Only up to A prestige after the title. Even with B- baseline prestige. Interesting.

I didn't decide any such thing. I simply pointed out that the good coaches in 2.0 are still the good coaches in 3.0. Some complain constantly while others seek a "new" way.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):
I didn't decide any such thing. I simply pointed out that the good coaches in 2.0 are still the good coaches in 3.0. Some complain constantly while others seek a "new" way.

Yeah for the most part, this is true. Since so many REALLY good coaches have left, we've all been bumped up a notch too.

But *no one* who was awesome in the previous version sucks now. Everyone has adjusted at this point and it has nothing to do with success. There are plenty of elite coaches who will continue to dominate but still don't like most of the changes and believe they're detrimental to the game.

Just because people point out things they don't like doesn't mean they haven't 'adjusted' to the way they're playing the game.

There is a difference between "point things out" and "whine when the game doesn't play the way they want it to".

Honestly, and I'm not picking on zorzii, does anyone NOT know that you could lose 4 EE in a season? Or, not picking on stewdog, that you could lose a battle(if you're even in it), with a lower division? HD 3.0 has been HD 3.0 for around a year. These things happen every season.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2017 10:07:00 AM (view original):
There is a difference between "point things out" and "whine when the game doesn't play the way they want it to".

Honestly, and I'm not picking on zorzii, does anyone NOT know that you could lose 4 EE in a season? Or, not picking on stewdog, that you could lose a battle(if you're even in it), with a lower division? HD 3.0 has been HD 3.0 for around a year. These things happen every season.

Mike : I know it's possible! I just think it's more random than talent...

Talent is more than counting the number of stars next to a recruit’s name, or knowing that 95 is better than 75. Talent in team building is putting together a team that can make a run at a title when your luck is good, and can avoid falling apart when it is not.

This is not a “problem”. It is experiencing the consequences of your recruiting choices. It is neither random, nor unrealistic.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Talent is more than counting the number of stars next to a recruit’s name, or knowing that 95 is better than 75. Talent in team building is putting together a team that can make a run at a title when your luck is good, and can avoid falling apart when it is not.

This is not a “problem”. It is experiencing the consequences of your recruiting choices. It is neither random, nor unrealistic.

Yeah it is. Two teams same talent, same number of ees, one loses none, the other 3 out of 3. Why? Probabilities... With the new system, replacing one ee is challenging, imagine 3. Shoe : did you go to college? Cause honestly if you don't see the problem in this, problem easily fixed that would make it fair for everyone...

Posted by pkoopman on 10/10/2017 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Talent is more than counting the number of stars next to a recruit’s name, or knowing that 95 is better than 75. Talent in team building is putting together a team that can make a run at a title when your luck is good, and can avoid falling apart when it is not.

This is not a “problem”. It is experiencing the consequences of your recruiting choices. It is neither random, nor unrealistic.

If WIS removed the randomness of EEs where the #1 overall recruit stays for all 4 years while some guy not even on the big board leaves, then you would have a point.

But unless WIS wants to switch to where I can identify which ones stay all 4 years and ones that says that 100% I'm leaving after 1, 2 or 3 seasons after which if I recruit the latter, then I know what I'm buying, then coaches will *always* recruit the best available talent and those lucky enough to have them stay (or figure out a way to make them less likely to leave), will dominate those that are unlucky.

When a D2 recruit nabs what is D1 talent (essentially their elite talent in comparison to their peers), they aren't subjected to the same players randomly leaving so where is there risk/reward after they've won?

Players ranked in top 20 stay but guys not on board leave.

If you don't like the word random then come up with another word to describe this.

We’ve been through this many times, buddha. You are far too successful to plead ignorance as to determining what recruits could possibly leave early vs recruits that will probably leave early vs recruits that will not leave early. You should never be able to know which players will definitely leave early; but you should - and you can - know which ones pose relatively higher risks.

You seem to prefer determinism-based games rather than probabilistic, which is fine. There are lots of those out there. But this game wants to be a competitive multi-player game; determinism too quickly becomes formulaic, and sacrifices competitiveness.

Why should lower level players “leave early” to move up to higher levels? Can you make a case based in either realism or good competitive gameplay? I’m willing to consider it. Those teams are already risking a great deal if they invest anything in recruits that teams more than 2 prestige levels up may decide they want to prioritize. If anything, I can see maybe having more of them go to sim D1s, or JUCO. But I’m not convinced either is really necessary, because every time it’s brought up, it seems founded in resentment, not gameplay.

Posted by Benis on 10/10/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Players ranked in top 20 stay but guys not on board leave.

If you don't like the word random then come up with another word to describe this.

Probabilistic.

"coaches will *always* recruit the best available talent and those lucky enough to have them stay (or figure out a way to make them less likely to leave), will dominate those that are unlucky."

Great point. Like I pointed out in the EE data thread

One user had the #7, #12 and #49th rated players on big board all stay. While Zorzii has 4 players on big board all leave.

Is there a rhyme or reason to point to that says why one event happened versus the other? Is there literally one thing to say - well that makes sense because... x, y, z happened.

We all know this is what COULD happen in the game today. What many people are saying - this SHOULDN'T happen because it doesn't make competitive sense. Both Zorzii and this other user recruited the EXACT same type of players. User A's team is a contender the following season while Zorzii is fighting for a PIT.

Where is the skill in that?

It's artificially creating 'competiveness'.

The skill is in managing risks, volatility and contingencies. What buddha said about coaches necessarily always recruiting the “best talent available” simply isn’t true. Good coaches are finding other ways to build good teams, and are having success. The elite-only is a viable strategy, as long as you’re willing to deal with the scarcity and volatility of the commodities you’re relying on. There’s nothing “artificial” about how these skills and strategies are weighed against each other.

Tim Duncan. 4 years of college.

Realism, bro!!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/10/2017 1:55:00 PM (view original):
Tim Duncan. 4 years of college.

Realism, bro!!!

Okay I'll bite.

In REALISM BRO!!! world - the coaches at Wake knew that Tim was going to stay to get his degree.