Honestly, benis, what you're suggesting is a really dumb way for a D- to challenge an A in his backyard with exactly one VG in the bag(and it wasn't distance). Dump max resources on the guy, cross your fingers and hope you can find another option if you're beaten. No thanks.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:21:00 AM (view original):
But your last sentence actually hits on your real intention. You'd like a chance to sign highly rated players against high prestige teams while still maintaining the ability of playing it safe instead of taking a real risk.

At least be honest with what you'd prefer and don't make it about high prestiges beating up on the little guys because those days are gone.

Don't tell me what I'm saying. It's right there in black and white for anyone to read.

Well you are being disingenuous about what type of system you prefer.

You'd like to be able to compete with teams with a 3 prestige grades higher than you. ->What you said in 1st post.
You'd also like to do so while not ruining your ability to get other players. -> what you said in later posts.

Like I said, be honest.

Honest is what I posted.

Most/some/a few of us like the opportunity to go after the big boys. I/we know that we can't win if they really want the guy but, as long as I/we have a chance, I/we are happy.

In this particular case, I put myself in position to win outright in the first signing cycle. After that, I just wanted to stay in the game without wrecking the rest of my class in the process.

Nothing here is confusing. So why are you confused?

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:30:00 AM (view original):
In a H vs VH battle with differing prestiges there can be four different outcomes: higher prestige is VH and wins, higher prestige is VH and loses, higher prestige is H and wins, higher prestige is H and loses. The case you're talking about here is where the higher prestige is H and wins. I looked through the top 100 right now in Wooden and even though it's a small dataset I think it shows that you're looking at this incorrectly. Out of 14 instances, the case you're talking about happened one time, where the higher prestige team won the recruit while only being at high. It's actually more likely that allowing H to beat VH is helping lower prestige teams beat out higher prestige teams, as shown by the five times the H team won despite being lower prestige. Granted, this is a tiny dataset and I don't know the exact percentages of each battle, but I think it's possible that H beating VH helps lower prestige teams rather than hurting them.
higher prestige is VH and wins: 2
higher prestige is VH and loses: 5
higher prestige is H and wins: 1
higher prestige is H and loses: 6

	Higher Prestige
Winner		VH	H	Total
	VH	2	5	7
	H	6	1	7
	Total	8	6	14

H wins too often. that's my point and you just showed it.

Posted by oldave on 1/30/2018 10:21:00 AM (view original):
this is probably an area where d3 is a totally different game than d1. in d3, this "25 beats 75" is frustrating and i hate it and would be glad to see it go. but we all know it aint going anywhere, so i'll just suffer in silence, noisily.

This is one of the biggest differences between the divisions. You don't need to get into dice roll battles to win.

Obviously when you win a long shot you say "Well god damn! Look at me, I'm such a Mister Smarty Pants, I played that perfectly!".

To me, the issue is that we're capped on number of HVs and CVs we can spend. So you could REALLY want the player and have great preferences, spend every dime you have and still have a team linger around and have a 25% chance to get him. It can be difficult to knock another team off - unlike in D3 where you can't afford to max players unless you're really close and have several openings.

Anyways, let's not make it a Mike thread. Please Mike, just let others give their opinion. I mean, we can agree to disagree.

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:30:00 AM (view original):
In a H vs VH battle with differing prestiges there can be four different outcomes: higher prestige is VH and wins, higher prestige is VH and loses, higher prestige is H and wins, higher prestige is H and loses. The case you're talking about here is where the higher prestige is H and wins. I looked through the top 100 right now in Wooden and even though it's a small dataset I think it shows that you're looking at this incorrectly. Out of 14 instances, the case you're talking about happened one time, where the higher prestige team won the recruit while only being at high. It's actually more likely that allowing H to beat VH is helping lower prestige teams beat out higher prestige teams, as shown by the five times the H team won despite being lower prestige. Granted, this is a tiny dataset and I don't know the exact percentages of each battle, but I think it's possible that H beating VH helps lower prestige teams rather than hurting them.
higher prestige is VH and wins: 2
higher prestige is VH and loses: 5
higher prestige is H and wins: 1
higher prestige is H and loses: 6

	Higher Prestige
Winner		VH	H	Total
	VH	2	5	7
	H	6	1	7
	Total	8	6	14

H wins too often. that's my point and you just showed it.

That's a different argument then, I could agree with that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Honest is what I posted.

Most/some/a few of us like the opportunity to go after the big boys. I/we know that we can't win if they really want the guy but, as long as I/we have a chance, I/we are happy.

In this particular case, I put myself in position to win outright in the first signing cycle. After that, I just wanted to stay in the game without wrecking the rest of my class in the process.

Nothing here is confusing. So why are you confused?

No one is confused (well maybe you are).

You want a system where you can compete with the big boys but you don't want to invest all your allotted resources to do so.

This is night and day from the 1.0 game you referenced where the low prestige teams literally had zero chance even if they did invest all their allotted resources.

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Anyways, let's not make it a Mike thread. Please Mike, just let others give their opinion. I mean, we can agree to disagree.

Well, ****, zorzi. First, talk to your boy benis. Second, we know how this thread is going to go. All the "old school" are going to chime in with

+1
well said


because they want 1.0 or 2.0 back. Starting this thread and hoping to shut down opposing opinions is dumb.

Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Honest is what I posted.

Most/some/a few of us like the opportunity to go after the big boys. I/we know that we can't win if they really want the guy but, as long as I/we have a chance, I/we are happy.

In this particular case, I put myself in position to win outright in the first signing cycle. After that, I just wanted to stay in the game without wrecking the rest of my class in the process.

Nothing here is confusing. So why are you confused?

No one is confused (well maybe you are).

You want a system where you can compete with the big boys but you don't want to invest all your allotted resources to do so.

This is night and day from the 1.0 game you referenced where the low prestige teams literally had zero chance even if they did invest all their allotted resources.

Honestly, benis, what you're suggesting is a really dumb way for a D- to challenge an A in his backyard with exactly one VG in the bag(and it wasn't distance). Dump max resources on the guy, cross your fingers and hope you can find another option if you're beaten. No thanks.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

Or maybe reduce the odds at H. I mean, when you play your cards perfectly, and you end up losing against a H (I've had many coaches write to me while I was in Alabama and say they were sorry...) Sometimes, they get outplayed and are saved by a dumb roll. It is not good for the game. I mean, VH-VH, shows a real interest in the player, at least a similar one. A lower prestige letter needs more efforts, and will put it out intelligently. And they will calculate their risk and rewards. When they get ahead... why would they have to lose to a higher prestige letter just not invested at all?

Or raise HV and CV values.

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:30:00 AM (view original):
In a H vs VH battle with differing prestiges there can be four different outcomes: higher prestige is VH and wins, higher prestige is VH and loses, higher prestige is H and wins, higher prestige is H and loses. The case you're talking about here is where the higher prestige is H and wins. I looked through the top 100 right now in Wooden and even though it's a small dataset I think it shows that you're looking at this incorrectly. Out of 14 instances, the case you're talking about happened one time, where the higher prestige team won the recruit while only being at high. It's actually more likely that allowing H to beat VH is helping lower prestige teams beat out higher prestige teams, as shown by the five times the H team won despite being lower prestige. Granted, this is a tiny dataset and I don't know the exact percentages of each battle, but I think it's possible that H beating VH helps lower prestige teams rather than hurting them.
higher prestige is VH and wins: 2
higher prestige is VH and loses: 5
higher prestige is H and wins: 1
higher prestige is H and loses: 6

	Higher Prestige
Winner		VH	H	Total
	VH	2	5	7
	H	6	1	7
	Total	8	6	14

H wins too often. that's my point and you just showed it.

That's a different argument then, I could agree with that.

This analysis doesn’t mean much, because you have no idea how much effort either team put in, and you don’t see the final odds, unless you were in on the battle. Prioritization matters. The higher prestige team may have only done 5 visits, and made no promises. The lower prestige team may have 12 visits and promised a start. Unless you know how much effort the teams put in, and know the final odds with the RNG roll, you can’t make an intelligent claim about what “should have” happened.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Honest is what I posted.

Most/some/a few of us like the opportunity to go after the big boys. I/we know that we can't win if they really want the guy but, as long as I/we have a chance, I/we are happy.

In this particular case, I put myself in position to win outright in the first signing cycle. After that, I just wanted to stay in the game without wrecking the rest of my class in the process.

Nothing here is confusing. So why are you confused?

No one is confused (well maybe you are).

You want a system where you can compete with the big boys but you don't want to invest all your allotted resources to do so.

This is night and day from the 1.0 game you referenced where the low prestige teams literally had zero chance even if they did invest all their allotted resources.

Honestly, benis, what you're suggesting is a really dumb way for a D- to challenge an A in his backyard with exactly one VG in the bag(and it wasn't distance). Dump max resources on the guy, cross your fingers and hope you can find another option if you're beaten. No thanks.

No one is saying you need to challenge an A prestige team as a D prestige team from across the country while at a preference disadvantage and thinking you only need to spend less than max resources. YOU chose to do that.

Is that what people complained about in the previous version?

"This game sucks! I'm at D- Cal Poly and I'd love to get this guy in NC but I can't seem to beat A- Duke while also battling 3 other schools for local players. We have no chance to win! Waaah"

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

I was against posting the numeric results when it first started, and I'm still against it. I'm not sure how much good it does even for the "more information!" crowd.