Someone talk me off the ledge Topic

We just had an instance in Wooden where there 3 schools "Very High" on a recruit, 2 of them A+, one of them me. I had min of 30 Att Points every cycle, good preferences, maxed out all my visits, promised a start and 20 minutes, and lost him to a 4th school who was C+ prestige and just"High". Why should I continue to pay to play this game when results are so random? Someone please tell me.

A major issue I have is that HD, has been built on the backs of a bunch of loyal customers who have been with HD for a long time, and account for several teams across multiple worlds. Traditionally, WIS has done a terrible job reaching out and bringing in new customers, so the argument that this new system is going to help bring in new players or retain players who previously thought they didnt have a chance.

I just don't see how a complicated recruiting system with random results is going to help retain new customers. If I am a new HD player, and I lose 2 coinflips where I was "Very High" to another school who was "High" in both cases, there is no way I am paying for another season to see if I can get better or if the game grows on me.

Listen, I understand that in real life things happen. Heck, I am a Pitt football fan, and they have been recruiting a 4 star DE who is local for the past 2 years. He comes to all the home games, wears all Pitt gear, praises Narduzzi as much as he can. Then takes one weekend visit to South Bend after they were recruiting him for 2 weeks, and he's now a Notre Dame Commit.

The difference is, they are asking me to pay to play this game. If all it is going to do is cause confusion and aggrevation, why would I continue to play? Additionally, Seble going MIA after the release is unacceptable to me. I don't expect recruits to be handed to me. But I went all in with A+ Michigan St on 2 recruits with good preferences, offered starts and minutes, piled on the attention points, and missed on everyone and am now forced to fill my class with filler. When has that ever happened in real life where an elite school doesn't land any recruits?

9/24/2016 11:21 AM
You are totally right. Odds ok, but really slim. And with three very high teams, the high should have no shot.
9/24/2016 11:39 AM
This is the piece oh **** we have been dealt
9/24/2016 11:43 AM
I like this if it has like a 1% chance of happening. That's hard to tell in a vacuum, but from reports, this seems much more common than it should be.
9/24/2016 11:50 AM
This seble quote might help a little bit as well. (but just a little)

" the odds (of a high beating a very high) aren't based on the interest levels, but on the total recruiting credit. That's because the difference between the lowest Very High and the highest High could be only a few points of credit.
9/24/2016 11:52 AM
goodtymes, I can't talk you or anyone else off the ledge if you're really hate the new game and don't want to play it. You have to want to play it and everyone has to draw their own conclusions about the game. They're no longer posted in these forums but admin's primary reasons for this rollout were as follows:
  1. Elite schools have too much advantage, with the combination of prestige and extra recruiting money.
  2. There is not enough battling going on for the top recruits, most likely due to the belief that elite schools can't be beaten and the fear of losing that money.
  3. The status of your school related to a recruit can be confusing and hard to track due to vague messages.
  4. Some battles last until the end of recruiting, leaving the losing schools in a bad position.
  5. There are not enough schools willing and able to recruit outside of their region.
  6. Scouting players is rudimentary and frustrating.
  7. Player decisions come down mostly to money spent (assuming other factors are fairly equal), making it a glorified auction system.
  8. Recruiting takes place at the beginning of the season, which is tough for new coaches, who haven't had a chance to learn the game.
  9. Due to the benefits of postseason money, there is way too much cooperation between teams in the same conference.
  10. SimAI teams are pretty terrible at recruiting, leaving many undesirable rosters.
We can all debate about whether the changes went to far, whether they could have made less drastic changes and whether or not the game is better now. Vandydave argues very passionately about a game he loves and how changes could have been made that would potentially have appealed to more users, I respect his passion but I never loved recruiting the way he and others did. That being said, 3.0 isn't the game I would have produced if I had been designing it but then everyone probably would have hated what I did too.

I think the thing to remember here that one of the primary goals of seble's version of HD was to spread talent around and he designed a system that appears, in its early stages to be doing that. It's not happening at alarming numbers from what I'm reading and seeing in Knight, but top recruits certainly aren't being hoarded by a small handful of schools anymore and that is a positive for the game.

The old game was bleeding users, this version is driving off a lot of long time users, that's unfortunate - it's unfortunate that many of those leaving never appeared to give the game a chance. Many of the long time users in the Beta walked out en masse after the first season of Beta in what appeared to be a very orchestrated and deliberate attempt to show seble what the game would lose if he carried through with his changes. Instead of working through the Beta to make it better, many just stopped playing, and the same predictable voices that walked out on the Beta continue to be the same dissenters on these forums and on the CCs today after less than one season in the new format.

3.0 isn't perfect, but it's not bad either. The thing that I think is important to remember is that one of the "features" of the new game is a system that allows you to battle for recruits but that if you lose doesn't blow your entire recruiting period if you do. For it to work as it was intended teams (particularly lower level teams) have to have an incentive to battle and the only way they will have that is if they (as the underdog) can win occasionally. The questions is what is that magic number? What is the sweet spot that will continue to provide lower prestige schools the incentive to battle? I'm not sure what that number is but I firmly believe the more you strip that away by reducing or eliminating the random element that comes up at signing and gives a team a chance, the less lower prestige teams will be willing to challenge others in the first place. This means fewer battles and more of a return to the status quo.

* Addendum: With reference to the comments I made about long term users leaving beta en masse in what appeared to be an orchestrated endeavor I will add, based on comments from both vandy and kc, that those were largely irresponsible on my part. I do not wish to suggest there actually was an orchestrated effort on anyone's part and if that offended anyone I apologize. There certainly was a mass exodus of long term users after the first beta season, likely because many of them grew tired, frustrated and felt their voices were ignored. It is still unfortunate so many chose to abandon the beta because the Beta lost those voices and the chance to make the game better and more appealing to more users.
9/24/2016 2:26 PM (edited)
Posted by possumfiend on 9/24/2016 12:15:00 PM (view original):

But I went all in with A+ Michigan St on 2 recruits with good preferences, offered starts and minutes, piled on the attention points, and missed on everyone and am now forced to fill my class with filler. When has that ever happened in real life where an elite school doesn't land any recruits?


After the 2011 season, the Kansas Jayhawks lost Junior EE's Markieff and Marcus Morris and Freshman Josh Selby to the NBA along with two seniors, Tyrel Reed, and Brady Morningstar. Their incoming 2012 Freshman class consisted of Naadir Tharpe, who played one season at Kansas before off court problems caused him to leave school and I don't believe he ever continued his D1 career.
Not even remotely accurate. Ben McLemore was in the same class as Tharpe, entering in 2011. Jamari Traylor and Kevin Young were also solid players who entered Kansas in 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Kansas_Jayhawks_men%27s_basketball_team#Class_of_2011
9/24/2016 12:33 PM (edited)
Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/24/2016 11:21:00 AM (view original):
We just had an instance in Wooden where there 3 schools "Very High" on a recruit, 2 of them A+, one of them me. I had min of 30 Att Points every cycle, good preferences, maxed out all my visits, promised a start and 20 minutes, and lost him to a 4th school who was C+ prestige and just"High". Why should I continue to pay to play this game when results are so random? Someone please tell me.

A major issue I have is that HD, has been built on the backs of a bunch of loyal customers who have been with HD for a long time, and account for several teams across multiple worlds. Traditionally, WIS has done a terrible job reaching out and bringing in new customers, so the argument that this new system is going to help bring in new players or retain players who previously thought they didnt have a chance.

I just don't see how a complicated recruiting system with random results is going to help retain new customers. If I am a new HD player, and I lose 2 coinflips where I was "Very High" to another school who was "High" in both cases, there is no way I am paying for another season to see if I can get better or if the game grows on me.

Listen, I understand that in real life things happen. Heck, I am a Pitt football fan, and they have been recruiting a 4 star DE who is local for the past 2 years. He comes to all the home games, wears all Pitt gear, praises Narduzzi as much as he can. Then takes one weekend visit to South Bend after they were recruiting him for 2 weeks, and he's now a Notre Dame Commit.

The difference is, they are asking me to pay to play this game. If all it is going to do is cause confusion and aggrevation, why would I continue to play? Additionally, Seble going MIA after the release is unacceptable to me. I don't expect recruits to be handed to me. But I went all in with A+ Michigan St on 2 recruits with good preferences, offered starts and minutes, piled on the attention points, and missed on everyone and am now forced to fill my class with filler. When has that ever happened in real life where an elite school doesn't land any recruits?

Unfortunately we have no idea whether your case is an outlier or a 50% of the time happening as pdnao's research indicates.

To me, what happened to you feels like a bug. But it's an intentional, important, and very poorly explained part of the 3.0 game design. It isn't changing, so love it or leave it.
9/24/2016 12:26 PM
McLemore was a freshman for the Sacramento Kings in 2013. Keep digging.

Addressing your edit, Young transferred in. Did you open the helpful link I gave you?
9/24/2016 12:34 PM
Posted by possumfiend on 9/24/2016 12:03:00 PM (view original):
goodtymes, I can't talk you or anyone else off the ledge if you're really hate the new game and don't want to play it. You have to want to play it and everyone has to draw their own conclusions about the game. They're no longer posted in these forums but admin's primary reasons for this rollout were as follows:
  1. Elite schools have too much advantage, with the combination of prestige and extra recruiting money.
  2. There is not enough battling going on for the top recruits, most likely due to the belief that elite schools can't be beaten and the fear of losing that money.
  3. The status of your school related to a recruit can be confusing and hard to track due to vague messages.
  4. Some battles last until the end of recruiting, leaving the losing schools in a bad position.
  5. There are not enough schools willing and able to recruit outside of their region.
  6. Scouting players is rudimentary and frustrating.
  7. Player decisions come down mostly to money spent (assuming other factors are fairly equal), making it a glorified auction system.
  8. Recruiting takes place at the beginning of the season, which is tough for new coaches, who haven't had a chance to learn the game.
  9. Due to the benefits of postseason money, there is way too much cooperation between teams in the same conference.
  10. SimAI teams are pretty terrible at recruiting, leaving many undesirable rosters.
We can all debate about whether the changes went to far, whether they could have made less drastic changes and whether or not the game is better now. Vandydave argues very passionately about a game he loves and how changes could have been made that would potentially have appealed to more users, I respect his passion but I never loved recruiting the way he and others did. That being said, 3.0 isn't the game I would have produced if I had been designing it but then everyone probably would have hated what I did too.

I think the thing to remember here that one of the primary goals of seble's version of HD was to spread talent around and he designed a system that appears, in its early stages to be doing that. It's not happening at alarming numbers from what I'm reading and seeing in Knight, but top recruits certainly aren't being hoarded by a small handful of schools anymore and that is a positive for the game.

The old game was bleeding users, this version is driving off a lot of long time users, that's unfortunate - it's unfortunate that many of those leaving never appeared to give the game a chance. Many of the long time users in the Beta walked out en masse after the first season of Beta in what appeared to be a very orchestrated and deliberate attempt to show seble what the game would lose if he carried through with his changes. Instead of working through the Beta to make it better, many just stopped playing, and the same predictable voices that walked out on the Beta continue to be the same dissenters on these forums and on the CCs today after less than one season in the new format.

3.0 isn't perfect, but it's not bad either. The thing that I think is important to remember is that one of the "features" of the new game is a system that allows you to battle for recruits but that if you lose doesn't blow your entire recruiting period if you do. For it to work as it was intended teams (particularly lower level teams) have to have an incentive to battle and the only way they will have that is if they (as the underdog) can win occasionally. The questions is what is that magic number? What is the sweet spot that will continue to provide lower prestige schools the incentive to battle? I'm not sure what that number is but I firmly believe the more you strip that away by reducing or eliminating the random element that comes up at signing and gives a team a chance, the less lower prestige teams will be willing to challenge others in the first place. This means fewer battles and more of a return to the status quo.
if there was anything orchestrated about users leaving Beta (there wasn't) I never heard a word of it and certainly wasn't part of it, I have/had every desire to see HD succeed. I think so many users walking out on their own accord should've been a wake-up call to wis...
9/24/2016 12:38 PM
Posted by possumfiend on 9/24/2016 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kcsundevil on 9/24/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by possumfiend on 9/24/2016 12:15:00 PM (view original):

But I went all in with A+ Michigan St on 2 recruits with good preferences, offered starts and minutes, piled on the attention points, and missed on everyone and am now forced to fill my class with filler. When has that ever happened in real life where an elite school doesn't land any recruits?


After the 2011 season, the Kansas Jayhawks lost Junior EE's Markieff and Marcus Morris and Freshman Josh Selby to the NBA along with two seniors, Tyrel Reed, and Brady Morningstar. Their incoming 2012 Freshman class consisted of Naadir Tharpe, who played one season at Kansas before off court problems caused him to leave school and I don't believe he ever continued his D1 career.
Not even remotely accurate. Ben McLemore was in the same class as Tharpe, entering in 2011. Jamari Traylor and Kevin Young were also solid players who started in 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Kansas_Jayhawks_men%27s_basketball_team#Class_of_2011
McLemore and Traylor were ineligible and didn't play until 2013, Young was a Junior in 2012.

kenpom.com - Kansas 2012 roster
Go-to guys (>28% of possessions used)
0 Thomas Robinson 2
National Rank
6-9 237 Jr 39 79.2
313
106.4 29.7
39
30.1
85
51.2 54.9 11.2
204
30.5
1
13.1 16.7 2.9
440
2.0 3.5 5.8
90
46.2
301
163-239 .682 254-503 .505 7-14 .500
Major Contributors (24-28% of possessions used)
10 Tyshawn Taylor
National Rank
6-3 185 Sr 39 83.3
166
104.2 27.7
111
26.2
304
53.8
339
56.9
361
0.8 6.9 29.7
109
22.6 0.5 2.4 2.4
323
4.8
348
42.0
432
137-199 .688 168-322 .522 58-152 .382
336
Role Players (16-20% of possessions used)
15 Elijah Johnson
National Rank
6-4 195 Jr 39 80.1
273
107.7 17.5 19.8 53.1
389
54.3 1.6 9.5 20.4
423
19.2 0.2 2.6
451
2.9 2.0 13.4 32-46 .696 79-140 .564
223
69-204 .338
5 Jeff Withey
National Rank
7-0 235 Jr 39 61.9 117.7
123
18.0 15.7 53.6
350
61.4
99
10.2
296
18.3
301
5.6 16.6 15.3
1
1.5 4.0 4.7
390
73.9
17
124-156 .795
258
113-211 .536
418
0-0 .000
40 Kevin Young 6-8 185 Jr 38 27.6 105.4 19.3 16.4 49.5 53.2 14.7 15.5 10.2 20.6 3.9 2.7 6.0 3.8 52.0 33-51 .647 44-89 .494 3-9 .333
1 Naadir Tharpe 5-11 170 Fr 32 11.2 67.5 18.6 15.7 36.8 37.2 2.1 4.3 20.3 39.9 0.0 2.4 2.7 1.4 5.3 1-2 .500 5-16 .312 6-22 .273
Limited roles (12-16% of possessions used)
24 Travis Releford
National Rank
6-5 207 Jr 39 77.1
418
118.5
107
13.9 14.3 55.2
244
57.6
306
6.3 9.1 10.3 13.0
168
0.6 2.3 2.8 2.9 43.5
391
68-104 .654 93-159 .585
132
26-80 .325
2 Conner Teahan
National Rank
6-5 212 Sr 39 52.3 105.2 14.1 16.5 50.0 52.8 3.7 7.3 8.8 18.5 0.1 2.0 3.2 1.9 16.6 26-31 .839 17-35 .486 51-152 .336
Nearly invisible (<12% of possessions used)
4 Justin Wesley 6-8 200 So 38 20.8 99.7 9.3 6.6 56.7 53.1 9.8 10.9 0.5 21.5 4.5 1.1 8.5 2.6 86.7 11-26 .423 17-30 .567 0-0 .000
I'm going to quote you this time since you keep changing your post.

Yes, McL and Traylor were initially ineligible. And the 2011-12 Jayhawks had enough depth to get to the 2011-12 championship game, where they lost to Kentucky. Their recruiting reflected the fact they didn't need lots of frosh to start playing right away, but they still committed the right kids.

Can't wait to see how you respond to this one.
9/24/2016 12:40 PM
PS - goodtymes - if you jump there will be a lot of bodies already at the bottom to very softly cushion your fall.
9/24/2016 12:41 PM
Posted by vandydave on 9/24/2016 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by possumfiend on 9/24/2016 12:03:00 PM (view original):
goodtymes, I can't talk you or anyone else off the ledge if you're really hate the new game and don't want to play it. You have to want to play it and everyone has to draw their own conclusions about the game. They're no longer posted in these forums but admin's primary reasons for this rollout were as follows:
  1. Elite schools have too much advantage, with the combination of prestige and extra recruiting money.
  2. There is not enough battling going on for the top recruits, most likely due to the belief that elite schools can't be beaten and the fear of losing that money.
  3. The status of your school related to a recruit can be confusing and hard to track due to vague messages.
  4. Some battles last until the end of recruiting, leaving the losing schools in a bad position.
  5. There are not enough schools willing and able to recruit outside of their region.
  6. Scouting players is rudimentary and frustrating.
  7. Player decisions come down mostly to money spent (assuming other factors are fairly equal), making it a glorified auction system.
  8. Recruiting takes place at the beginning of the season, which is tough for new coaches, who haven't had a chance to learn the game.
  9. Due to the benefits of postseason money, there is way too much cooperation between teams in the same conference.
  10. SimAI teams are pretty terrible at recruiting, leaving many undesirable rosters.
We can all debate about whether the changes went to far, whether they could have made less drastic changes and whether or not the game is better now. Vandydave argues very passionately about a game he loves and how changes could have been made that would potentially have appealed to more users, I respect his passion but I never loved recruiting the way he and others did. That being said, 3.0 isn't the game I would have produced if I had been designing it but then everyone probably would have hated what I did too.

I think the thing to remember here that one of the primary goals of seble's version of HD was to spread talent around and he designed a system that appears, in its early stages to be doing that. It's not happening at alarming numbers from what I'm reading and seeing in Knight, but top recruits certainly aren't being hoarded by a small handful of schools anymore and that is a positive for the game.

The old game was bleeding users, this version is driving off a lot of long time users, that's unfortunate - it's unfortunate that many of those leaving never appeared to give the game a chance. Many of the long time users in the Beta walked out en masse after the first season of Beta in what appeared to be a very orchestrated and deliberate attempt to show seble what the game would lose if he carried through with his changes. Instead of working through the Beta to make it better, many just stopped playing, and the same predictable voices that walked out on the Beta continue to be the same dissenters on these forums and on the CCs today after less than one season in the new format.

3.0 isn't perfect, but it's not bad either. The thing that I think is important to remember is that one of the "features" of the new game is a system that allows you to battle for recruits but that if you lose doesn't blow your entire recruiting period if you do. For it to work as it was intended teams (particularly lower level teams) have to have an incentive to battle and the only way they will have that is if they (as the underdog) can win occasionally. The questions is what is that magic number? What is the sweet spot that will continue to provide lower prestige schools the incentive to battle? I'm not sure what that number is but I firmly believe the more you strip that away by reducing or eliminating the random element that comes up at signing and gives a team a chance, the less lower prestige teams will be willing to challenge others in the first place. This means fewer battles and more of a return to the status quo.
if there was anything orchestrated about users leaving Beta (there wasn't) I never heard a word of it and certainly wasn't part of it, I have/had every desire to see HD succeed. I think so many users walking out on their own accord should've been a wake-up call to wis...
As this thread illustrates, possum is a champ at making stuff up.
9/24/2016 12:42 PM
Posted by possumfiend on 9/24/2016 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kcsundevil on 9/24/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
McLemore was a freshman for the Sacramento Kings in 2013. Keep digging.

Addressing your edit, Young transferred in. Did you open the helpful link I gave you?
Tharpe played in 2011-2012, McLemore and Young played in the 2012-2013 season, after which McLemore left and was drafted.

Tharpe was the ONLY freshman playing for Kansas in 2011-2012.
So what? We're talking about recruiting.
9/24/2016 12:43 PM
I'll concede the point.
9/24/2016 12:49 PM
12 Next ▸
Someone talk me off the ledge Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.