mccabemi - my problem with that is simple. people hate when randomness is inserted in a way that has a major effect with very small chance. it just serves to remove control. like injuries during the NT. anyway, if some little school fights an a+ for a recruit, giving them a 5% chance to win is fairly ridiculous. what i could see is, if the battle is close, make it a probability - once a school has a significant advantage, they just win outright. also, why the need to restructure the periods of recruiting, with 3 signing periods? 

Posted by mccabemi on 9/8/2010 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

i think that is a pretty reasonable viewpoint. i guess i would be fine with it either way - but recruiting would have to be redesigned to match the philosophy that recruiting should be transparent, for a level footing between vets and new players. you would have to disclose or remove things like, how do you know if a guy is going pro, booster gifts, how to figure out when guys will drop down, how to figure out how much it will cost to pull a player down, how sims recruit, and so on. quite an overhaul, it seems to me, which is probably why i favor not changing it - i think the current system is pretty good.

Now you have hit some interesting points here.  For example, CS has given us a pretty good idea of how SIMs recruit.  Why has that information been shared but not the CV:HV ratio?  Pull downs are another thing -- I was playing for quite some time, read the forums regularly and never even heard of pull downs until about 30 seasons into the game (I have one other alias).  If that is a legitimate part of the game, why isn't it in the documentation?  I'm not really into the "secret alchemists club" a lot of players seem to want; I think it detracts from the overall health of the game.

Rececruiting change: 
1) Recruiting effort should equate to getting a larger chance of signing a player (not DEFINITELY signing a player)
2) The more effort you put in, the more ping pong balls you get- and chance at signing the player.
3) At the end of signings, you draw the ping pong balls to see if you sign the player.
4) Only the top 4 teams get to have ping pong balls in the basket.  If your the 5th team, you get no balls, and no chance of signing.
5) There are three signing periods. 
6) The third signing period can either be done how it is now, or you can make that ping pong style as well.

Impact: gives small teams chance to get big guns (although not a very large chance- and they take on considerable risk to have a chance at all).
              increases strategy- will you try to sign all your players early?  Will you wait until round 3?  Will you put all effort in 1 player or spread the wealth? 
              makes distance play less of a factor (although still a significant one).   
             

mcc, I appreciate the creativity and thinking outside the box, but I've gotta say, I hate the idea. Sorry.

There are more than enough random factors like this in HD (the entire sim engine basically works the way you describe when it comes to the outcome of games, deciding early entries, etc). The last thing I'd want to see is for this to be incorporated into recruiting. If you win a battle for a recruit, you should win the battle. Period. Not ... you won, so you have a better chance of winning. Among other things, losing out on a recruit in DI is already extremely painful (you can basically never find a reasonable alternative), I wouldn't want to put any part of that to random chance.

Not only that, but I would go so far as to say that everything in your "Impact" section either already exsists or I vehemently disagree with.

-Small schools already have the opportunity to take a risk and shoot for a higher-end player. And sometimes they get them. So this wouldn't be a new element to the game.
-I think this significantly decreases strategy, not increases it. The elements you mentioned (spending early, waiting awhile, going all in on one player) already exist in the current game. This would just add luck and uncertainty to them.

It's basically a blind auction. Honestly, if this is what recruiting was like, I likely wouldn't play HD.

Sorry that this is so harsh, because I honestly do appreciate the new idea ... I just happen to really, really dislike this one.

Posted by mccabemi on 9/8/2010 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

i think that is a pretty reasonable viewpoint. i guess i would be fine with it either way - but recruiting would have to be redesigned to match the philosophy that recruiting should be transparent, for a level footing between vets and new players. you would have to disclose or remove things like, how do you know if a guy is going pro, booster gifts, how to figure out when guys will drop down, how to figure out how much it will cost to pull a player down, how sims recruit, and so on. quite an overhaul, it seems to me, which is probably why i favor not changing it - i think the current system is pretty good.

Now you have hit some interesting points here.  For example, CS has given us a pretty good idea of how SIMs recruit.  Why has that information been shared but not the CV:HV ratio?  Pull downs are another thing -- I was playing for quite some time, read the forums regularly and never even heard of pull downs until about 30 seasons into the game (I have one other alias).  If that is a legitimate part of the game, why isn't it in the documentation?  I'm not really into the "secret alchemists club" a lot of players seem to want; I think it detracts from the overall health of the game.

Rececruiting change: 
1) Recruiting effort should equate to getting a larger chance of signing a player (not DEFINITELY signing a player)
2) The more effort you put in, the more ping pong balls you get- and chance at signing the player.
3) At the end of signings, you draw the ping pong balls to see if you sign the player.
4) Only the top 4 teams get to have ping pong balls in the basket.  If your the 5th team, you get no balls, and no chance of signing.
5) There are three signing periods. 
6) The third signing period can either be done how it is now, or you can make that ping pong style as well.

Impact: gives small teams chance to get big guns (although not a very large chance- and they take on considerable risk to have a chance at all).
              increases strategy- will you try to sign all your players early?  Will you wait until round 3?  Will you put all effort in 1 player or spread the wealth? 
              makes distance play less of a factor (although still a significant one).   
             

instead of a random factor, i think the player's preferences should just be more of an unknown and carry more weight, if anything

Posted by jetwildcat on 9/8/2010 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):
i don't think the real life argument has any merit here. HD recruiting is nothing like real life.

to me, the "great RL debate" should be broken cleanly. the core sim engine, that takes players and comes up with an outcome, should follow real life as closely as possible. that is really what makes it a basketball sim.  but the rest of the game - how you get those 12 players on a team, through recruiting and practice planning, that should be done to make the game as enjoyable as possible. frankly, the closest we could get to real life in those areas is not close at all. so, why not do what makes the game more enjoyable?

FWIW, i think limiting the number of moves you can make per cycle would be a step towards both realism and potentially, fun. the early recruiting bonus may need to increase if it were implicated, but i digress for now

i would support something like that for sure. i have thought a lot about making my own version of HD and decided i would have done it with a limit on number of moves on a recruit per cycle. i think its a little absurd to give a guy 60 home visits in a period, not that it particularly matters, but i also think it adds strategy if you could only do say 3 visits per cycle, with the more expensive visits slightly less effective. i figure the limit would allow you to spend maybe half your money on a player over all of recruiting, that way, it really is limiting. a mid major could never beat a great school if the great school put as much in as possible but also if a mid major was on a player for some time first, it would make it hard/impossible for a bigger program to catch up. it also serves as an equalizer between # of scholarships.

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 9/8/2010 3:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):
i don't think the real life argument has any merit here. HD recruiting is nothing like real life.

to me, the "great RL debate" should be broken cleanly. the core sim engine, that takes players and comes up with an outcome, should follow real life as closely as possible. that is really what makes it a basketball sim.  but the rest of the game - how you get those 12 players on a team, through recruiting and practice planning, that should be done to make the game as enjoyable as possible. frankly, the closest we could get to real life in those areas is not close at all. so, why not do what makes the game more enjoyable?

FWIW, i think limiting the number of moves you can make per cycle would be a step towards both realism and potentially, fun. the early recruiting bonus may need to increase if it were implicated, but i digress for now

i would support something like that for sure. i have thought a lot about making my own version of HD and decided i would have done it with a limit on number of moves on a recruit per cycle. i think its a little absurd to give a guy 60 home visits in a period, not that it particularly matters, but i also think it adds strategy if you could only do say 3 visits per cycle, with the more expensive visits slightly less effective. i figure the limit would allow you to spend maybe half your money on a player over all of recruiting, that way, it really is limiting. a mid major could never beat a great school if the great school put as much in as possible but also if a mid major was on a player for some time first, it would make it hard/impossible for a bigger program to catch up. it also serves as an equalizer between # of scholarships.

exactly my line of thought.

plus, it would legitimize the "shotgun" method of recruiting...whereas, you need to prepare backup options ahead of time in case you lose a battle. you may also want to get consideration from players considering big schools, as those players may indeed be backups for the big schools themselves.

when da'sean butler was being recruited, apparently his first choice was to go to st. joe's. butler wanted some time, however, to weigh his options...phil martelli couldn't afford to give him that time, as he had other recruits that were willing to sign right away. butler ended up going to WVU, of course. we could never get a situation like this in HD as it is, but with cycle limits it's well within the realm of possibility.

to elaborate further, you could very well have all or most of your recruits considering you also considering other schools as the signing period approaches. it could be very nerve-wracking to go into a signing period knowing you might get only 1 recruit on 4 scholarships at a big school..the tradeoff being the additional euphoria you get when you nail a whole class.

Posted by daalter on 9/8/2010 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

Good news for you: Using funds wisely, prestige and picking battles correctly is already what recruiting comes down to. Score!

Wow thanks for the tip daalter. I had just pulled that out of my *** glad that there is a vet around to confirm it.

BTW, how do you the recruiting battle in the following thread would have gone if my opponent had following conventional wisdom and used HVs?

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=420832&page=1

If he had known the CV:HV ratio would it have gone differently?

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/8/2010 1:07:00 AM (view original):
So your definition of strategy is guesswork?  If you're new to D1 and don't have a large number of battles to analyze, you don't have the data to calculate the odds.  So maybe these novices aren't the same as the novices in D3, but they're still novices to battling.  You also need friends or aliases to get the kind of comparative data to really get a good idea of the ratio.

pay your dues man.  its trial and error and then you figure out what works.  i didn't get my info from anywhere but the school of hard knocks. 

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 9/8/2010 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

Good news for you: Using funds wisely, prestige and picking battles correctly is already what recruiting comes down to. Score!

Wow thanks for the tip daalter. I had just pulled that out of my *** glad that there is a vet around to confirm it.

BTW, how do you the recruiting battle in the following thread would have gone if my opponent had following conventional wisdom and used HVs?

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=420832&page=1

If he had known the CV:HV ratio would it have gone differently?

First of all, calm down, I was being sarcastic.

Second, I'm not saying that there is never a battle where how efficiently you spend your money doesn't come into play. Only that the vast majority of the time, it revolves around the three main points that you had laid out and I agree with. And very, very rarely does it actually come down to a guess.

But that small bit of uncertain element adds a lot of layers to recruiting, and makes it so things aren't completely dumbed down and spoon fed.

Posted by daalter on 9/8/2010 9:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 9/8/2010 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/8/2010 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I would rather recruiting came down to who used their funds the most wisely, who has better prestige, who picked their battles correctly instead of who guessed the CV:HV ratio more accurately.  Removing that kind of randomness makes a game more strategic (consider chess vs monopoly).  Furthermore, it puts beginners and long-time players on a more even footing; apparently many people are against this despite ostensibly being interested in promoting the health of the game.

Now before you jump down my throat, I understand that the effect is not very large in this instance.  And thank you for your opinions.

Good news for you: Using funds wisely, prestige and picking battles correctly is already what recruiting comes down to. Score!

Wow thanks for the tip daalter. I had just pulled that out of my *** glad that there is a vet around to confirm it.

BTW, how do you the recruiting battle in the following thread would have gone if my opponent had following conventional wisdom and used HVs?

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=420832&page=1

If he had known the CV:HV ratio would it have gone differently?

First of all, calm down, I was being sarcastic.

Second, I'm not saying that there is never a battle where how efficiently you spend your money doesn't come into play. Only that the vast majority of the time, it revolves around the three main points that you had laid out and I agree with. And very, very rarely does it actually come down to a guess.

But that small bit of uncertain element adds a lot of layers to recruiting, and makes it so things aren't completely dumbed down and spoon fed.

When you talk down to people they get ****** whether you are using sarcasm or not.

As to your second point, I'm confused if it only "very, very rarely" comes into play how does it add "a lot of layers"?

And "dumbed down" and "spoon fed" are simply code words telling me it is a waste of time to talk to you.  You think the rules of the game should be discovered not disclosed.  Which is a legitimate viewpoint but not one that attracts and retains new players.

Tone is tough on the internet. My initial post was meant purely tongue-in-cheek,sorry if it came across differently.

Something can rarely come into play in a negative way but still have plenty of positive effects. I don't think that's hard to understand or remotely unusual. There are lots of things in HD that fit that bill.

But I'll tell you this: No one bases their opinions more on things like attracting/retaining new players than I do. And while you're certainly allowed to think that this would somehow be central in attracting new users, I can't fathom how that could be the case. There is just no connection. As far as keeping new coaches, I agree that having better explanations and more transparency in some areas would be helpful in that regard, I just don't think is one of them. Do you really think new coaches are leaving because they don't know exactly what the relative difference is between a HV and CV? I would find that astounding.

For all of you advocating limits per visit-- the real issue with that, and reason it probably never should or will be implemented, is very simple. The cycles are too short, and many people don't have time or access to hit every one.

Real Life is enough of a time constraint on recruiting as-is (or should that be the other way around?). No reason to exacerbate it.

Posted by wronoj on 9/9/2010 12:22:00 AM (view original):
For all of you advocating limits per visit-- the real issue with that, and reason it probably never should or will be implemented, is very simple. The cycles are too short, and many people don't have time or access to hit every one.

Real Life is enough of a time constraint on recruiting as-is (or should that be the other way around?). No reason to exacerbate it.

Very good point.

Posted by reinsel on 9/8/2010 10:13:00 AM (view original):
Yeah it is somewhere in there.  No one knows for certain.  Every Lostmyth or Rails or any of the all time greats don't know.  They are probably more knowledgable than me, but Everyone knows it is between 2 and 2.67 I'd say, and beyond that, you can analyze battes, search forums for vets opinions or just go with 2.33 and say, screw it, I am pretty freaking close here, and that is good enough for me.

I personally have gone with the latter.  I use 2.33:1 , which pretty much means HV until you hit 360 miles.  If you think its more like 2.5:1, then use CV's at 210+ miles. 

Really there is only 1 strategic question here, and that is what to use between 200 and 350 miles.  0-200 is HV 360+ is CV.

If you want to be even more dodgy about it, just use 50:50 in that gap and you'll do fine.

I found this (para 3) comment particularly interesting.  While I don't claim to have any remote idea of what the exact ratio is, I recall asking Admin many moons ago whether I would be better served by using 3K worth of HVs or 3K worth of CVs in any particular situation.  I thought Admin told me there was some sort of slightly higher multiple with the CV option, though he didn't reveal anything beyond that general statement.  But if that were true, then why would reinsel's breakdown above be relevant?  In other words, why wouldn't a CV always be more effective?

Because the relative costs of hv's and cv's change depending on what distance you're recruiting from.