Posted by hughesjr on 10/1/2016 8:21:00 PM (view original):
OK.. How is it fair that if you have put 40% of the total effort a recruit receives that you don't get 40% chance to sign him.

LOL

Posted by pkoopman on 10/1/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/1/2016 9:39:00 PM (view original):
The probability is 100% in your control.
The result is 0% in your control.

If the random number generator spits out 59 or lower, and the signing odds are 59/41, the favored team gets the recruit. You didn't influence the number that was spit out, but you *did* influence what that number meant. You had influence over the result. It isn't "random".

ETA - or it could be 41 or higher, based on how it's programmed. The odds are the same either way, of course.

You realize you just agreed with me in your example and try to say you didn't.

I had NO control over the RNG. The RNG is the result. But whatever............

Probability = 59% (in my control)
RNG = 90 (lost battle and had not control over the number)

I think it's unfair when my team scores 49% of the points in an HD basketball game and yet I never get a dice roll chance after the game clock has run to still try to win the game.

"I hate to split hairs on semantics, but it really does matter, because people keep throwing around these terms without knowing the full implications of them. Recruiting is not random in 3.0. It is based on maximizing your probabilities efficiently. You have tons of control over how high your probability ends up on a given recruit; but because you're recruiting against other live people who also have tons of control over their own probabilities, no one has *complete* control. For some, this means "random". But that's just not an accurate use of the term, nor does it demonstrate a good understanding of the game that exists."

Pin this.

Posted by vandydave on 10/1/2016 11:46:00 PM (view original):
I think it's unfair when my team scores 49% of the points in an HD basketball game and yet I never get a dice roll chance after the game clock has run to still try to win the game.

Ah.. But it was a dice roll that determined every single play. You missed or made that last shot based on the dice roll. Every aspect in every step is determined by a different e roll.

Yeah - in the game did you get to assign how many points you would score in a bid against the other team? I really don't see the parallel.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/2/2016 2:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 10/1/2016 11:46:00 PM (view original):
I think it's unfair when my team scores 49% of the points in an HD basketball game and yet I never get a dice roll chance after the game clock has run to still try to win the game.

Ah.. But it was a dice roll that determined every single play. You missed or made that last shot based on the dice roll. Every aspect in every step is determined by a different e roll.

and this is where people fundamentally see/want HD to be different - the last remaining place where coaches seemed to have some semblance of control (recruiting) has now been replaced by a dice roll as well. the implication was you got some control in recruiting and the trade off was the sim engine was an unpredictable mess. now its all an unpredictable mess.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/1/2016 9:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/1/2016 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/1/2016 5:10:00 PM (view original):
I focused on the second of the definitions you offered because you did. If you want to test it by the first, it still falls short. There is a method in 3.0, and the probabilities are influenced by the conscious decisions of multiple users.

If I'm splitting hairs, it's because I think it matters. A lot of the dissatisfaction is based on mistaken assumptions, including people assuming more chance than is actually involved. There is some chance (implying probabilities), yes. But chance and random aren't synonyms. For people who enjoyed 2.0 and are struggling with 3.0, adjusting is largely going to be a matter of realizing and finding those places where their choices impact the probabilities, and embracing those decision points as the new strategic landscape. When people improperly toss around terms like "coin flip" and "random", they obscure this process of adjustment for themselves and others.

In your description, the method, the portion the users control, only gets you to the door. Ultimately, the random factor is what opens the door for you (signing the recruit). That final dice roll really is not influenced at all by what the users do, which again makes it random. Getting to that dice roll, is the user influence, but it's all random after that. That's a pretty big deal.

People are not improperly tossing the random/coin flip term around. You and others are improperly interpreting what is being said.

That's simply not true. It's not how statistics and probability work. The only thing "random" is what the random number generator spits out. But the parameters of what that number will mean are determined by choices users make. Your choices and actions have determined how many lottery balls out of 100 you will have. That's not random, so the result can't be called random. It's not outside your influence.

But it is true. The "only random" is in fact still random. How do you not understand this? You keep arguing a point no one is making. We understand that we have control up to a point, but what is in place is just stupid. In reality, I could potentially outrecruit all of my competitors using pure strategy and budget my money, but because of the random dice roll, I could also still lose every one of those recruits, effectively screwing my team for who knows how long.

I love how you guys talk about taking basic math out of the game ($10 effort is greater than $5), because it's not fair, but now you want to add statistics to recruiting (If Coach X puts in $10 and Coach Y puts in $5, Coach X has a 90% chance to sign, but if Coach Y puts in $7, he now has a 40% chance to sign). Do you not see how confusing this will be to many, especially to new players. If that was my first introduction to the game, my first thought would have been "this is bullshit" and I would have left. Statistics are already in play in game management, and that is understandable, but it should not be a part of the user effort in recruiting. It's already involved in determining recruits, potentials, and preferences. Might as well not even bother recruit and let the cpu randomly assign it. How about we all just throw one big blind bid on all the players we want, and let the RNG decide the rest, so I can stop wasting my time believing I've won a player because I've outrecruited my opponent. This is effectively what we are doing.

"You keep arguing a point no one is making."

Really?...

"Ultimately, the decision is in fact random...If a "dice roll" decision is made at any point in time, this is in fact a random decision, no matter how you try to spin it."

"Getting to that dice roll, is the user influence, but it's all random after that. That's a pretty big deal."

"Might as well not even bother recruit and let the cpu randomly assign it. How about we all just throw one big blind bid on all the players we want, and let the RNG decide the rest, so I can stop wasting my time believing I've won a player because I've outrecruited my opponent. This is effectively what we are doing."

These are the points I'm arguing. You made each one of them. So someone is making them.

Recruiting in 3.0 is not "random". It is based on probability, subject to some degree of chance. If a team could be set up to just get a "random" selection of recruits, it would be routinely beaten by users who are actively recruiting.

The RNG gives you a 59. That is "random", because it could have given you any other number between 0 and 99. But that isn't the result. That number doesn't tell you if you've won or lost the recruit. The result is the recruit's decision, and that is based on where that number falls within the parameters of signing odds that have been determined solely by the choices you and other users make. So calling the whole process a "random" decision is plainly inaccurate. It is probabilistic. That's not the same thing as random.

A false belief that you might as well let the cpu randomly assign players is akin to saying there's no point in exercising and eating healthy because you could die from a car crash or drown in a boating accident or be hit by an asteroid. Life is about maximizing your probabilities efficiently, and now HD 3.0 is, too.

koopman, if they don't understand HD 3.0 and think they understand coin flips, I see no harm in letting them talk about what they think they understand. Those who understand the game know better, and I think even new coaches will realize who is writing about something they understand and won't be mislead by the forum talk.

"New coaches". Good one.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/2/2016 5:24:00 PM (view original):
"You keep arguing a point no one is making."

Really?...

"Ultimately, the decision is in fact random...If a "dice roll" decision is made at any point in time, this is in fact a random decision, no matter how you try to spin it."

"Getting to that dice roll, is the user influence, but it's all random after that. That's a pretty big deal."

"Might as well not even bother recruit and let the cpu randomly assign it. How about we all just throw one big blind bid on all the players we want, and let the RNG decide the rest, so I can stop wasting my time believing I've won a player because I've outrecruited my opponent. This is effectively what we are doing."

These are the points I'm arguing. You made each one of them. So someone is making them.

Recruiting in 3.0 is not "random". It is based on probability, subject to some degree of chance. If a team could be set up to just get a "random" selection of recruits, it would be routinely beaten by users who are actively recruiting.

The RNG gives you a 59. That is "random", because it could have given you any other number between 0 and 99. But that isn't the result. That number doesn't tell you if you've won or lost the recruit. The result is the recruit's decision, and that is based on where that number falls within the parameters of signing odds that have been determined solely by the choices you and other users make. So calling the whole process a "random" decision is plainly inaccurate. It is probabilistic. That's not the same thing as random.

A false belief that you might as well let the cpu randomly assign players is akin to saying there's no point in exercising and eating healthy because you could die from a car crash or drown in a boating accident or be hit by an asteroid. Life is about maximizing your probabilities efficiently, and now HD 3.0 is, too.

"So calling the whole process a "random" decision is plainly inaccurate"

You are arguing that we are saying the entire process in random, but in none of those posts do I say that. That's what I mean by you are arguing a point no one is making. The fact that the RNG exists in a recruits final decision is what we are talking about.

-It is understood that all of our efforts get us within specific parameters. I've never argued that. The problem is there should not be any RNG within those parameters, especially when one is listed Very High and the other is High.

Spud, you can remove yourself altogether. Because your overwhelming wealth of knowledge about the game is not needed. You are like someone's kid trying to put their 2 cents in an adult conversation. You come across as a WIS shill and cannot be taken seriously.

So we can agree that the process is not, in fact, a random one, and you will retract the suggestion that we "Might as well not even bother recruit and let the cpu randomly assign it" because it is misleading hyperbole? Cool. You're entitled to a preference that recruiting be entirely deterministic. That's fine. I disagree, and apparently so does WIS, but you want what you want, and it's valid. Let's just stick to the honest preferences, and not go off into a made up universe where 3.0 might as well just randomly assign recruits, and pretend that the outcomes would be similar.

"Spud, you can remove yourself altogether." Of course, if all you understand is "random" and you don't understand that very well, I have no interest in the conversation anyway. I'll talk about HD. Lotsa luck with "random." Thank you.

The idea that anyone would be a "WIS shill" is ridiculous. If anything, the coaches that were playing this game for practically free were the only ones that could have been shills and some of them are understandable disappointed the system they had come to dominate is now drastically different.