Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):
the poker example only works toward my point, the outcome of a hand isn't a "coin flip" from the start based upon any possible hands for any players, it becomes a "coin flip" based upon two people bringing equal variables (cards) to a scenario within the hand.

and as I stated in one of my examples - two teams both high or very high on a recruit may have the result of who that recruit chooses based upon not who actually leads based upon all factors but decided by an unknown randomization factor built into recruiting. This isn't a literal coin, it's not a literal coin flip, but it is a random result for an outcome that in my opinion shouldn't be randomized. in my summary form, this is how seble has said it works, fact.

The amount of variables that lead to a scenario has nothing to do with it being a coin flip. It is only a coin flip if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal. What you are intentionally avoiding is that nearly every scenario has some sort of "randomness" or probability involved, but not all of those scenarios can be referred to as a "coin-flip". As you have confirmed, it is not either a literal nor a allegorical coin flip.

So is it also a coin flip when you lose a game by a missed FT with 1 second remaining?

Not that any of this tangent is germane - at all - to the OP. But it's actually a decent discussion, because I think a lot of the dissatisfaction with 3.0 comes down to those dissatisfied people wanting a more deterministic, rather than a more probabilistic game. A common refrain is that the game simulation is "random enough", and so recruiting should remain straight deterministic. To Benis's point, at least what it looks like he's getting at, any game sim action is probabilistic - "random" or "coin flip" is an improper term. It wasn't a 50/50 proposition that a given player makes or misses a ft to win or lose a game. The probability is based on how much ability he has shooting a free throw. I'd love to have a B rated FT shooter up there with the game on the line, but he's still going to miss ~25% of the time. "Dice roll" or "RNG" are more accurate terms here, they reflect the reality that these outcomes are based in probabilities, not determined by a hard number comparison.

As hughesjr has said in another thread, what 3.0 does with recruiting is take an aspect of the game that was straight deterministic - getting recruiting effort credit of 50.00000001% resulted in 100% determined outcomes - and made it subject to probabilities, like the rest of the game. Players who can't tolerate that lack of determinism are going to have a hard time ever accepting 3.0.

I completely agree and I would only add that I think there was a significant amount of probability in the HD2 that is being ignored in the course of these discussions.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/15/2016 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Not that any of this tangent is germane - at all - to the OP. But it's actually a decent discussion, because I think a lot of the dissatisfaction with 3.0 comes down to those dissatisfied people wanting a more deterministic, rather than a more probabilistic game. A common refrain is that the game simulation is "random enough", and so recruiting should remain straight deterministic. To Benis's point, at least what it looks like he's getting at, any game sim action is probabilistic - "random" or "coin flip" is an improper term. It wasn't a 50/50 proposition that a given player makes or misses a ft to win or lose a game. The probability is based on how much ability he has shooting a free throw. I'd love to have a B rated FT shooter up there with the game on the line, but he's still going to miss ~25% of the time. "Dice roll" or "RNG" are more accurate terms here, they reflect the reality that these outcomes are based in probabilities, not determined by a hard number comparison.

As hughesjr has said in another thread, what 3.0 does with recruiting is take an aspect of the game that was straight deterministic - getting recruiting effort credit of 50.00000001% resulted in 100% determined outcomes - and made it subject to probabilities, like the rest of the game. Players who can't tolerate that lack of determinism are going to have a hard time ever accepting 3.0.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts. Probably much more eloquently than I could have said it too.

Even within the normal game, we still get upset when things that 'should' happen, don't (I'm very guilty of this). When my 80% FT shooter misses 2 FTs when the game is tied, I'm ****** (cost me the conf championship btw).

But that's how I guess I'm viewing the new recruiting thing now. You set yourself up with the best odds of winning a recruit just like you do for winning a game. Sometimes the bounces go your way and sometimes they don't. It's frustrating when they don't.

I do think a problem is that with the new system, you're more likely to lose a battle. In 2.0, you kind of have a good idea if you're going to lose or not and have a backup on that maybe 1 battle that's going on. I think that's relatively easy to handle. In the meantime you can fill up your other openings with sure things. In 3.0, guys won't sign until the 2nd period (when recruiting up or have a late preference) so it's harder to nail down a couple guys early and easily and so losing a battle is going to make it hurt even more. And you could possibly lose 2 or 3 battles.

Combined with the fact that I think it's harder to find a long solid list of players who could be backups, losing a battle will REALLY suck since you may not have a quality player waiting there to grab if things don't go your way.

The only real problem, IMO, is going to be if SIM AI gets too aggressive with targeting and signing guys. Otherwise, we're all playing the same game, facing the same environments. I'm sure many new strategies will emerge, and I find that pretty exciting.

One thing I've been thinking about is that FB/press is probably close to unplayable now. You almost have to be willing and able to play with a walk-on or three, or you'll be clogging up your roster with 4-year backups. I'm sure people will find ways to make it work eventually, but it's going to be a big risk starting out in 3.0.

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):
the poker example only works toward my point, the outcome of a hand isn't a "coin flip" from the start based upon any possible hands for any players, it becomes a "coin flip" based upon two people bringing equal variables (cards) to a scenario within the hand.

and as I stated in one of my examples - two teams both high or very high on a recruit may have the result of who that recruit chooses based upon not who actually leads based upon all factors but decided by an unknown randomization factor built into recruiting. This isn't a literal coin, it's not a literal coin flip, but it is a random result for an outcome that in my opinion shouldn't be randomized. in my summary form, this is how seble has said it works, fact.

The amount of variables that lead to a scenario has nothing to do with it being a coin flip. It is only a coin flip if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal. What you are intentionally avoiding is that nearly every scenario has some sort of "randomness" or probability involved, but not all of those scenarios can be referred to as a "coin-flip". As you have confirmed, it is not either a literal nor a allegorical coin flip.

"if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal" - seble has said in very close recruiting scenarios that a randomizer will be used to resolve these scenarios - the only variable left to resolve these very close recruiting battles is the randomizer. by your definition - coin flip.

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):
the poker example only works toward my point, the outcome of a hand isn't a "coin flip" from the start based upon any possible hands for any players, it becomes a "coin flip" based upon two people bringing equal variables (cards) to a scenario within the hand.

and as I stated in one of my examples - two teams both high or very high on a recruit may have the result of who that recruit chooses based upon not who actually leads based upon all factors but decided by an unknown randomization factor built into recruiting. This isn't a literal coin, it's not a literal coin flip, but it is a random result for an outcome that in my opinion shouldn't be randomized. in my summary form, this is how seble has said it works, fact.

The amount of variables that lead to a scenario has nothing to do with it being a coin flip. It is only a coin flip if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal. What you are intentionally avoiding is that nearly every scenario has some sort of "randomness" or probability involved, but not all of those scenarios can be referred to as a "coin-flip". As you have confirmed, it is not either a literal nor a allegorical coin flip.

"if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal" - seble has said in very close recruiting scenarios that a randomizer will be used to resolve these scenarios - the only variable left to resolve these very close recruiting battles is the randomizer. by your definition - coin flip.

I'm glad you finally see my point.

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 3:55:00 PM (view original):
I completely agree and I would only add that I think there was a significant amount of probability in the HD2 that is being ignored in the course of these discussions.

the probability of 2 isn't being ignored, but those variables such as recruit distribution are known from the get go from recruiting starts, based upon the recruit distribution and other variables you then utilize/risk your resources toward desired outcomes. HD 3 combines the randomness of recruit distribution which can be analyzed and evaluated with an added randomness/probability at the time of signing which is completely out of your control.

I've said all along, there are so many changes I would've made to recruiting to level the playing field and increase the enjoyment level, but none of them would've involved dice rolls/coinflips at the most significant juncture of recruiting.

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):
the poker example only works toward my point, the outcome of a hand isn't a "coin flip" from the start based upon any possible hands for any players, it becomes a "coin flip" based upon two people bringing equal variables (cards) to a scenario within the hand.

and as I stated in one of my examples - two teams both high or very high on a recruit may have the result of who that recruit chooses based upon not who actually leads based upon all factors but decided by an unknown randomization factor built into recruiting. This isn't a literal coin, it's not a literal coin flip, but it is a random result for an outcome that in my opinion shouldn't be randomized. in my summary form, this is how seble has said it works, fact.

The amount of variables that lead to a scenario has nothing to do with it being a coin flip. It is only a coin flip if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal. What you are intentionally avoiding is that nearly every scenario has some sort of "randomness" or probability involved, but not all of those scenarios can be referred to as a "coin-flip". As you have confirmed, it is not either a literal nor a allegorical coin flip.

"if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal" - seble has said in very close recruiting scenarios that a randomizer will be used to resolve these scenarios - the only variable left to resolve these very close recruiting battles is the randomizer. by your definition - coin flip.

I'm glad you finally see my point.

your point was agreeing with my description of a "coinflip" as it pertains to end-game recruiting scenarios. so I'm glad your reading comprehension finally kicked in.

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):
the poker example only works toward my point, the outcome of a hand isn't a "coin flip" from the start based upon any possible hands for any players, it becomes a "coin flip" based upon two people bringing equal variables (cards) to a scenario within the hand.

and as I stated in one of my examples - two teams both high or very high on a recruit may have the result of who that recruit chooses based upon not who actually leads based upon all factors but decided by an unknown randomization factor built into recruiting. This isn't a literal coin, it's not a literal coin flip, but it is a random result for an outcome that in my opinion shouldn't be randomized. in my summary form, this is how seble has said it works, fact.

The amount of variables that lead to a scenario has nothing to do with it being a coin flip. It is only a coin flip if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal. What you are intentionally avoiding is that nearly every scenario has some sort of "randomness" or probability involved, but not all of those scenarios can be referred to as a "coin-flip". As you have confirmed, it is not either a literal nor a allegorical coin flip.

"if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal" - seble has said in very close recruiting scenarios that a randomizer will be used to resolve these scenarios - the only variable left to resolve these very close recruiting battles is the randomizer. by your definition - coin flip.

I'm glad you finally see my point.

your point was agreeing with my description of a "coinflip" as it pertains to end-game recruiting scenarios. so I'm glad your reading comprehension finally kicked in.

Exactly, once you retreated from your original point that all recruiting scenarios would be decided by a coin flip. You yourself admitted it was limited to "very close recruiting scenarios" which is the definition of a coin flip. It's ok, man. Everyone here knows what happened. Just go with it.

Cool thread.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/15/2016 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Not that any of this tangent is germane - at all - to the OP. But it's actually a decent discussion, because I think a lot of the dissatisfaction with 3.0 comes down to those dissatisfied people wanting a more deterministic, rather than a more probabilistic game. A common refrain is that the game simulation is "random enough", and so recruiting should remain straight deterministic. To Benis's point, at least what it looks like he's getting at, any game sim action is probabilistic - "random" or "coin flip" is an improper term. It wasn't a 50/50 proposition that a given player makes or misses a ft to win or lose a game. The probability is based on how much ability he has shooting a free throw. I'd love to have a B rated FT shooter up there with the game on the line, but he's still going to miss ~25% of the time. "Dice roll" or "RNG" are more accurate terms here, they reflect the reality that these outcomes are based in probabilities, not determined by a hard number comparison.

As hughesjr has said in another thread, what 3.0 does with recruiting is take an aspect of the game that was straight deterministic - getting recruiting effort credit of 50.00000001% resulted in 100% determined outcomes - and made it subject to probabilities, like the rest of the game. Players who can't tolerate that lack of determinism are going to have a hard time ever accepting 3.0.

Very well put.

So was this: " Noleaniml is right.
"Coin flip" is the same as "pick out of a hat" or "throw darts at a wall blindfolded", etc.
Those terms mean that a result will be determined completely randomly.
It means there's a 50-50 chance based on nothing.
I mean, can you find a clearer example than the "coin flip" to determine OT possession in football? They're looking for straight 50-50 odds.

HD 3.0 is not about a "coin flip".
3.0 recruiting and HD gameplay always, has been about probabilities.
As we learned in the Beta, teams will notch up their probability of winning a recruiting battle based on putting in AP's, etc." (edited out the rest)

Let the meaningless argument over semantics rage on between people who seem to have a relatively loose grasp of what they are arguing about. Meanwhile, these two posts pretty well summed up what matters about 3.0. Something happening according to probabilities (especially since we can influence so many of the probabilities) simply isn't a "coin flip."

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 9/15/2016 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/15/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):
the poker example only works toward my point, the outcome of a hand isn't a "coin flip" from the start based upon any possible hands for any players, it becomes a "coin flip" based upon two people bringing equal variables (cards) to a scenario within the hand.

and as I stated in one of my examples - two teams both high or very high on a recruit may have the result of who that recruit chooses based upon not who actually leads based upon all factors but decided by an unknown randomization factor built into recruiting. This isn't a literal coin, it's not a literal coin flip, but it is a random result for an outcome that in my opinion shouldn't be randomized. in my summary form, this is how seble has said it works, fact.

The amount of variables that lead to a scenario has nothing to do with it being a coin flip. It is only a coin flip if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal. What you are intentionally avoiding is that nearly every scenario has some sort of "randomness" or probability involved, but not all of those scenarios can be referred to as a "coin-flip". As you have confirmed, it is not either a literal nor a allegorical coin flip.

"if there is only one variable left and the probability of the outcomes is practically equal" - seble has said in very close recruiting scenarios that a randomizer will be used to resolve these scenarios - the only variable left to resolve these very close recruiting battles is the randomizer. by your definition - coin flip.

I'm glad you finally see my point.

your point was agreeing with my description of a "coinflip" as it pertains to end-game recruiting scenarios. so I'm glad your reading comprehension finally kicked in.

Exactly, once you retreated from your original point that all recruiting scenarios would be decided by a coin flip. You yourself admitted it was limited to "very close recruiting scenarios" which is the definition of a coin flip. It's ok, man. Everyone here knows what happened. Just go with it.

what happened is you took what started as an obvious sarcastic remark, then was an obvious analogy even when explained out, and interpreted it literally for no reason other than to create controversy. If you seriously think you have proved some sort of point here you are either ignorant or delusional, which is fine if it suits you. the fact that all this started with is I took a recruit from you with my Missouri team, and that's where I'll end it.

Ahhh... And there's the rub... You still think this is about a recruit you took from Oklahoma and not me. I was actually pretty stoked that you won that recruit and OU didn't, because he's the one that showed up on him right before signings and "took him from me." Whatever latent guilt you have about that is your issue. And you were the one that showed up in this thread to start controversy. You came looking for me, I didn't come looking for you.