Posted by tbird9423 on 9/27/2012 7:25:00 PM (view original):
The one thing I would like to see is a limit of only one team per world, period.  That seems to be a much bigger deal and issue than table talk on a particuliar recruit.  I actually agree that the table talk is wrong but I think having it would add to the game and speed up the learning curve big time.  Some guys might get "poached" but as long as there isn't intent to hurt another team, I don't see it as being as wrong as some are stating.  It always comes back to the real world/sim issue as in rl, even coaches that haven't recruited a state are going to hear about other studs and unique situations.  I think we are trying to make recruiting too much of a bubble that is unrealistic and again, hurts new players.
  I keep hearing about these issues while at the same time guys state, I don't have much overlap on my multiple team world with FSS and I would say "Much" is more than a single recruit so I am hopeful that before CSS cracks down on potentially enjoyable and educating pieces of the sim, they focus on the bigger cheaters.  
  What about a general rule that if the information is available for free, its fair game and if it would cost money  to learn (FSS), its off limits?  Would anyone be on board with that?
 

are you saying something like... borrowing from the original example, but a little different... if you are recruiting and you are in a battle, and notice the guy's players are undefended and hes spent a lot against you already - posting in your CC - "syracuse is going after player X pretty hard, and his other players are weakly defended. others would be wise to pick one up" - would be ok? the information is available for free.

Posted by tbird9423 on 9/27/2012 7:25:00 PM (view original):
The one thing I would like to see is a limit of only one team per world, period.  That seems to be a much bigger deal and issue than table talk on a particuliar recruit.  I actually agree that the table talk is wrong but I think having it would add to the game and speed up the learning curve big time.  Some guys might get "poached" but as long as there isn't intent to hurt another team, I don't see it as being as wrong as some are stating.  It always comes back to the real world/sim issue as in rl, even coaches that haven't recruited a state are going to hear about other studs and unique situations.  I think we are trying to make recruiting too much of a bubble that is unrealistic and again, hurts new players.
  I keep hearing about these issues while at the same time guys state, I don't have much overlap on my multiple team world with FSS and I would say "Much" is more than a single recruit so I am hopeful that before CSS cracks down on potentially enjoyable and educating pieces of the sim, they focus on the bigger cheaters.  
  What about a general rule that if the information is available for free, its fair game and if it would cost money  to learn (FSS), its off limits?  Would anyone be on board with that?
 

And how would you suggest applying the rule to limit only one team per world?  One team per world per credit card?  One team per user address?  Wouldn't work.  Example, a husband and wife or father and son combo that want to play against each other.  Gonna be the same address and probably both gonna go on the same credit card.  Maybe there are coaches that claim this is the situation but really one person runs both teams and uses one to cheat for the other (and I'm sure there are, let's be realistic about it).  Who is to know?  And who is to know if it is a legitimate situation with two different people?

I can pretty much assure you that as long as there isn't any blatant cheating, WIS isn't going to have an issue with it since they're making money off the two teams.

And I would also hope that just because a person may have two teams in a single world that you're not automatically assuming that they are cheating.  We've been through this before, a number of times, with people giving several different reasons why they may have multiple teams in one world. 

Posted by gillispie on 9/27/2012 5:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 9/27/2012 4:29:00 PM (view original):
I think the degree of cheating needs to be taken into account as well...I want this game played 100% pure like all of you guys, I just don't think Table Talk, Coach board intimidation and FSS sharing are that big of a deal...now if we're conspiring to throw games, that's another story....but having multiple teams in the same world...please..

again, its all ******* and moaning without anything to back it up until you can explain where and how to draw the line in the sand. FSS sharing, if out of control, can have a huge impact on d3 and d2 - coaches often recruit only 10 or 20%, and pretty much never as much as 50%, of recruits - because they don't have the money. they'd LOVE to have the data. now, if 1 coach asked another for 1 players' FSS data, how is that different than 2, how is 2 different from 3... etc, etc, until you get to 10 coaches colluding together to each scout 1/10th and share it all? that is a HUGE advantage and nobody wants that to be allowed. are you suggesting it should be allowed?

you simply fail to grasp that this kind of random hand-waving is 100% useless to anyone and everyone. CS needs to put out a policy. this policy would ideally be more clear and concise than what it is today, but its still infinitely more clear and concise than what you are suggesting here. i challenge you to propose something concrete! i agree, the degree needs to be a factor in punishment - but levels of punishment come AFTER you draw the line. where do you draw the line, and more importantly, HOW do you draw it? how do you determine what is over the line and what is not?

i can appreciate, and definitely agree to some extent, with the sentiment that some of the fun can be taken away by being too restrictive. but that doesn't mean CS can just arbitrarily decide what is OK and what is not. nor can the coaches here, and CS gets their queue on fair play from coaches. thats why i am trying to push you to really try to say something concrete. its easy to hand wave. thats the point. fair play guidelines are NOT easy and thats really my point - fault others for their opinions only after you can state your own!!

FSS free to everyone...problem solved...my solution...

Posted by colonels19 on 9/27/2012 11:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 9/27/2012 5:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 9/27/2012 4:29:00 PM (view original):
I think the degree of cheating needs to be taken into account as well...I want this game played 100% pure like all of you guys, I just don't think Table Talk, Coach board intimidation and FSS sharing are that big of a deal...now if we're conspiring to throw games, that's another story....but having multiple teams in the same world...please..

again, its all ******* and moaning without anything to back it up until you can explain where and how to draw the line in the sand. FSS sharing, if out of control, can have a huge impact on d3 and d2 - coaches often recruit only 10 or 20%, and pretty much never as much as 50%, of recruits - because they don't have the money. they'd LOVE to have the data. now, if 1 coach asked another for 1 players' FSS data, how is that different than 2, how is 2 different from 3... etc, etc, until you get to 10 coaches colluding together to each scout 1/10th and share it all? that is a HUGE advantage and nobody wants that to be allowed. are you suggesting it should be allowed?

you simply fail to grasp that this kind of random hand-waving is 100% useless to anyone and everyone. CS needs to put out a policy. this policy would ideally be more clear and concise than what it is today, but its still infinitely more clear and concise than what you are suggesting here. i challenge you to propose something concrete! i agree, the degree needs to be a factor in punishment - but levels of punishment come AFTER you draw the line. where do you draw the line, and more importantly, HOW do you draw it? how do you determine what is over the line and what is not?

i can appreciate, and definitely agree to some extent, with the sentiment that some of the fun can be taken away by being too restrictive. but that doesn't mean CS can just arbitrarily decide what is OK and what is not. nor can the coaches here, and CS gets their queue on fair play from coaches. thats why i am trying to push you to really try to say something concrete. its easy to hand wave. thats the point. fair play guidelines are NOT easy and thats really my point - fault others for their opinions only after you can state your own!!

FSS free to everyone...problem solved...my solution...

Man, I could have sworn at one point Seble was saying that he was really considering doing that (the free FSS).  Wonder if it was in one of the developer chats or if it was when he was popping into the threads awhile back.  I know I remember him mentioning that.

Posted by ryrun on 9/27/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 9/27/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
You guys want WIS to police something that they're not going to police, or at the very best with a slap on the wrist...you're setting unrealistic expectations, and expecting the company to come through like they never have before...come to terms with it already.

Do you realize how mind numbingly simple it would be for them to add a small scanning function to the "post" button click on CC's?  All they'd have to do is enter 10-20 keywords to flag for review, like "high-high", "fss", "wots", etc and scan the posts that are returned.  They could even up the laziness and only return the results while the world is actively recruiting, so they'd likely only have a handful of posts to scan daily.  It's so simple, yet they don't do it for some reason.  

I don't think something that simple is unrealistic to expect, and if it is, then that's just sad.

Then, for example, say I've already signed my players and I mention "I really like this guy I signed, he has high-highs in XYZ ... but recruiting is still going on for others ... but that information couldn't possibly effect a thing in someone else's recruiting.  Its information about a player that is no longer available by a person who has no slots available to recruit.

Posted by arssanguinus on 9/27/2012 11:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryrun on 9/27/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 9/27/2012 2:14:00 PM (view original):
You guys want WIS to police something that they're not going to police, or at the very best with a slap on the wrist...you're setting unrealistic expectations, and expecting the company to come through like they never have before...come to terms with it already.

Do you realize how mind numbingly simple it would be for them to add a small scanning function to the "post" button click on CC's?  All they'd have to do is enter 10-20 keywords to flag for review, like "high-high", "fss", "wots", etc and scan the posts that are returned.  They could even up the laziness and only return the results while the world is actively recruiting, so they'd likely only have a handful of posts to scan daily.  It's so simple, yet they don't do it for some reason.  

I don't think something that simple is unrealistic to expect, and if it is, then that's just sad.

Then, for example, say I've already signed my players and I mention "I really like this guy I signed, he has high-highs in XYZ ... but recruiting is still going on for others ... but that information couldn't possibly effect a thing in someone else's recruiting.  Its information about a player that is no longer available by a person who has no slots available to recruit.

It's a scanning function for a review process - this wouldn't matter.  The post would be flagged for review, someone would look at it and in five seconds see that it doesn't matter.  You could hire an intern and just have that be one of his many responsibilities for 10-20 minutes/day (or I'm sure there are plenty of people working at WIS that have a fairly empty plate given the lack of updates).