The latest bitter recruiting coin flip to go against me.

I was 70% favorite to sign a player.

I was Very High vs. High.

Player signs with someone else. When and how are they planning on fixing these issues?

They aren't, it's the new game.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/6/2017 9:39:00 AM (view original):
They aren't, it's the new game.

I was excited about the changes at the beginning, hope that they would keep the good parts and make necessary adjustments on the bad parts. If they plan on just leaving it as is then I'm not sure I can continue to enjoy the game.

I'm bummed, this has become a great part of my morning routine.

I have no clue why they added in the signing odds. Seeing long shots like that just makes people mad. In this case, a hidden number is better because you don't KNOW how badly the roll went against you. They should remove it.

It was a bad idea. I'm sure some disagree but everyone should have known that it would be far more frustrating to see 70/30 than VH/H. WifS has a tendency to give us TOO much info.

I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

Posted by indiansrck27 on 3/6/2017 10:15:00 AM (view original):
You (Hoosier) should just quit the game. All you whiney ******* crying non stop has really gone too far. Not enough people going through with their cries of "I'm never playing again".

The numbers say otherwise.

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

Posted by indiansrck27 on 3/6/2017 10:15:00 AM (view original):
You (Hoosier) should just quit the game. All you whiney ******* crying non stop has really gone too far. Not enough people going through with their cries of "I'm never playing again".

Very mature. Thanks for your thoughts.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

I agree 100%. The thing I was most excited about was leveling the playing field. I've experienced it at the top and at the bottom, it was frustrating.

I'm batting like 10% right now on these coin flips and it's starting to destroy the programs I've worked hard to build. And it's impossible to sustain high Big 6 programs on 2 star talent that you know you can land. Back to the drawing board.

Posted by hoosierkyle on 3/6/2017 9:34:00 AM (view original):
The latest bitter recruiting coin flip to go against me.

I was 70% favorite to sign a player.

I was Very High vs. High.

Player signs with someone else. When and how are they planning on fixing these issues?

Yeah I had a 74 26% I think the treshold is 80%

Posted by hoosierkyle on 3/6/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

I agree 100%. The thing I was most excited about was leveling the playing field. I've experienced it at the top and at the bottom, it was frustrating.

I'm batting like 10% right now on these coin flips and it's starting to destroy the programs I've worked hard to build. And it's impossible to sustain high Big 6 programs on 2 star talent that you know you can land. Back to the drawing board.

I guess we'll see, but I'd say if the system is working right, you should be able to sustain a high level D1 program on 1-2 star players. That should be a valid path for coaches to take, concentrate on getting the best 4 year players available to them. The reason those programs didn't work to break out of the 2nd round before is because there always were 10-15 teams in every world re-stocking early entry caliber players (generally 4-5 star caliber) without much fight. In theory, the current system should make it harder to sustain a program on elite talent. Elite talent is now harder to get (in theory, because of encouraging battles), and harder to replace. Guys are still getting lucky, and signing some incredible classes by winning all their battles (or scaring people out of battles); but they'll have to deal with EEs, and there's no guarantee that part of the game will be made easier for them, except maybe by announcing early for planning purposes.

There is no threshold. If the odds are 99-1 and 1 comes in, 1 wins. Now, recruiting is using your resources to influence the likelihood of an outcome. Period. Any team with any fractional percentage of possible success has the potential to win. The kick in the shins comes when the 3 guys who you lose to a lower percentage happen to be the 3 out of 10 in that likelihood equation. You either develop a strategy to accumulate players in this environment or you're SOL. For example, don't seek out a slew of 3 and 4 team battles. 40-30-30 is much worse than 70-30. Be mindful of prestige and preferences. Be prepared to walk away as much as go all in.
And let's keep sh**ing on the folks that are frustrated versus offering some encouragement. The Big Conferences look real fun with 7 and 8 SIMS.

The real challenge is sustaining a solid roster if you lose multiple coin flips. For example, last season I lost the well-documented DI vs DIII signing despite 15 HV/1CV/500APs, and this season I just lost a 75/25 to a team one letter prestige lower despite having better preferences, higher prestige, near max AP (>61 AP per cycle), and start/mins promise. That's going to be very tough to recover from. It's very difficult to understand what dictates probability, since the impact of effort seems to vary from battle to battle, unless there is a timing weighting that I'm missing when I study this.