So, you think the strategy changed not disappeared?

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/20/2017 11:20:00 AM (view original):
So, you think the strategy changed not disappeared?

Yes, it expanded, in my view.

Posted by shoe3 on 2/20/2017 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/20/2017 11:20:00 AM (view original):
So, you think the strategy changed not disappeared?

Yes, it expanded, in my view.

It did, except on rolls.

Posted by zorzii on 2/20/2017 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 2/20/2017 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/20/2017 11:20:00 AM (view original):
So, you think the strategy changed not disappeared?

Yes, it expanded, in my view.

It did, except on rolls.

"Rolls" encourage battling. Increased battling for individual recruits is precisely what increases the value of strategy overall. Strategy doesn't stop when you win or lose a specific recruit.

Posted by shoe3 on 2/20/2017 11:11:00 AM (view original):
Strategy means "a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim". In HD, strategy refers to more than just the tactics you use to get a single recruit. The major, overall aim for most is to field a team that competes for championships. With that in mind, the value of strategy - the set of actions and policies a coach undertakes to field the best team - has increased in 3.0.

The value of strategy increases as a larger and more diverse set of plans becomes viable. By contrast, when there is one dominant plan, the value of strategy decreases. In that latter case, the value of other, non-strategic factors, like simple longevity and the knowledge of special tricks and hacks that come with it, increases. I suspect some people confuse knowledge of those special tricks and hacks with "strategy". The value of knowing all those tricks from 2.0, like how to calculate your opponents' resources, the points of major price separation in distance recruiting, how much relative credit HVs and CVs had relative to scouting trips, arranging superclasses to maximize resources, etc. has decreased. That doesn't mean there is less strategy. Playing "rock-paper-scissors" isn't much fun when rock always wins. And knowing how to choose rock every time doesn't mean your strategy is valuable. When there are more viable options at each decision point, the value of strategy is increased. There are now lots of ways to approach team-building.

Well said.

I've yet to understand how bludgeoning your opponent with 77 HV on a recruit because you can afford it and he cannot is "strategy". To me, simply choosing which recruits to engage in battle for is more strategic than that.

Yeah. You used to have to pick which recruits to engage in a battle with by knowing who could afford to dump 77 visits on him, guess opponents priorities, etc. Now you can afford to max your expenditures on a number of guys in D1 and hope to get lucky, even if you can't actually gain an edge. You don't need to put in the critical thinking during the decision making stage because mistakes are less costly and more likely to work out anyway.

There's still the element of opponent priorities. You have preferences to consider(whether they will help/hurt you?. You can still attempt to sort out who can "max out" on a recruit. There are a lot more decisions to make than "How much resource does he have? How many HV can he afford to offer?"

There is still a misinterpretation of rolls... I mean, you have no other choices to get into one or two, depending. I think we need to have a system where there are less situations like these. And as Shoe mentioned, of course, it does not end there, but sometimes, it's go VH or H and wait... And to me, that is not strategy. And the more we know about the value of AP, the more we will see situations where there is a roll. Anyways, that's my view.

As I've said numerous times, it's a sim game. You put yourself in the best position to win, whether for a recruit or a game, and wait for the results of the sim. That's just how it works. I'm sure you've won games you should have lost and vice versa. That aspect of the sim is now in recruiting. benis has tracked the recruiting results as best he could. Last time I saw it, VH beat H something like 70% of the time. I think it should be a tad higher than that but 70% isn't exactly a coin flip.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/20/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Yeah. You used to have to pick which recruits to engage in a battle with by knowing who could afford to dump 77 visits on him, guess opponents priorities, etc. Now you can afford to max your expenditures on a number of guys in D1 and hope to get lucky, even if you can't actually gain an edge. You don't need to put in the critical thinking during the decision making stage because mistakes are less costly and more likely to work out anyway.

The game isn't over when you win or lose a recruit, so don't evaluate strategy based on winning or losing a recruit. Critical thinking comes in at many points in the process of building a team; how far to reach, how to prioritize, how much to invest, quality/depth balance, class structure, whether to spend extra resources to try to increase chances with one, or to develop a decent backup, how much emphasis to put on player preferences, when to use resources, how hard to go after elite players whose careers are more volatile (EEs for D1). Strategies in all these areas have opened up in 3.0 beyond the dominant strategy of "avoid battles when you aren't pretty sure you can get to 51" because 51 doesn't always beat 49 anymore. Moving from deterministic commodity distribution to probabilistic commodity distribution was the essential shift in 3.0. It has expanded the number of viable strategies at many decision points, thus increases the value of strategic thinking.

Well said shoe3

I think shoe3 makes great points but his perspective on the situation is 100% backwards. There's an argument that these things are true in D2 and D3. But in D1, especially with a small set of openings, you can basically afford to max out recruiting actions on everybody you want and hope for the best. You can potentially even come close to maxing out a backup option or 2. Obviously you have to distribute APs, but I still think the importance of critical decision making is clearly decreased at the D1 level. All of the strategic questions he highlights - how much to invest, whether to go all out for one guy or invest in a backup, etc. - are basically nullified when you can afford to do both without giving anything up.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/20/2017 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I think shoe3 makes great points but his perspective on the situation is 100% backwards. There's an argument that these things are true in D2 and D3. But in D1, especially with a small set of openings, you can basically afford to max out recruiting actions on everybody you want and hope for the best. You can potentially even come close to maxing out a backup option or 2. Obviously you have to distribute APs, but I still think the importance of critical decision making is clearly decreased at the D1 level. All of the strategic questions he highlights - how much to invest, whether to go all out for one guy or invest in a backup, etc. - are basically nullified when you can afford to do both without giving anything up.

In D3, it's more location than anything else. Can't sign D2 until second session, can't sign D1 until the last day. If you scout D1 and D2 at D3, you won't have enough to find any good D3 players who all look alike or almost at level 1. So D3 needs fixing too.

So no one should ever complain about EE because you can max out on numerous players? I KNOW that doesn't sound right because I've seen many, many complaints about EE. Some say it's the most pressing issue in HD now.

Mike : It is. 80 ap against 40 ap is a huge advantage... So thinking you can be in all battles isn't true.