same for recruits/teams - so they retain all the 'tags' they had during recruiting. I might be wrong on that since I've been out of pocket for a while.


If that's still correct, maybe something for the non-immediate future is tie transfers to recruiting affinities (when we get to transfers)? If a recruit has an affinity for immediate playing time (or maybe 'Going Pro' as well), but ends up redshirted or has <50 downs played in a season (with no injury) they have a high chance to transfer. It could be stored as a 'frustration threshold' and players accumulate and lose points at the end of each season for things like playing time, overall record, or a new head coach. If they get over a certain point total, the database flags them for transfer season.


Since playing time is something players of any skill could end up with as an affinity due to the procedural generation, you'd see players transferring off the bench and potentially to 'little sister' schools where they can hit the top of the depth chart or even leaving smaller schools if a team is min/maxing recruiting in some strange way and has recruited 5+ QBs or something.


Long-term, I could envision a way of handling transfers that took the coaches' history into affect, where they had a higher chance of transfers from their previous school (if player was on the team then). The nuts and bolts are mostly there to create some really fun emergent narratives, but it's shouldn't be a priority atm obviously.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting. I'd love to see that get implemented. Probably not something right this second, but I think it completely makes sense.


And, yes, the "tags" retained for the lifetime of the player. Even to the NFL, so perhaps that gets tied in there as well. Team drafts another QB early, so the 2nd string might want to leave. Or even the 1st stringer wants a larger contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...