One of the more frustrating things in recruiting is when you lose multiple die rolls. It happens - it is supposed to happen. If you are up 60-40 on three guys and if the die rolls are independent events you should lose all three 6.4% of the time.

I was thinking, although I know there is no way this will happen in the near term, what if the die rolls were not totally independent events. What if losing a couple of die rolls increased slightly your odds of winning the third die roll? Akin to the recruit seeing - hey a couple of guys who I thought might be there wont be there, could mean more opportunity for me.

Reducing the odds of the frustrating "tails" in the 3.0 probability based battles would seem to me to be a good thing.

Any views?

Terrible idea
1) How is that fair to the other human team battling for the 3rd recruit?
2) Can you imagine these programmers trying to build in that type of logic across the world with multiple teams winning/losing multiple battles?

I have no clue whether this would be hard or easy. I bet not that hard to program that each lost battle is an X boost in your remaining battle(s)

Unfair? well, in real life it probably is a factor - although of course some recruits may take the opposite view - I want to go where a bunch of good players are going

I'm not really urging it, but it came to mind when I made the point a few days back when another coach complained about losing three or four battles - and the calculation of odds of losing all of them assumed that the events were independent.

Posted by mamxet on 7/5/2017 9:35:00 AM (view original):
I have no clue whether this would be hard or easy. I bet not that hard to program that each lost battle is an X boost in your remaining battle(s)

Unfair? well, in real life it probably is a factor - although of course some recruits may take the opposite view - I want to go where a bunch of good players are going

I'm not really urging it, but it came to mind when I made the point a few days back when another coach complained about losing three or four battles - and the calculation of odds of losing all of them assumed that the events were independent.

Full marks for creativity, but this is too much complexity for too little payoff.

Posted by mullycj on 7/5/2017 8:59:00 AM (view original):
Terrible idea
1) How is that fair to the other human team battling for the 3rd recruit?
2) Can you imagine these programmers trying to build in that type of logic across the world with multiple teams winning/losing multiple battles?

Number 2. This sounds extremely complex, first off what qualifies as a 'battle?
Any coaches go after recruits with minimal effort (1 or 2 AP), will they get a boost if they lose? What if I put 1 AP into 80 players and lose 80 recruits will I get an 80 recruit boost?

Posted by zagsrulez on 7/5/2017 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 7/5/2017 8:59:00 AM (view original):
Terrible idea
1) How is that fair to the other human team battling for the 3rd recruit?
2) Can you imagine these programmers trying to build in that type of logic across the world with multiple teams winning/losing multiple battles?

Number 2. This sounds extremely complex, first off what qualifies as a 'battle?
Any coaches go after recruits with minimal effort (1 or 2 AP), will they get a boost if they lose? What if I put 1 AP into 80 players and lose 80 recruits will I get an 80 recruit boost?

Battle means a dice roll.

Using this logic, if I lose two games in a row to teams I gameplan better than in games I'm favored to win, can I be guaranteed to win the 3rd game? I mean, it's only fair.

Posted by cubcub113 on 7/5/2017 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 7/5/2017 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 7/5/2017 8:59:00 AM (view original):
Terrible idea
1) How is that fair to the other human team battling for the 3rd recruit?
2) Can you imagine these programmers trying to build in that type of logic across the world with multiple teams winning/losing multiple battles?

Number 2. This sounds extremely complex, first off what qualifies as a 'battle?
Any coaches go after recruits with minimal effort (1 or 2 AP), will they get a boost if they lose? What if I put 1 AP into 80 players and lose 80 recruits will I get an 80 recruit boost?

Battle means a dice roll.

lol right its early for me. Seems like something that could heavily influence battles for Late signing recruits for D1/D2. Don't know how much this would even affect D3 play haha

I think I'm convinced its a bad idea - had not thought about the implications in 2nd phase. Maybe limit only to first phase. Mostly just noodling - the way I wish the developers would. If there still are developers. Since they have not fixed even some clear glitches......but thanks for interesting replies.

The list of glitches and bugs that should be fixed immediately is getting pretty long.

It evens out. Sometimes you lose everything, sometimes you win half, sometimes you win everything. It's frustrating when you get bad luck because your team just lost one or two seasons of being competitive but the game is built like this. I just had a horrible D2 recruiting session, overshot, lost rolls, I have basically nothing to show for. But It's probably my strategy... Not to sound like Spud. I can't recruit in the same way everywhere, location, other owners patterns I need to study.