Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/30/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

There is so much strategy going in to how these scenarios play out. There is no one way to go about it, but basically you have to decide how high you want to shoot, and how much you want to risk. There should be battles for every elite player. That's the baseline assumption. If you have 4 open scholarships, you have the resources to go "all-in" on 4 players; but you won't have the resources to get excellent backups (because they may be someone else's top priority) if you lose out. So one alternative strategy to going all in on all 4, and risk losing all of them and having no one worth grabbing at the end, is to go all-in on 2, use some APs on plan B's, projects and/or role players, and hope you win both rolls. If you do, you'll have an excellent 3.0 class with 2 elite players, and a couple (presumably) solid 4-year guys. If you lose both, you aren't behind the 8 ball, because you have some backups in your pocket.

Posted by noleaniml on 9/30/2016 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Possum's post is very thoughtful, but I'll say this one more time -

if the goal is new user gain and retention then wis is essentially banking on coaches ability to restrain themselves from going all in after the top recruits they in theory have the capacity to get but in reality will lose more often than they win, with the result being lots of empty scholarships or awful last-second backup options.

The old game literally required you to build a dynasty slowly and work your way up. The promise of "everyone has a chance" is a double-edged sword I don't think people are going to have the patience or willingness to continue paying for.

I think you are overvaluing the "everyone has a chance" mantra. It is still far too early to see how all this will shake out. IMO, this system has opened up more possible strategies that can lead to success. I think we are confusing the idea that what worked before will no longer work with the idea that now there is no skill involved. I see it as that there is even more skilled involved now, it just has to be implemented in new ways. I love the fact that everyone is on here trying to exchange information about battles and trying to figure out the new system. There was PLENTY about the old system we didn't know either and tons of people who argue on here about their guess as to how certain things were calculated.

I do believe it is true that WIS has TEMPORARILY evened the playing field, but I still believe that the coaches who were good before will be the best again. Or at least, the things that made a good coach before will still make a good coach now. I still think you will see dynasties and people certainly having to work hard for a significant period of time to work their way up. It's way too early to tell, but we'll see. For example, what about the random mid-major that does sign a 5 star guy but has to take some pretty bad recruits also in order to do that. Will the be an effective strategy? Who knows- but one thing is for sure, that was impossible to try before now.

I know no one did, but if you ask me- right now, this game is WAY more exciting than it ever has been .

EDIT: Keep in mind- this is after losing my first big maxed out battle (5 star SF Loyd Clark in Tark - signed by C+ Iowa State over B+ Arkansas) to a school that would have had no chance at that recruit in the old system. I was ****** at first, but in a way- it's exciting to see. I've been also trying to determine what roll the RNG and APs played in this decision. I love that it will take some time to figure this out.

The coaches who are loving the new game all in their own way are rallying around the everyone has a chance mantra. Some use words like fun, some say unpredictable, less deterministic, or exciting. But it's all the same, and the average new owner likely won't be able to keep from striving for that "exciting" feeling and they'll crash and burn.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/30/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

There is so much strategy going in to how these scenarios play out. There is no one way to go about it, but basically you have to decide how high you want to shoot, and how much you want to risk. There should be battles for every elite player. That's the baseline assumption. If you have 4 open scholarships, you have the resources to go "all-in" on 4 players; but you won't have the resources to get excellent backups (because they may be someone else's top priority) if you lose out. So one alternative strategy to going all in on all 4, and risk losing all of them and having no one worth grabbing at the end, is to go all-in on 2, use some APs on plan B's, projects and/or role players, and hope you win both rolls. If you do, you'll have an excellent 3.0 class with 2 elite players, and a couple (presumably) solid 4-year guys. If you lose both, you aren't behind the 8 ball, because you have some backups in your pocket.

But people will be competing for some of those solid role players as well, so many of those will be coin flips as well.

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 4:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/30/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

There is so much strategy going in to how these scenarios play out. There is no one way to go about it, but basically you have to decide how high you want to shoot, and how much you want to risk. There should be battles for every elite player. That's the baseline assumption. If you have 4 open scholarships, you have the resources to go "all-in" on 4 players; but you won't have the resources to get excellent backups (because they may be someone else's top priority) if you lose out. So one alternative strategy to going all in on all 4, and risk losing all of them and having no one worth grabbing at the end, is to go all-in on 2, use some APs on plan B's, projects and/or role players, and hope you win both rolls. If you do, you'll have an excellent 3.0 class with 2 elite players, and a couple (presumably) solid 4-year guys. If you lose both, you aren't behind the 8 ball, because you have some backups in your pocket.

But people will be competing for some of those solid role players as well, so many of those will be coin flips as well.

Absolutely. As it should be. And where we talk about getting the balance of APs and prestige right, I think the rubber meets the road in cases where (as an example) you have an A+ having to fend off a C within the division. The C has been all-in, maxed resources and promises, and the A+ is looking for a fall-back, maybe offering a start late trying to compensate for not having any visits to give. This is what battling should look like in a commodity game. Surely there is a point at which any interest from an A+ will knock a low prestige team off; the question is where. It's a valid discussion. But the thought that an A+ team shouldn't have to battle for elite recruits is a non-starter, IMO. It's absurd to think that you can have a commodity game where some players take what they want with no risk. Every valuable asset should require a battle in a healthy game.

I appreciate the information being transmitted in this thread. I begin recruiting next week for the first time and after 50+ seasons, and not participating in beta, I don't have a f'en clue about what is going to happen next week. Is it really true that Seble is gone?

Posted by johnsensing on 9/30/2016 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 9/30/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/30/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/30/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

Yep. With as fun as I think 3.0 is, I think getting the AP/prestige balance right is going to be the key to making it work well in D1

I totally agree. I don't think anyone ever should have gone into this thinking this wasn't going to take some tweaking, including the devs.

Isn't that what beta is for? The exact same thing happened in 2.0 -- they rolled it out before it was ready, and it was a fiasco.

No. That's not what the beta is for because it's simply not the real thing. The world population was a fraction of what the rproduction worlds are and people didn't care about the beta like they would the production worlds. The beta is to get you close, which I feel like it did. Recruiting is definitely not a disaster.

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 3:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 9/30/2016 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Possum's post is very thoughtful, but I'll say this one more time -

if the goal is new user gain and retention then wis is essentially banking on coaches ability to restrain themselves from going all in after the top recruits they in theory have the capacity to get but in reality will lose more often than they win, with the result being lots of empty scholarships or awful last-second backup options.

The old game literally required you to build a dynasty slowly and work your way up. The promise of "everyone has a chance" is a double-edged sword I don't think people are going to have the patience or willingness to continue paying for.

I think you are overvaluing the "everyone has a chance" mantra. It is still far too early to see how all this will shake out. IMO, this system has opened up more possible strategies that can lead to success. I think we are confusing the idea that what worked before will no longer work with the idea that now there is no skill involved. I see it as that there is even more skilled involved now, it just has to be implemented in new ways. I love the fact that everyone is on here trying to exchange information about battles and trying to figure out the new system. There was PLENTY about the old system we didn't know either and tons of people who argue on here about their guess as to how certain things were calculated.

I do believe it is true that WIS has TEMPORARILY evened the playing field, but I still believe that the coaches who were good before will be the best again. Or at least, the things that made a good coach before will still make a good coach now. I still think you will see dynasties and people certainly having to work hard for a significant period of time to work their way up. It's way too early to tell, but we'll see. For example, what about the random mid-major that does sign a 5 star guy but has to take some pretty bad recruits also in order to do that. Will the be an effective strategy? Who knows- but one thing is for sure, that was impossible to try before now.

I know no one did, but if you ask me- right now, this game is WAY more exciting than it ever has been .

EDIT: Keep in mind- this is after losing my first big maxed out battle (5 star SF Loyd Clark in Tark - signed by C+ Iowa State over B+ Arkansas) to a school that would have had no chance at that recruit in the old system. I was ****** at first, but in a way- it's exciting to see. I've been also trying to determine what roll the RNG and APs played in this decision. I love that it will take some time to figure this out.

The coaches who are loving the new game all in their own way are rallying around the everyone has a chance mantra. Some use words like fun, some say unpredictable, less deterministic, or exciting. But it's all the same, and the average new owner likely won't be able to keep from striving for that "exciting" feeling and they'll crash and burn.

That's just incorrect. There are coaches who are rallying around the everyone has a chance theory, but certainly not all. And if the average new owner crashes and burns, it'll be just like 2.0 - which is what you want. So, at worst, you get what you want and, at best, we get an more new coaches.

Know your facts before you claim to know what I want - I am very clearly on record as stating 2.0 needed significant changes and much improvement.

It is NOT a coin flip .. I wish you guys would stop saying that.

A coin flip is 50% / 50% with nothing modifying the possibility.

The person with the most effort gets the highest shot of getting a recruit .. other people who are Very High also have a good chance. People with High have a lower chance. If it boils down to 60% for Team A and 30 % for Team B and 10% for Team C .. based on effort, that is not a freaking coin flip. Any more than a 95 PER / 95 SPD / 95 BH guy might have a 70% chance of hitting a 3 pt shoot while a Center with 3 PER might have a 5% chance is a coin flip. Sometimes the Center hits a 3 point shot ... sometimes the 10% team wins. But most of the time they don't.

We get it .. some of you don't like that. Some of us do. Because, probability works and I like probability. That is why I play the game in the first place.

According to the Dev Chat ... 3% of battle signings went to High teams ... that means 97% when to Very High teams. How the ^&^&% is that a coin flip?

There is a high probability that I don't like Coin Flip Dynasty.

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 7:49:00 PM (view original):
There is a high probability that I don't like Coin Flip Dynasty.

And I don't like high taxes. But I pay them.

Posted by hughesjr on 9/30/2016 7:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 7:49:00 PM (view original):
There is a high probability that I don't like Coin Flip Dynasty.

And I don't like high taxes. But I pay them.

That post probably made sense in your mind when you typed it.

Posted by hughesjr on 9/30/2016 7:46:00 PM (view original):
It is NOT a coin flip .. I wish you guys would stop saying that.

A coin flip is 50% / 50% with nothing modifying the possibility.

The person with the most effort gets the highest shot of getting a recruit .. other people who are Very High also have a good chance. People with High have a lower chance. If it boils down to 60% for Team A and 30 % for Team B and 10% for Team C .. based on effort, that is not a freaking coin flip. Any more than a 95 PER / 95 SPD / 95 BH guy might have a 70% chance of hitting a 3 pt shoot while a Center with 3 PER might have a 5% chance is a coin flip. Sometimes the Center hits a 3 point shot ... sometimes the 10% team wins. But most of the time they don't.

We get it .. some of you don't like that. Some of us do. Because, probability works and I like probability. That is why I play the game in the first place.

According to the Dev Chat ... 3% of battle signings went to High teams ... that means 97% when to Very High teams. How the ^&^&% is that a coin flip?

The 3% stat was an eye-roller for me.

There are two possibilities there:
1) The 3% number is not accurate.
2) The 3% number is accurate, in which case it's such a remote possibility for a high to win that they shouldn't even be bothering allowing it. It'll always feel like a bug.

The dev chat felt like Tim Tebow trying to explain an NFL playbook.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 8:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/30/2016 7:46:00 PM (view original):
It is NOT a coin flip .. I wish you guys would stop saying that.

A coin flip is 50% / 50% with nothing modifying the possibility.

The person with the most effort gets the highest shot of getting a recruit .. other people who are Very High also have a good chance. People with High have a lower chance. If it boils down to 60% for Team A and 30 % for Team B and 10% for Team C .. based on effort, that is not a freaking coin flip. Any more than a 95 PER / 95 SPD / 95 BH guy might have a 70% chance of hitting a 3 pt shoot while a Center with 3 PER might have a 5% chance is a coin flip. Sometimes the Center hits a 3 point shot ... sometimes the 10% team wins. But most of the time they don't.

We get it .. some of you don't like that. Some of us do. Because, probability works and I like probability. That is why I play the game in the first place.

According to the Dev Chat ... 3% of battle signings went to High teams ... that means 97% when to Very High teams. How the ^&^&% is that a coin flip?

The 3% stat was an eye-roller for me.

There are two possibilities there:
1) The 3% number is not accurate.
2) The 3% number is accurate, in which case it's such a remote possibility for a high to win that they shouldn't even be bothering allowing it. It'll always feel like a bug.

Anecdotally from other worlds and glancing through Tarks top 100 signings it is more like 50/50 or 60/40.....definitely not 97/3.