Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 5:58:00 PM (view original):
At this point the game is no longer about skill though. It's similar to playing craps. You do your best to get the odds to even and then hope the dice go your way.

This statement is about as dumb as it gets. If you actually believe this, you have not thought very hard, or very well, about the game that exists. It is literally nothing like craps. The skill now is in prioritization, and how you plan for contingencies; in developing efficient scouting processes that uncover good matches for you; in developing a variety of recruiting tactics to use in different situations, because extreme risk aversion is no longer a dominant recruiting strategy, and the vast majority of valuable recruits will need to be fought for. It takes more skill, more planning, and more flexibility to get excellent results. Stop with the "craps" garbage.

It's not dumb. It's exactly what it's like. On a whole skill doesn't determine how good of a team you create, luck does. You can be very unlucky and lose every battle you're in because signing someone doesn't matter how good you are at recruiting anymore, it matters if you're lucky enough to have RNG go your way.

No, it's very dumb. Skill doesn't end with winning or losing a single recruit. Your approach is myopic, and a good way for people to be very bad at 3.0. Cream has and will continue to rise to the top. But success is going to be more realistic now, it will look less like 7 championships in 13 years, and more like 7 final 4s in 13 years, which is more in line with what dominant real life programs experience.

Coach Cal and Coach K are not just lucky, and they're not playing craps; and neither are people who are good at (and enjoy) HD as it currently exists.

Bullshit that it is more realistic. There is nothing realistic about a recruit picking a school based on RNG. It's about as far from reality as it can get.

"Coach Cal and Coach K are not just lucky, and they're not playing craps;" - correct

"and neither are people who are good at (and enjoy) HD as it currently exists." - incorrect

Posted by Benis on 12/19/2016 6:58:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for the name drop coachward.

For the record, I do like 3.0 but it's not without it's faults. Nothing is ever going to be perfect simply because perfect means different things to different people. I think there are still a few things that need to be enhanced/modified/changed to improve the game IMHO. But overall, I do like most of what I'm seeing.

However, I get the gripes of others who don't like it and won't argue with them about it. And if people want to make a thread saying they don't like the changes, so be it. Doesn't bother me at all. I suppose you can say that it's 'bad for noobs to see' but I honestly don't think very many even get to the forums. They quit playing well before they ever read any of these threads.

I mostly agree, but I draw the line at appeals to "luck". It's insulting to everyone who enjoys the game as it is now, it's a lie (or misrepresentation, I don't remember if you guys decided that was the same thing, or not), and repeating it makes everyone dumber.

If you don't like dealing with probabilities, and prefer a more deterministic game, fine. You are entitled to your preferences and I won't quibble. But saying stupid sh!t like 3.0 is like craps, and is only good for people who are bad at it is A) very dumb, and B) essentially the same argument (different side of the same coin) as saying that people who don't like 3.0 were just upset at losing their privileged status.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 5:58:00 PM (view original):
At this point the game is no longer about skill though. It's similar to playing craps. You do your best to get the odds to even and then hope the dice go your way.

This statement is about as dumb as it gets. If you actually believe this, you have not thought very hard, or very well, about the game that exists. It is literally nothing like craps. The skill now is in prioritization, and how you plan for contingencies; in developing efficient scouting processes that uncover good matches for you; in developing a variety of recruiting tactics to use in different situations, because extreme risk aversion is no longer a dominant recruiting strategy, and the vast majority of valuable recruits will need to be fought for. It takes more skill, more planning, and more flexibility to get excellent results. Stop with the "craps" garbage.

It's not dumb. It's exactly what it's like. On a whole skill doesn't determine how good of a team you create, luck does. You can be very unlucky and lose every battle you're in because signing someone doesn't matter how good you are at recruiting anymore, it matters if you're lucky enough to have RNG go your way.

No, it's very dumb. Skill doesn't end with winning or losing a single recruit. Your approach is myopic, and a good way for people to be very bad at 3.0. Cream has and will continue to rise to the top. But success is going to be more realistic now, it will look less like 7 championships in 13 years, and more like 7 final 4s in 13 years, which is more in line with what dominant real life programs experience.

Coach Cal and Coach K are not just lucky, and they're not playing craps; and neither are people who are good at (and enjoy) HD as it currently exists.

Bullshit that it is more realistic. There is nothing realistic about a recruit picking a school based on RNG. It's about as far from reality as it can get.

"Coach Cal and Coach K are not just lucky, and they're not playing craps;" - correct

"and neither are people who are good at (and enjoy) HD as it currently exists." - incorrect

Not entirely realistic, because there is no "realistic" way to incorporate all the things that go into a real life recruits decision. But 3.0 comes damn close, and is much more realistic than the previous version, which was essentially eBay bidding. And at a fundamental level you are demonstrating that you don't understand the game that exists. The decision is not "based on RNG". The decision is determined by the recruiting choices the coaches made. Like real life, 3.0 coaches can't control or manipulate the recruits to get the result they want. So there is an element of chance at the end. But it's not the basis of the recruit's decision.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 7:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 5:58:00 PM (view original):
At this point the game is no longer about skill though. It's similar to playing craps. You do your best to get the odds to even and then hope the dice go your way.

This statement is about as dumb as it gets. If you actually believe this, you have not thought very hard, or very well, about the game that exists. It is literally nothing like craps. The skill now is in prioritization, and how you plan for contingencies; in developing efficient scouting processes that uncover good matches for you; in developing a variety of recruiting tactics to use in different situations, because extreme risk aversion is no longer a dominant recruiting strategy, and the vast majority of valuable recruits will need to be fought for. It takes more skill, more planning, and more flexibility to get excellent results. Stop with the "craps" garbage.

It's not dumb. It's exactly what it's like. On a whole skill doesn't determine how good of a team you create, luck does. You can be very unlucky and lose every battle you're in because signing someone doesn't matter how good you are at recruiting anymore, it matters if you're lucky enough to have RNG go your way.

No, it's very dumb. Skill doesn't end with winning or losing a single recruit. Your approach is myopic, and a good way for people to be very bad at 3.0. Cream has and will continue to rise to the top. But success is going to be more realistic now, it will look less like 7 championships in 13 years, and more like 7 final 4s in 13 years, which is more in line with what dominant real life programs experience.

Coach Cal and Coach K are not just lucky, and they're not playing craps; and neither are people who are good at (and enjoy) HD as it currently exists.

Bullshit that it is more realistic. There is nothing realistic about a recruit picking a school based on RNG. It's about as far from reality as it can get.

"Coach Cal and Coach K are not just lucky, and they're not playing craps;" - correct

"and neither are people who are good at (and enjoy) HD as it currently exists." - incorrect

Not entirely realistic, because there is no "realistic" way to incorporate all the things that go into a real life recruits decision. But 3.0 comes damn close, and is much more realistic than the previous version, which was essentially eBay bidding. And at a fundamental level you are demonstrating that you don't understand the game that exists. The decision is not "based on RNG". The decision is determined by the recruiting choices the coaches made. Like real life, 3.0 coaches can't control or manipulate the recruits to get the result they want. So there is an element of chance at the end. But it's not the basis of the recruit's decision.

The outcome isn't determined by the recruiting choices the coaches made because you can be ahead but still lose out on a recruit DUE TO RNG.

You're the one that doesn't understand how it works, not me.

Shoe--
Not trying to pick a fight here, but shouldn't the statement that " The decision is determined by the recruiting choices the coaches made", be followed up by, "and then ultimately determined by the RNG?" We can make our choices, get ourselves as big a lead as possible, but in the end it comes down to the RNG. I have lost 9 out of 10 battles for recruits, 4 of which when I was VH and my opponent was H. How is that not the RNG deciding? We made our inputs, the dice were rolled, and despite my advantage in probability my opponent got a better roll. If there is not an RNG element, then isn't it deterministic?

On the first battle I lost, I submitted a ticket because I could not fathom how the math worked out. After several back and forth CS admitted I had about a, 85/15 advantage, and he himself was surprised at the outcome (My opponent was essentially one unit of "X" enough into the recruit to get to High status, with me a very dominant VH). His explanation? Your opponent "Got really lucky on that one, you should have won."

Posted by snafu4u on 12/19/2016 7:48:00 PM (view original):
Shoe--
Not trying to pick a fight here, but shouldn't the statement that " The decision is determined by the recruiting choices the coaches made", be followed up by, "and then ultimately determined by the RNG?" We can make our choices, get ourselves as big a lead as possible, but in the end it comes down to the RNG. I have lost 9 out of 10 battles for recruits, 4 of which when I was VH and my opponent was H. How is that not the RNG deciding? We made our inputs, the dice were rolled, and despite my advantage in probability my opponent got a better roll. If there is not an RNG element, then isn't it deterministic?

On the first battle I lost, I submitted a ticket because I could not fathom how the math worked out. After several back and forth CS admitted I had about a, 85/15 advantage, and he himself was surprised at the outcome (My opponent was essentially one unit of "X" enough into the recruit to get to High status, with me a very dominant VH). His explanation? Your opponent "Got really lucky on that one, you should have won."

I don't believe it unless it means this. Very high to High is a smaller percentage than once thought of and will occur the roll dice more frequently. I beleive you are bs'ing us since this is the first time I have heard of such a thing happening?!?!

I posted it all over my conference chat when it happened. It was first recruiting session under 3.0. I have continuously posted my staggering string of defeats in my conference chat as well, in case you want to ask any of them. I don't BS, have no reason too. My string of losses is why I think **** is broken with 3.0.

Posted by osuhunter on 12/19/2016 3:05:00 AM (view original):
As a former college volleyball coach, I loved recruitment of players. Nine plus years of Hoops Dynasty in three worlds. The new Hoops recruiting makes a mockery of that aspect. What were you thinking? Other posts detail the problems and the lack of reality. Have a total junior and senior team next season. Will not renew for my team.
Cannot believe how you eliminated the effectiveness of scouting services,, came up with the nebulous idea of "Attention Points" and the recruit controls recruiting through erratically scheduled emails
Please leave Football Dynasty alone!

you wanna sign over your team?

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 7:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 6:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 5:58:00 PM (view original):
At this point the game is no longer about skill though. It's similar to playing craps. You do your best to get the odds to even and then hope the dice go your way.

This statement is about as dumb as it gets. If you actually believe this, you have not thought very hard, or very well, about the game that exists. It is literally nothing like craps. The skill now is in prioritization, and how you plan for contingencies; in developing efficient scouting processes that uncover good matches for you; in developing a variety of recruiting tactics to use in different situations, because extreme risk aversion is no longer a dominant recruiting strategy, and the vast majority of valuable recruits will need to be fought for. It takes more skill, more planning, and more flexibility to get excellent results. Stop with the "craps" garbage.

It's not dumb. It's exactly what it's like. On a whole skill doesn't determine how good of a team you create, luck does. You can be very unlucky and lose every battle you're in because signing someone doesn't matter how good you are at recruiting anymore, it matters if you're lucky enough to have RNG go your way.

No, it's very dumb. Skill doesn't end with winning or losing a single recruit. Your approach is myopic, and a good way for people to be very bad at 3.0. Cream has and will continue to rise to the top. But success is going to be more realistic now, it will look less like 7 championships in 13 years, and more like 7 final 4s in 13 years, which is more in line with what dominant real life programs experience.

Coach Cal and Coach K are not just lucky, and they're not playing craps; and neither are people who are good at (and enjoy) HD as it currently exists.

Bullshit that it is more realistic. There is nothing realistic about a recruit picking a school based on RNG. It's about as far from reality as it can get.

"Coach Cal and Coach K are not just lucky, and they're not playing craps;" - correct

"and neither are people who are good at (and enjoy) HD as it currently exists." - incorrect

Not entirely realistic, because there is no "realistic" way to incorporate all the things that go into a real life recruits decision. But 3.0 comes damn close, and is much more realistic than the previous version, which was essentially eBay bidding. And at a fundamental level you are demonstrating that you don't understand the game that exists. The decision is not "based on RNG". The decision is determined by the recruiting choices the coaches made. Like real life, 3.0 coaches can't control or manipulate the recruits to get the result they want. So there is an element of chance at the end. But it's not the basis of the recruit's decision.

But if we're shooting for realism, why hasn't the EE issue been fixed? This is (one of the things) driving me crazy about 3.0. If the powers that be are going for realism, fine, go for realism -- make it possible to replace EEs like-for-like. But don't use realism as the fig leaf justifying the recruiting changes and refuse to fix this issue.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/19/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 12/19/2016 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/19/2016 6:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 6:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/19/2016 6:28:00 PM (view original):
No, I'm arguing that you'll accept a game result that shouldn't happen but whine about losing a recruiting battle. It's the same concept. You do everything you can to tilt the scales in your favor. Then the program runs and gives you the outcome.

The difference is that teams and players can have off nights which accounts for a REASON to utilize RNG. There is no reason to use RNG for recruiting.

The only thing RNG does in recruiting is help people that are bad at the game.

Because 18 y/o males are so consistent in how they behave?

Mike, I don't think this is a particularly good analogy. I think the reason why certain people accept the RNG for gameplay, but have a harder time for recruiting is because for recruiting, the results are longer-lasting. You lose the dice roll in a game, you come back next night. You lose it in a battle, you could be screwed for a season (or more).

I think a secondary reason for the reaction is because in 2.0, if your strategy was correct, you always (ALWAYS) won the recruiting battle. If you got poached, it was because you made a misjudgment (or gambled and lost). That allowed the users who understood the game better (and who had prior success) to really keep a hammerlock on the top recruits. That transition from the deterministic model to the probabilistic model has been very difficult for many longtime users (me included). I think the pendulum has gone way too far to probabilistic (I think they could have added some randomness w/o making it a total free-for-all), but I admit my biases, since I liked/was successful in 2.0.

I'll say that this is an internet game. If you're screwed for a season, my guess is your dog will still be glad to see you when you come home.

The game was changed because the entrenched, long-time users had too big of an advantage. Not only are/were they better at the game, their schools/prestige/etc made it too difficult to break into the inner circle. You can say "We earned it" and I'm not going to argue against that. But the first thread I opened when I signed up for my free team was "I've won 7 of the last 12 NT and now, because of EE, I'm screwed." If Kentucky wins 7 of 12 in the real world, so be it. But that's a terrible game to sell to the new guy.

WifS may have botched the update so bad that HD becomes CRD. But HD had stagnated to the point that it was going to go extinct anyway.

Ah, your old "it's an internet game" fall-back -- I often see that one from you when you don't have a good answer.

Not disputing that elites had an advantage in 2.0 - strongly disagree that it was solely due to them being "long-time." The cream rose to the top. But I don't disagree that the state of 2.0 made it too easy for elites to dominate. I think the main problem is that WIS completely botched the update -- they could have made several incremental changes that would have fixed many of the competitive imbalance issues. But they went radical instead, and I think they're going to wind up (literally) paying for it.

shoe3, your understanding of HD 3.0 is subtle and complex. But don't forget that some of the guys you are debating with do not have that depth of understanding. When they constantly complain about luck, "the RNG deciding," "DUE TO RNG," coin flip, dice roll, etc., and attribute their own failures to the imagined deficiencies in the game, they are doing their best in most cases. They aren't going to understand the game at your level and are therefore not going to agree. Leave 'em be. They have been good at 2.0, most of 'em, and believe their own press clippings as it were. In that case, how could the shortcoming possibly be their own? It has to be the game. They aren't able to believe you if they cannot understand you.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/19/2016 8:55:00 PM (view original):
shoe3, your understanding of HD 3.0 is subtle and complex. But don't forget that some of the guys you are debating with do not have that depth of understanding. When they constantly complain about luck, "the RNG deciding," "DUE TO RNG," coin flip, dice roll, etc., and attribute their own failures to the imagined deficiencies in the game, they are doing their best in most cases. They aren't going to understand the game at your level and are therefore not going to agree. Leave 'em be. They have been good at 2.0, most of 'em, and believe their own press clippings as it were. In that case, how could the shortcoming possibly be their own? It has to be the game. They aren't able to believe you if they cannot understand you.

It is due to RNG. Skill has no determing factor in what school a recruit picks. At the end of the day if there is more than one school listed at high it becomes a RNG game and has nothing to do with skill. Someone can be heavily favored on multiple recruits and lose out on all of them because of the RNG. The game is set up to reward people of a lower skill level.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/19/2016 9:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/19/2016 8:55:00 PM (view original):
shoe3, your understanding of HD 3.0 is subtle and complex. But don't forget that some of the guys you are debating with do not have that depth of understanding. When they constantly complain about luck, "the RNG deciding," "DUE TO RNG," coin flip, dice roll, etc., and attribute their own failures to the imagined deficiencies in the game, they are doing their best in most cases. They aren't going to understand the game at your level and are therefore not going to agree. Leave 'em be. They have been good at 2.0, most of 'em, and believe their own press clippings as it were. In that case, how could the shortcoming possibly be their own? It has to be the game. They aren't able to believe you if they cannot understand you.

It is due to RNG. Skill has no determing factor in what school a recruit picks. At the end of the day if there is more than one school listed at high it becomes a RNG game and has nothing to do with skill. Someone can be heavily favored on multiple recruits and lose out on all of them because of the RNG. The game is set up to reward people of a lower skill level.

Mets, ignore Spud. I don't know where he's gotten this arrogance from. This is a guy who has won exactly zero NT games in either 2.0 or 3.0.

metsmaniac, I already addressed that in my post responding to shoe3. "They aren't able to believe you if they cannot understand you." You're doing your best, right? Then leave it be. And if my post was arrogant, I apologize for that. It was my intention to put a little cool water on a hot debate. And besides, bevis has now topped any arrogance in my post.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/19/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
metsmaniac, I already addressed that in my post responding to shoe3. "They aren't able to believe you if they cannot understand you." You're doing your best, right? Then leave it be. And if my post was arrogant, I apologize for that. It was my intention to put a little cool water on a hot debate. And besides, bevis has now topped any arrogance in my post.

Ha. Your post oozes with arrogance and mockery and sarcasm.

"Believe their own press clippings"
"How could the shortcoming possibly be their own"

Please.