Posted by p6453 on 11/12/2016 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/12/2016 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Geez, I address the game and y'all attack me like that? Go back to Virginia Beach.

For those who missed it, here is the false dichotomy I addressed: "if you agree the goal is realism (which I think most people playing this game are looking for), then you have to give those who have EEs (yes, even multiple EEs) a legitimate chance to replace all of them, because that's what happens in real life. If you don't care about realism, which is fine, would you then agree that EEs should be eliminated altogether?"

Now let's drop the personal attacks and talk about the game, okay?

There was no attack on my part, just another plea for you to stop being bitter and hateful. If you consider the "troll" comment an attack than you'd be wrong...you troll every thread. And ultimately ruin those threads as well.
Regardless...
I'm finished trying to make the Forums a better place. It's not worth it anymore to sit here and read your garbage spewing on here. I've done my time in this game and have nothing to prove, especially to someone who hasn't won a tourney game yet. Sure, you'll come back with some witty, yet pithy comment yet it will remain unanswered on my part. I'm done.

NoSpudNovember

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/12/2016 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Geez, I address the game and y'all attack me like that? Go back to Virginia Beach.

For those who missed it, here is the false dichotomy I addressed: "if you agree the goal is realism (which I think most people playing this game are looking for), then you have to give those who have EEs (yes, even multiple EEs) a legitimate chance to replace all of them, because that's what happens in real life. If you don't care about realism, which is fine, would you then agree that EEs should be eliminated altogether?"

Now let's drop the personal attacks and talk about the game, okay?

I disagree it's a false dichotomy - when Duke had Okafor/Winslow/Jones all go pro in the same year, they absolutely were able to replace them, and Kentucky does this sort of thing yearly. But you never answered my question, Spud - given that "playability trumps real life," whatever that means, would you agree that EEs should just be scrapped in the interests of playability?

And I wish I shared your faith that WIS management is monitoring this issue and will correctly make any needed fixes. My experience is they're months late and dollars short when they deign to do anything.

Spud completely dominates any forum he chooses to participate in. It's rather fascinating to watch how skillfully he does this.

Spud, I never agree with you on anything, but I have to tip my cap for how completely you've taken over this place.

"would you agree that EEs should just be scrapped in the interests of playability?"

Not at all. It creates an interesting feature to the game, and helps stir the standings at the top (also known as increasing competition). Most of the coaches with EE's are quietly going about replacing them.

You try to defend a false dichotomy, but unsuccessfully. It is still there. Here is the dichotomy you propose: (a) then you have to give those who have EEs (yes, even multiple EEs) a legitimate chance to replace all of them or (b) "If you don't care about realism, which is fine, would you then agree that EEs should be eliminated altogether?" Those would not be the only possibilities even if you were to accept either of them as reasonable. I care about simulating real life here, but that certainly doesn't require making it easy to replace EE's just because some people think a couple of RL programs do that. Likewise, even if I didn't care about realism that doesn't require eliminating EE's altogether.

A sufficient number of D1 coaches are coping with EE's to cause one to believe no adjustment may be necessary. A loud but small minority populates the forums and, as pkoopman observed in another thread today, don't seem to be willing or able to learn the new recruiting. Learn, leave, or whatever.

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/12/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
"would you agree that EEs should just be scrapped in the interests of playability?"

Not at all. It creates an interesting feature to the game, and helps stir the standings at the top (also known as increasing competition). Most of the coaches with EE's are quietly going about replacing them.

You try to defend a false dichotomy, but unsuccessfully. It is still there. Here is the dichotomy you propose: (a) then you have to give those who have EEs (yes, even multiple EEs) a legitimate chance to replace all of them or (b) "If you don't care about realism, which is fine, would you then agree that EEs should be eliminated altogether?" Those would not be the only possibilities even if you were to accept either of them as reasonable. I care about simulating real life here, but that certainly doesn't require making it easy to replace EE's just because some people think a couple of RL programs do that. Likewise, even if I didn't care about realism that doesn't require eliminating EE's altogether.

A sufficient number of D1 coaches are coping with EE's to cause one to believe no adjustment may be necessary. A loud but small minority populates the forums and, as pkoopman observed in another thread today, don't seem to be willing or able to learn the new recruiting. Learn, leave, or whatever.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "dichotomy" - I wasn't trying to set up a binary choice. I was asking if you cared about realism, and if not, whether you wanted to get rid of EEs. You claim to care about realism, but only to an extent, yet you don't want to get rid of EEs. That's a position - not an intellectually consistent one, in my opinion, but I think at least understand your position.

That said, you're building a strawman here by imputing that I and others want to make it "easy" to replace EEs. I think a more accurate summary of my position (and, I believe, most of those who have posted on this issue, contra your claim to be representing some sort of silent majority) is that coaches who have unexpected EEs should have a fair opportunity to replace that EE. Right now, I do not believe those coaches do. I won't repeat the potential ways to resolve that issue (we both know what they are - probably the most equitable is a 12 or 24 hour "no-signing" period at the start of the 2nd session) , but I believe they can be easily implemented, with the happy byproduct of increasing realism, which presumably should be the goal of the game whenever possible, and was one of the stated goals of 3.0 in the first place.

I also think your opinion is being colored here because you haven't had an unexpected EE (or, it appears, any EEs). You might feel differently if you'd had an unexpected EE, and had your 2nd session targets sign before you could even unlock scholarships.

"I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "dichotomy" - I wasn't trying to set up a binary choice." Actually, I do understand "dichotomy" and I did read your post as an either - or proposition. I guess it just happens that I don't buy either end of your suggestion. BTW, I don't think you understand my position as well as you think. There is nothing intellectually inconsistent about liking realism but still feeling that playability trumps realism where the two are in conflict.

"That said, you're building a strawman here by imputing that I and others want to make it "easy" to replace EEs." Okay, you may not be asking that it be easy. I'll accept that. But I think you would have to admit, if you have followed the discussions in the forums, that there is a degree of what can only be called outrage that top teams cannot stock a stable of EE's as easily in 3.0 as they became accustomed to doing in 2.0. Call it entitlement, call it easy or indemnity or assured or whatever, but it certainly exists.

Posted by vandydave on 11/10/2016 9:59:00 PM (view original):
No, it is ongoing. Users are simply having to pay for it now.

As usual, dave...this comment is dead on accurate.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 11/12/2016 11:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/10/2016 9:59:00 PM (view original):
No, it is ongoing. Users are simply having to pay for it now.

As usual, dave...this comment is dead on accurate.

This isn't just hyperbole. The long-term consequences of seble's changes were not tested during beta. That's what you guys are paying to do now.

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/13/2016 12:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 11/12/2016 11:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/10/2016 9:59:00 PM (view original):
No, it is ongoing. Users are simply having to pay for it now.

As usual, dave...this comment is dead on accurate.

This isn't just hyperbole. The long-term consequences of seble's changes were not tested during beta. That's what you guys are paying to do now.

People don't beta test things for years, so this is true for any software upgrade anywhere.. Especially games.

Posted by hughesjr on 11/13/2016 1:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/13/2016 12:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 11/12/2016 11:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 11/10/2016 9:59:00 PM (view original):
No, it is ongoing. Users are simply having to pay for it now.

As usual, dave...this comment is dead on accurate.

This isn't just hyperbole. The long-term consequences of seble's changes were not tested during beta. That's what you guys are paying to do now.

People don't beta test things for years, so this is true for any software upgrade anywhere.. Especially games.

You might not have been involved in the beta. The seasons were accelerated. This would not have required years of testing.

WIS games are always unfinished products. There's no final version, as is the case with most software. But software sold to consumers should be fit for use.

Even when hughesjr sets the matter straight, some people come back and say they don't get it.

They need to make some changes right away.

1. Have ees declare right away.
2. Make vh to vh the only roll possible.
3. Give a 12 hours non-signing period in session 2.
4. Get more late preferences into the game so 2nd period period gets relevant for people changing job.
5. Uncap hv and get it to 30, cv to 2.
6. Get rid of walk-ons penalties cause it's a huge reality... Sometimes we can't recruit in d1.
7. Change job logic, give people more options.

Posted by zorzii on 11/13/2016 12:33:00 PM (view original):
They need to make some changes right away.

1. Have ees declare right away.
2. Make vh to vh the only roll possible.
3. Give a 12 hours non-signing period in session 2.
4. Get more late preferences into the game so 2nd period period gets relevant for people changing job.
5. Uncap hv and get it to 30, cv to 2.
6. Get rid of walk-ons penalties cause it's a huge reality... Sometimes we can't recruit in d1.
7. Change job logic, give people more options.

1 and 3. two solutions to the same problem. try one or the other. don't do both. widespread change have unintended consequences. personally i think just not having signings in the first cycle of the second session may go a long way towards mitigating many issues with EEs and job changes. it's a MUCH smaller tweak. why not try that?

2. what you're asking for is to know LESS. it's nonsense. seble pointed this out in the beta forum. to do this, he would have just made VH and H synonymous, so all you would be losing is knowing if you had a slightly higher odds or not. i don't get the support for this.

4. sure. aren't they already doing this? but i think they should make the late players not sign in session 2 cycle 1.

5. eh. this would also likely have widespread consequences. it increases the ease of signing local recruits--in isolated spots, it would make signing the local guys really easy. in congested areas you'd still have multiple teams all-in, just at a higher amount. it would probably eliminate the point of "far from home" preference by giving advantage to teams that can afford to go all in (ie, local teams). it would probably give higher prestige teams more of an edge (maybe not a bad thing), though it also may lead to underdog teams going all in on one player. i'm sure there are more ripples from this--that's just off the top of my head.

sidenote: I don't think we've really seen if the 80 AP limit per player/cycle makes a difference yet. doing that alone essentially increases the value of other recruiting actions, since you can only dump so many AP in now.

6. i could see the logic in this.

7. aren't they working on this now?

Bath : second session still need a period of non-signing for teams changing jobs. AP cap gets more battles and more random. HVS cap is designed to fit the budget for one recruit, when a team goes all-in. It is meant so 1 scholly team or two can compete and max out their effort while a team with more schollies won't be able to use more hvs to get them out of contention. All decisions made have been to get more rolls and random into the while merit and strategy is less important. As for h to vh, i feel h wins too often and it wasn't designed to be like this. Luck...

I just disagree with most of your assertions, zorzii. re: VH vs H, you're not making it less random doing what you suggest--you're just hiding the randomness by changing the label. seble stated this, and on that point i 100% agree with him.

anyway this has been debated and/or complained about in so many threads, i'm not going to rehash.