Posted by pallas on 11/8/2016 1:53:00 PM (view original):
I understand the concern, sundevil. And I would totally agree with you if information were being shared during the recruiting process. But if information is shared after the recruit has signed, neither side has an advantage.

To me it's parallel to counting cards. The more you know about the deck the more you can shift the odds and better allocate your bets. Having a forum group working on analyzing the deck will harm those who aren't part of the group over the long term.

I'm not calling TJoe a cheater. Under the old system this would have been no big deal. But now that the RNG is in play, deconstructing the deck is a new and bigger problem.

Just my opinion. I get that people will disagree with me. We'll see how things play out.

I have asked for and received similar information this past recruiting cycle. If I am paying to play a game I want to know how I lost out on a recruit when as an A+ prestige school I put in all the effort I could have plus a substantial amount of AP and lost as a Very High to High.

Posted by gvsujulius on 11/8/2016 2:08:00 PM (view original):
I have asked for and received similar information this past recruiting cycle. If I am paying to play a game I want to know how I lost out on a recruit when as an A+ prestige school I put in all the effort I could have plus a substantial amount of AP and lost as a Very High to High.

See, I can tell you why you lost. You lost the RNG.

What you were really asking for is what coefficients hit the RNG. Sharing that info is obviously doable, but in my lonely opinion it's bad for the growth of the game.

So I lost a coin flip.... that is what people have complained about with HD 3.0. I want to believe it isn't some random coin flip and there is a rhyme or reason to having lost.

If WIS wants to make it illegal to share information after the battle is over, they can make that explicit. But then they have to police it.

If sharing the info allowed us to determine actual probabilities, I think you'd have a stronger case. Since it doesn't, I don't think there is any harm in sharing details post-battle. It's one of the benefits of the ambiguity designed in a system based on probabilities rather than hard determinism. Harder to game the system, even if you could figure out the parameters and values of recruiting actions (and I don't think you can).

Posted by shoe3 on 11/8/2016 2:48:00 PM (view original):
If WIS wants to make it illegal to share information after the battle is over, they can make that explicit. But then they have to police it.

If sharing the info allowed us to determine actual probabilities, I think you'd have a stronger case. Since it doesn't, I don't think there is any harm in sharing details post-battle. It's one of the benefits of the ambiguity designed in a system based on probabilities rather than hard determinism. Harder to game the system, even if you could figure out the parameters and values of recruiting actions (and I don't think you can).

Sharing helps you understand the probabilities better. That bonus knowledge shifts the odds to the info sharers over time.

My recommendation to WIS would be to not introduce odds and chance to the recruiting process. But that horse has obviously left the barn.

They could at least forbid open detailed info sharing on the forums.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/8/2016 2:48:00 PM (view original):
If WIS wants to make it illegal to share information after the battle is over, they can make that explicit. But then they have to police it.

If sharing the info allowed us to determine actual probabilities, I think you'd have a stronger case. Since it doesn't, I don't think there is any harm in sharing details post-battle. It's one of the benefits of the ambiguity designed in a system based on probabilities rather than hard determinism. Harder to game the system, even if you could figure out the parameters and values of recruiting actions (and I don't think you can).

Yeah, I am all for sharing if we want to get a grasp on things and finally be able to make intelligent décisions.

If you think something borders on collusive, isn't it better that it's done in the open?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2016 4:24:00 PM (view original):
If you think something borders on collusive, isn't it better that it's done in the open?

I get your logic, but allowing open collusion would be tacit approval. Forcing it underground would at least discourage it.

since the beginning of this game, talking about effort AFTER the end of recruiting (end of all recruiting, not just the battle for that recruit) has been fine.

discussed openly and extensively in the forums

admin always thought fine.

IF that is different now, it should be made clear.

Or perhaps it is okay 55% of the time, but not the other 45%?

Posted by fd343ny on 11/8/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
since the beginning of this game, talking about effort AFTER the end of recruiting (end of all recruiting, not just the battle for that recruit) has been fine.

discussed openly and extensively in the forums

admin always thought fine.

IF that is different now, it should be made clear.

Or perhaps it is okay 55% of the time, but not the other 45%?

I see what you did there...

Posted by shoe3 on 11/8/2016 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 11/8/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
since the beginning of this game, talking about effort AFTER the end of recruiting (end of all recruiting, not just the battle for that recruit) has been fine.

discussed openly and extensively in the forums

admin always thought fine.

IF that is different now, it should be made clear.

Or perhaps it is okay 55% of the time, but not the other 45%?

I see what you did there...

LOL I did to!

Posted by fd343ny on 11/8/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
since the beginning of this game, talking about effort AFTER the end of recruiting (end of all recruiting, not just the battle for that recruit) has been fine.

discussed openly and extensively in the forums

admin always thought fine.

IF that is different now, it should be made clear.

Or perhaps it is okay 55% of the time, but not the other 45%?

This is a Very Good match for the Clever Tieback preference. Well done.

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/8/2016 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2016 4:24:00 PM (view original):
If you think something borders on collusive, isn't it better that it's done in the open?

I get your logic, but allowing open collusion would be tacit approval. Forcing it underground would at least discourage it.

That's assuming it is collusive. And, at that point, a limited few who are willing to break rules will benefit.

Like it or not, people will do it. It's the internet.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2016 5:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 11/8/2016 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/8/2016 4:24:00 PM (view original):
If you think something borders on collusive, isn't it better that it's done in the open?

I get your logic, but allowing open collusion would be tacit approval. Forcing it underground would at least discourage it.

That's assuming it is collusive. And, at that point, a limited few who are willing to break rules will benefit.

Like it or not, people will do it. It's the internet.

A limited few wouldn't be able to collect enough data to make the exercise worthwhile. Allow a cartel to organize and the game changes.

WIS refused to divulge some odds during dev chat, in hopes of maintaining a mysterious black box. I don't think that will be sustainable.