Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

It is a little silly to think that way, but keep in mind we are paying customers...we pay to play this game, I dont pay to watch actual sports (well you know, other than my cable bill). So the site cant just say screw everyone, this is how life and sports really is.

I have no clue what the correct solution is on this issue. I see both sides, it really does suck and can mess up your program if you strike out, the solution to that cant be to just go after the secondary guys or avoid all battles (which admittedly is pretty much my strategy).

So since we're paying customers, shouldn't we auto-defeat every sim opponent?

These aren't good arguments dudes.

No, because that would be boring, and not really related to this.

Fine, they are weak arguments....but if enough people are leaving, which it seems they are, then if you are running a site you should be worried.

Your argument stating "thats how its done in real life, deal with it" is not really a productive solution either. This game is far from real life...

Again, I am not for having the person putting in the most effort win all of the time, and I am generally on your side of this issue...but I feel something has to change or else folks will continue to leave, which sucks.

We generally agree in the ways that matter. I'm on record as disliking 3.0 recruiting; 2.0 was better on every level, including producing the right winner in recruiting battles.

I'm not sure where you're getting that quote from.

The problem is that once you struck out, you do not have competitive options to make up for it.

The other problem is that you genuinely outwitted others, had a better strategy and won the mind battles. Yet the roll falls against so it does not reward talent but rather luck. I studied where I could not battle, studied where to go and what others seem to be doing. So with my C+, I got prudent. And next season and the peak of my junior, sophs, is doomed since I had five schollies and will probably fill 2 to 3 , one project and two borderline d1 players. It is what it is but it's not a good system.

Posted by zorzii on 9/28/2017 7:28:00 PM (view original):
The problem is that once you struck out, you do not have competitive options to make up for it.

The other problem is that you genuinely outwitted others, had a better strategy and won the mind battles. Yet the roll falls against so it does not reward talent but rather luck. I studied where I could not battle, studied where to go and what others seem to be doing. So with my C+, I got prudent. And next season and the peak of my junior, sophs, is doomed since I had five schollies and will probably fill 2 to 3 , one project and two borderline d1 players. It is what it is but it's not a good system.

You gambled and lost. You can't blame the deck of cards for not giving you a flush if you go for the royal flush and miss.

You guys are talking me into liking 3.0.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

It is a little silly to think that way, but keep in mind we are paying customers...we pay to play this game, I dont pay to watch actual sports (well you know, other than my cable bill). So the site cant just say screw everyone, this is how life and sports really is.

I have no clue what the correct solution is on this issue. I see both sides, it really does suck and can mess up your program if you strike out, the solution to that cant be to just go after the secondary guys or avoid all battles (which admittedly is pretty much my strategy).

So since we're paying customers, shouldn't we auto-defeat every sim opponent?

These aren't good arguments dudes.

Just because you disagree doesn't make it a weak argument bro. In what way is it weak bro? How is it good for the game or the business for a paying customer to do everything right and still get shafted?

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

It is a little silly to think that way, but keep in mind we are paying customers...we pay to play this game, I dont pay to watch actual sports (well you know, other than my cable bill). So the site cant just say screw everyone, this is how life and sports really is.

I have no clue what the correct solution is on this issue. I see both sides, it really does suck and can mess up your program if you strike out, the solution to that cant be to just go after the secondary guys or avoid all battles (which admittedly is pretty much my strategy).

So since we're paying customers, shouldn't we auto-defeat every sim opponent?

These aren't good arguments dudes.

Just because you disagree doesn't make it a weak argument bro. In what way is it weak bro? How is it good for the game or the business for a paying customer to do everything right and still get shafted?

It's all good bro dude.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

The way sports works is at the end of the game if you have more points you win, so actually its exactly how sports work

Jets gained 600 total yards. Patriots gained 400 total yards. Who won the game?

If the Pats score 60 points and the jets score 40, who wins?

Clearly the Pats.

Now answer my question. Aw shucks, I'm a nice guy so I'll do it for you: the Jets seem to have a better chance if they gained that many more yards, but more info is needed since probability and results aren't the same thing.

You can score on defense which nets you zero yards.

The obvious answer is that recruiting is not "the game". Recruits don't make decisions based on how many recruit points teams score. College coaches can influence decisions, but they can't make the recruits decision for him. There is no "ahead" or "behind". There is in range, or not.

The problem is in user expectations, not system error.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 7:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 9/28/2017 7:28:00 PM (view original):
The problem is that once you struck out, you do not have competitive options to make up for it.

The other problem is that you genuinely outwitted others, had a better strategy and won the mind battles. Yet the roll falls against so it does not reward talent but rather luck. I studied where I could not battle, studied where to go and what others seem to be doing. So with my C+, I got prudent. And next season and the peak of my junior, sophs, is doomed since I had five schollies and will probably fill 2 to 3 , one project and two borderline d1 players. It is what it is but it's not a good system.

You gambled and lost. You can't blame the deck of cards for not giving you a flush if you go for the royal flush and miss.

You guys are talking me into liking 3.0.

The thing is, I did not gamble. They threw a prayer except for a SEC bud on the same player but he lost too

Posted by pkoopman on 9/28/2017 8:23:00 PM (view original):
The obvious answer is that recruiting is not "the game". Recruits don't make decisions based on how many recruit points teams score. College coaches can influence decisions, but they can't make the recruits decision for him. There is no "ahead" or "behind". There is in range, or not.

The problem is in user expectations, not system error.

Yeah, but only the minority will adopt this view and this is why the steady decline is on... People want effort to pay off and recruiting is more important than practice and offensive, defensive sets, and even game planning. So it's the game!

I am here a bonafide mvp and you're talking about practice, you're talking about practice, talking about practice...

I don't care if you stay or not, but your choice is clear. You can bang your head against the wall playing the game that used to exist, or that you wish existed, or you can adjust your expectations and your gameplay. All you do is make choices. Your results are direct consequences of your choices.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/28/2017 9:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't care if you stay or not, but your choice is clear. You can bang your head against the wall playing the game that used to exist, or that you wish existed, or you can adjust your expectations and your gameplay. All you do is make choices. Your results are direct consequences of your choices.

I know. I can hope for change. In the meantime, I can disagree on stuff.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/28/2017 8:23:00 PM (view original):
The obvious answer is that recruiting is not "the game". Recruits don't make decisions based on how many recruit points teams score. College coaches can influence decisions, but they can't make the recruits decision for him. There is no "ahead" or "behind". There is in range, or not.

The problem is in user expectations, not system error.

Recruits make decisions based upon escorts and bags of cash.

I went away from this thread and came back but wow.

One issue you have here is the comfort 2.0 provided old generation players. They are struggling to handle real world simulation. At the end of the day if you are speaking on a real simulation level (which this game attempts to achieve). If Indiana goes out and spends $20,000 on scouting / recruiting a PG and Northwestern spends $10,000 on the same recruit, this does not mean that Indiana will automatically sign that recruit.

At the end of the day the "dice roll" as its been labeled in my opinion creates a better real world simulation than 2.0. Even in todays modern recruiting some coaches have no clue who the recruit is going to until the put on that hat. Do you think Kentucky goes out and recruits and offers 2-3 scholarships a season and signs 100% of them because they have the great program and all the money? They absolutely go after quite a bit of recruits and engages in multiple battles while maintaining backup plans.

We have to stop labeling recruiting as a definite and ask for it to be "if A spends more than B then A will beat B" that doesn't make sense on a real world simulation level. Stop being afraid to go after someone and get beat, make a backup plan, put in some effort, and you might find this game a little more enjoyable.

Edit: I also guarantee you that real life coaches get just as ****** off as everyone here when they go out and NEED that one recruit to be competitive, drop THOUSANDS on that recruit and end up losing to some bullshit like "momma didn't like the way you held a fork." This **** happens...

Posted by zorzii on 9/28/2017 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/28/2017 9:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't care if you stay or not, but your choice is clear. You can bang your head against the wall playing the game that used to exist, or that you wish existed, or you can adjust your expectations and your gameplay. All you do is make choices. Your results are direct consequences of your choices.

I know. I can hope for change. In the meantime, I can disagree on stuff.

I get that you want to vent at an unlucky streak. Fine. But be honest about what it is. When things are going well for you, your tune is "D1 is fine, the problem is CAP D2/3!" or whatever. Then you have a tough session where you lose a bunch of battles, like everyone, and the system is suddenly broken again. Come on.

51 doesn't always beat 49, not in recruiting. Take your licks and fight another day. That's life in a competitive multi-player game. Otherwise, there are less competitive options for you to look into, I'm sure.