Posted by gillispie1 on 5/4/2020 12:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 5/2/2020 8:36:00 PM (view original):
Hey All,

I played HD for 8 or 9 years consecutively and stopped in 2017 when HD 3.0 debuted.

I feel like if they ever brought HD 2.0 back, I would be back in a heartbeat. Do you guys feel the same way? Do people still want/clamor for HD 2.0? Just curious. Take care all.

Trevor

hey colonels, you joining us? figure you had to put in for a season to get your forum posting rights, it has to be more than 2 years since you left?

i left mostly due to general burnout, wasn't up to engage in learning something new, but definitely was not excited about the changes. i figured i'd give it a shot. its ok, i mean, i think too many battles go to coin flip and the game is a little unbalanced in that way. but i also saw the clear issue with the way recruiting was, where the top team could spend 1% more effort and have 100% of the signing odds - it just made it too hard for the little guy, and it made everything too formulaic. not that i had a personal complaint with either of those, i liked being lazy and had no issue competing at the little schools. but i agree those things were bad for the game generally!

i think as a whole, today's d1 recruiting would probably best be described as clunky but an improvement. its way less predictable, breaking down the distance barriers was good, there's a lot of improvement there. the weirdness of new coaches not getting to recruit for the most part sucks, but i mean, there's a lot of good stuff too. not exactly my personal cup of tea, but still.

I actually got froggy and bought 24 NBA teams to run my own league....something I've wanted to do for 15+ years lol. I played 3.0 for about 5 seasons and didn't care for it...I feel like I gave it a fair shot, but I liked 2.0 a lot better.

Posted by mullycj on 5/4/2020 8:40:00 PM (view original):
"This is why it was such a terrible mistake to show those final odds. It basically ensures people continue to suffer frustration and misunderstanding in perpetuity. A ton of the dissatisfaction that exists could have been mitigated by better framing and messaging. "

Yes lets just hide information from the citizens so they can bow to the government in blissful ignorance. (sarc)
MORE information (like your post explaining how the odds REALLY work) are what's needed in this game as well as better HELP documents that might actually explain this as well.)

"You currently need to be within ~60% of the recruiting credit of the leader (63-37) to be in signing range. On that extreme end, the final odds look like 80-20 instead of 63-37, because they are stretched to favor the team that is in the lead. So the system requires a team be relatively close to have a shot, and then the probability is adjusted to even further reduce their shot. " <<<< ------------should be added to SOME FAQ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is. I wrote about it in the guide and gave a recruiting battle dice roll example from Beta about how seble explained that the odds are stretched.

Seble never told us the exact numbers. So the example above is speculating about what it is. But it could be closer or farther tha that. Personally I think the odds aren't stretched as much as indicated in the example.

Posted by mullycj on 5/2/2020 9:36:00 PM (view original):
Id like 1.0 back. No potentials.

Build your team as you want to. Not as realistic but more fun.

This is my position to a tee.

Posted by seabreeze on 5/4/2020 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/4/2020 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cbriese on 5/4/2020 10:12:00 AM (view original):
I think that only a small percentage of coaches post in the forums, and the rest, by virtue of their continued participation, could be considered a vast silent majority of 3.0 defenders. While the game may not be perfect, it is good enough for current coaches to keep plunking down $100/year to keep an active team.

The whiners, thus, are a very small percentage of the users of this site. We should treat them with the disdain they deserve.

Fun to see the "let's just dismiss and belittle everyone who disagrees with us" attitude drifting out of politics and into general society.

You are to be applauded, sir. You've taken social jackassery into your paid leisure activities. Now you can truly find ways to be unpleasant to nearly everyone!

Actually, you make good points about DIII recruiting. I agree that recruiting in DIII can be excruciating waiting for those last 24 hours. I think if the D1/DII population numbers were higher, you'd see more DIII teams laying off the D1 recruits, and you'd see a lot more first cycle RS2 signings for those DIII teams.

I spend about 65-75% of my budget, on average, scouting D2 at the beginning of recruiting. Most of my players come from the D2 pool. If I have scouting budget left over and empty scholarships remaining, I scout a few D1 states after the first few cycles of the 2nd recruiting period. At that point most of the recruits with serious commitments have signed. I'm basically just looking for decent players who've slipped through the cracks. With world populations being what they are, there are more such recruits than one might expect.

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/4/2020 10:45:00 AM (view original):
I would still take 2.0 back in a heartbeat. If I ever had to pay more than $5 for a 10-pack of seasons I would be gone. With D3 populations being what they are, that may never happen.

Unlike most of the coaches in this game, I don't enjoy recruiting. It is by far my least favorite aspect, in all generations of the game. I'm really only interested in figuring out how ratings interact with one another and result in statistical distributions of outcomes. So I like optimizing my practice plans, player game plans, lineups, defensive positioning, etc. I think there are only a small handful of other coaches who can do a better job than I can at getting the most out of their guys. Unfortunately, a big part of the game - arguably the biggest below high D1 - is just getting the best possible guys. I lose all the time in the late stages of the NT to guys whose team planning and gameplanning are far from optimal, but who have 5+ guys with 700+ overall ratings and I just can't hang, even if sometimes 4 of those guys are guards and none of them are great shooters. Teams will appear to overperform when built and run well, but there is a limit to the width of the talent chasm you can leap with that.

Recruiting in 3.0 lasts foreeevvveeerrrrrrrr. And if you decide to gamble of targeting a guy with an earlier signing preference, you pretty much have to check in every cycle or risk losing him to somebody from a higher division. I hate that. I don't want to be checking on recruits 4 times a day 30% of the time. In 2.0 recruiting was a few days and then it was over for a month (or 2 months in a 1/day world, but I haven't played in any of those lately).

My problem isn't with "coinflips" (I did somehow lose, IIRC, my first 17 contested recruits at the very beginning of 3.0, most of them as the favorite, and it almost drove me away, but that luck has predictably evened out over time). My problem isn't with the nature of the new recruiting system, or the 2 recruiting periods, or the loophole, or any of that. It's purely based on how obnoxiously long recruiting lasts now. If there weren't so much momentum in just holding onto my team that keeps making sufficiently deep tournament runs to be free, I would leave.

I'm late to this..... but I love you!!!

Recruiting SUCKS in general! Not because of the engine. It's just the least fun part of the game for me. I'd rather game plan and keep 12 mediocre players for my entire career!

Welcome to the club. It's me, you, and probably not many others

There was a thread awhile back asking what everyone's favorite part of HD was - start of season, start of recruiting, postseason, job change (AB90 )

It kind of blew me away how many people said recruiting was their favorite and how few said start of postseason. Didn't make much sense to me since the entire point of the game is building a team and put it in action against the best of the best (presumably) in the tourney. But different strokes I suppose.

Posted by Benis on 5/5/2020 2:03:00 PM (view original):
There was a thread awhile back asking what everyone's favorite part of HD was - start of season, start of recruiting, postseason, job change (AB90 )

It kind of blew me away how many people said recruiting was their favorite and how few said start of postseason. Didn't make much sense to me since the entire point of the game is building a team and put it in action against the best of the best (presumably) in the tourney. But different strokes I suppose.

Where was this?

I'm totally Team Recruiting by the way. The postseason is insanely exciting when you make a run just often it just stresses me the **** out!

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/4/2020 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 5/2/2020 9:36:00 PM (view original):
Id like 1.0 back. No potentials.

Build your team as you want to. Not as realistic but more fun.

This is my position to a tee.

the problem with 1.0 was... actually, i can't think of anything. i loved 1.0. what was the whole point of 2.0 anyway??

oh wait, now i remember. it was fine in d1. d2/d3, recruiting prep was a nightmare - a nightmare i thoroughly enjoyed, i will say, but only because i was young, i never could have gone on like that. 12 hours to go through every recruit that exists was a bit much (i also didn't know about the feature whereby you can show the ratings on the recruit search page, like happens by default now, that would have saved a number of hours per season). i think that was the one thing i felt 2.0 improved - instead of looking through many hundreds of players - you only got to scout a region, so that was your subset. i remember feeling like the recruiting prep time getting cut down was a huge 'quality of life' improvement, if you will - not that it made up for everything else!

also some of the jankiness with infinite calls and promises and invisible preferences that we were told were removed but they weren't (exploiting the NBA preference to avoid EEs and destroy everyone for the win?) - all that was probably good to fix. the 5 iterations of 'we removed dropdowns/pulldowns' followed by 'oh wait we didn't', and in one case 'well we just wanted some mystery about it so we intentionally lied', those also weren't so hot. most of that was still happening in 2.0 though, so i don't give 2.0 credit for fixing any of that...

that said - those things sure seem a hell of a lot easier to address than putting out 2.0, which for you new folks was a disaster that greatly exceeds anything ya'll experienced with 3.0. we just woke up one day, and boom - it was 2.0 - and not the 2.0 you newer folks who played before 3.0 remember. an incredibly messed up version of 2.0 where all players maxed as freshman and other such nonsense. its unclear if it was so bad because tarek was about to get fired or if tarek got fired because it was so bad, but i maintain the two events had to be related. such a travesty, what fox did to this game. sigh.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/4/2020 5:37:00 PM (view original):
“If a rule were put in place that would have to be within 20% of the leader to sign a guy (so 60-40 at min for a heads up, or say like 50, 30, 10 (10 can’t sign him) in a 3 way), that would also be more palatable.”

Unfortunately, we’re 3+ years in, and many people still don’t seem to understand this is already basically true. You currently need to be within ~60% of the recruiting credit of the leader (63-37) to be in signing range. On that extreme end, the final odds look like 80-20 instead of 63-37, because they are stretched to favor the team that is in the lead. So the system requires a team be relatively close to have a shot, and then the probability is adjusted to even further reduce their shot. This is why it was such a terrible mistake to show those final odds. It basically ensures people continue to suffer frustration and misunderstanding in perpetuity. A ton of the dissatisfaction that exists could have been mitigated by better framing and messaging.

i also disagree that we are even close to 'you have to be within 20% of the leader to sign'. you don't even have to be half, and i would not call that 'relatively close'. its definitely out of whack IMO.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/5/2020 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 5/4/2020 5:37:00 PM (view original):
“If a rule were put in place that would have to be within 20% of the leader to sign a guy (so 60-40 at min for a heads up, or say like 50, 30, 10 (10 can’t sign him) in a 3 way), that would also be more palatable.”

Unfortunately, we’re 3+ years in, and many people still don’t seem to understand this is already basically true. You currently need to be within ~60% of the recruiting credit of the leader (63-37) to be in signing range. On that extreme end, the final odds look like 80-20 instead of 63-37, because they are stretched to favor the team that is in the lead. So the system requires a team be relatively close to have a shot, and then the probability is adjusted to even further reduce their shot. This is why it was such a terrible mistake to show those final odds. It basically ensures people continue to suffer frustration and misunderstanding in perpetuity. A ton of the dissatisfaction that exists could have been mitigated by better framing and messaging.

i also disagree that we are even close to 'you have to be within 20% of the leader to sign'. you don't even have to be half, and i would not call that 'relatively close'. its definitely out of whack IMO.

My wording might have been confusing here, what I mean is a team’s recruiting effort has to meet or exceed about 60% of the recruiting effort amassed by the leader. That 60% number would be 63-37 in unstretched odds, in a 2-team battle. While seble didn’t disclose exactly where the threshold is, he did get pretty close in the beta forum, discussing specific battles. 63-37 is “relatively close” to 60-40 in my book. Certainly much closer than 80-20.

Basically, if two teams are near identical in prestige and preferences, one team puts in 530 AP and a scholarship (for simplicity’s sake, let’s say a scholarship is worth 100 AP, in terms of recruiting credit) and another team puts in 270 AP and a scholarship, the second team is pretty close to the edge of being in signing range. They’re at a bit more than half, but the odds are going to be much worse because of the stretch.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/5/2020 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 5/4/2020 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 5/2/2020 9:36:00 PM (view original):
Id like 1.0 back. No potentials.

Build your team as you want to. Not as realistic but more fun.

This is my position to a tee.

the problem with 1.0 was... actually, i can't think of anything. i loved 1.0. what was the whole point of 2.0 anyway??

Where you around in the beginning when you couldn't even schedule your own non-conf games?
Some teams had their post season doomed by random scheduling right out of the gate.

You can put me squarely in the "I hate recruiting" club. So much less strategy now than 2.0 (never played 1.0), SO many more clicks, SO much more waiting around, etc etc etc.

Posted by colonels19 on 5/2/2020 8:36:00 PM (view original):
Hey All,

I played HD for 8 or 9 years consecutively and stopped in 2017 when HD 3.0 debuted.

I feel like if they ever brought HD 2.0 back, I would be back in a heartbeat. Do you guys feel the same way? Do people still want/clamor for HD 2.0? Just curious. Take care all.

Trevor

Colonels!