Posted by coach_billyg on 9/8/2010 3:16:00 PM (view original):
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? 

Billy and Dalt-

3 periods, with recruits predetermined to  sign at different periods, is an effort to deal with the new way players sign.  Say you didn't get player A in round 1 of recruiting, you can adjust your strategy in round b of signings.  

A random element (not random chance mind you) encourages battles- multiple teams to hop on and fight for players- but would not destroy strategy.    The top teams still get the best players (most often)  They just are not guaranteed the best players.

Top teams now have 8 top players, not 12.  Freshman make a larger impact, because teams aren't packed with 12 studs.

Anyone who plays this game well at DI (where I play) either implicitly or explicitly understands game theory- and once you do- recruiting becomes relatively boring.  Sure, I never know exactly how the recruits are going to break and who is going to target what.   But I basically know from the start who I can beat in a recruiting battle and who I can't.   I personally think recruiting is probably the best part of the game.   But it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a revamp. 

Furthermore- and let this be a note to Seble- randomness aka variability is at the heart of the game.   It's good BECAUSE of that, not despite of it.   And if you eliminate all of it- or most of it- the slot players will take their quarters and go home.

That said- it doesn't mean my recruiting idea is a good one- but a random element in recruiting doesn't mean strategy is erased- in fact- I think NOT know exactly who I can beat and who I can't beat- will not only give us slot players another shot of adrenaline- but adds an additional layer of strategy.   We just have to incorporate that element of chance in our gameplay.   I don't know the outcome- and because I don't, I'm more addicted.

To Billy's point- I'm not opposed to making probability relevant in  only closer battles.  Let's say when your probability goes above 80, you automatically win...  that sounds good.

 

Posted by daalter on 9/8/2010 10:56:00 PM (view original):
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.

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.

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/9/2010 10:57:00 AM (view original):
Please outline for me exactly how it would hurt.  I'm serious, I do not see the harm.  If possible give me a couple of specific scenarios.  Help me see the light that everyone else in this thread is seeing.

Posted by acn24 on 9/9/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/9/2010 10:57:00 AM (view original):
Please outline for me exactly how it would hurt.  I'm serious, I do not see the harm.  If possible give me a couple of specific scenarios.  Help me see the light that everyone else in this thread is seeing.

There is very little gray area in recruiting as there is.  Recruiting generally comes down to money, distance and prestige.  We can already get a ballpark figure on how much money a school has, we know how far away they are from a recruit and we know their costs and we know the prestige of the schools in question.  If you have the experience, or the initiative to reach out to a ver or scour the forums, and can do basic math you can probably correctly predict 95% of battles.  The other 5% come from the uncertainty of relative value of visits, the relative worth of prestige andvantages (and the exact prestige, low A vs high A- is clearly much different that high A vs. low A-) and possibly considering credit.  Removing one of those variables means you can probably start correctly predicting 98+% of all battles, which will probably only serve to reduce the incidence.

Posted by girt25 on 9/9/2010 9:02:00 AM (view original):
Bottom line: I think we agree that HD could certainly benefit from more transparency in certain areas and reaching out more to new coaches to make sure they are comfortable and understand what's going on. We just happen to disagree on whether the HV/CV thing should be one of those transparent items.

I don't think it's the end of the world, but I think it would hurt a lot more than it would help.

Posted by acn24 on 9/9/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/9/2010 10:57:00 AM (view original):
Please outline for me exactly how it would hurt.  I'm serious, I do not see the harm.  If possible give me a couple of specific scenarios.  Help me see the light that everyone else in this thread is seeing.

There is very little gray area in recruiting as there is.  Recruiting generally comes down to money, distance and prestige.  We can already get a ballpark figure on how much money a school has, we know how far away they are from a recruit and we know their costs and we know the prestige of the schools in question.  If you have the experience, or the initiative to reach out to a ver or scour the forums, and can do basic math you can probably correctly predict 95% of battles.  The other 5% come from the uncertainty of relative value of visits, the relative worth of prestige andvantages (and the exact prestige, low A vs high A- is clearly much different that high A vs. low A-) and possibly considering credit.  Removing one of those variables means you can probably start correctly predicting 98+% of all battles, which will probably only serve to reduce the incidence.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 9/9/2010 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 9/9/2010 9:02:00 AM (view original):
Bottom line: I think we agree that HD could certainly benefit from more transparency in certain areas and reaching out more to new coaches to make sure they are comfortable and understand what's going on. We just happen to disagree on whether the HV/CV thing should be one of those transparent items.

I don't think it's the end of the world, but I think it would hurt a lot more than it would help.

Actually, I'm not sure I even agree with the initial part about more transparency in certain areas. I think HD has achieved the right amount of transparency already.

One of the assumptions I hear from people who say HD should be more transparent is that it'll even the playing field for newbies vs veterans, which is supposed to make newbies happier with the product. I don't agree with that. I think the really fun part for new guys is slowly learning the things that the vets already know. I didn't learn about dropdowns until about my 5th season, and I wasn't successful at a pulldown until quite a while after that (with some spectacular recruiting fails along the way). I wasn't bitter about that - in fact, I felt like I'd earned / accomplished something by paying attention to other coaches and trying different things on my own. If you're the type of player who's going to stick around long-term, chances are that kind of continuous learning and evolution appeals to you. The newbies who don't like it that way, or feel it's patently unfair that vets know "secrets" they don't, are probably not going to stick around anyway. And WIS shouldn't give away more transparency to appease the short-term folks at the expense of a richer gaming experience.

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/9/2010 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhansalid00 on 9/9/2010 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 9/9/2010 9:02:00 AM (view original):
Bottom line: I think we agree that HD could certainly benefit from more transparency in certain areas and reaching out more to new coaches to make sure they are comfortable and understand what's going on. We just happen to disagree on whether the HV/CV thing should be one of those transparent items.

I don't think it's the end of the world, but I think it would hurt a lot more than it would help.

Actually, I'm not sure I even agree with the initial part about more transparency in certain areas. I think HD has achieved the right amount of transparency already.

One of the assumptions I hear from people who say HD should be more transparent is that it'll even the playing field for newbies vs veterans, which is supposed to make newbies happier with the product. I don't agree with that. I think the really fun part for new guys is slowly learning the things that the vets already know. I didn't learn about dropdowns until about my 5th season, and I wasn't successful at a pulldown until quite a while after that (with some spectacular recruiting fails along the way). I wasn't bitter about that - in fact, I felt like I'd earned / accomplished something by paying attention to other coaches and trying different things on my own. If you're the type of player who's going to stick around long-term, chances are that kind of continuous learning and evolution appeals to you. The newbies who don't like it that way, or feel it's patently unfair that vets know "secrets" they don't, are probably not going to stick around anyway. And WIS shouldn't give away more transparency to appease the short-term folks at the expense of a richer gaming experience.

The reason they are short-term folks is that their desires are not being met -- it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I understand the appeal of a game that slowly reveals itself over time.  Personally I think that type of game experience is better suited to an RPG than a sports simulation.

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/9/2010 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 9/9/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 9/9/2010 10:57:00 AM (view original):
Please outline for me exactly how it would hurt.  I'm serious, I do not see the harm.  If possible give me a couple of specific scenarios.  Help me see the light that everyone else in this thread is seeing.

There is very little gray area in recruiting as there is.  Recruiting generally comes down to money, distance and prestige.  We can already get a ballpark figure on how much money a school has, we know how far away they are from a recruit and we know their costs and we know the prestige of the schools in question.  If you have the experience, or the initiative to reach out to a ver or scour the forums, and can do basic math you can probably correctly predict 95% of battles.  The other 5% come from the uncertainty of relative value of visits, the relative worth of prestige andvantages (and the exact prestige, low A vs high A- is clearly much different that high A vs. low A-) and possibly considering credit.  Removing one of those variables means you can probably start correctly predicting 98+% of all battles, which will probably only serve to reduce the incidence.

I couldn't disagree more with the statement "there is very little gray area in recruiting as it is".  Prestige is a much bigger factor than CV:HV ratio.  Even if you have the prestige multiple figured out there's at least a third of a grade range.  Add to that that you don't know how much effort the other guy has put in to a particular battle vs other battles, FSS, other recruits and there is plenty of uncertainty.  I haven't even mentioned considering credit.

Now contrast that to the fact that CS has told us exactly how SIMAI recruits.  That knowledge is much more damaging than knowing the relative worth of CVs to HVs.

Edit:  Forgot to ask the follow up:  let's assume you are right and now battles are predicted at a 98% rate instead of a 95% rate.  What is the harm done?  What's the ideal rate in your opinion?