Mike : I think d2and d3 is working properly, lots of different strategy to be used. You obviously did get carried away in the battle you mentioned and had to take a walk-on, it's something will avoid going further. I haven't seen less owners in D2 IBA and RUPP. We have kept our conferences intact and I still find the same rivalries. In D1, it's another story. People left... so we have to stop being blindsided and need to address the problems.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/20/2016 12:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 12/19/2016 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 12/19/2016 10:13:00 PM (view original):
It's random. I just beat Alabama when I was High, went all-in, we had same preferences. It came down to a roll, the kid was in SC, under 300 miles from Alabama, on the top 100 list for everyone to see. The last four rolls, I won 1 out of 4... was happy to finally catch a break since I had lost two rolls when I was VH to H. There is no strategy in this... you look to the top 100, and think, this kid is good, and hope people get to other battles or fear your prestige or your preferences. If you are in a battle, know you will get to a roll, you focus on this. D1 is in need of some programming.

Sorry kid, you're apparently just as dense as our mets pal. Saying "there's no strategy in this" and 'It's random" is just flagrantly asinine.

I am not a kid. No strategy...

Cool. If there's "no strategy", then prove it. Don't look at who you're scouting, don't bother to prioritize, just randomly select guys to put attention points on. Haphazardly move them around in a "random" way. Don't worry about strategy, right? There is none.

Put your gameplan where your forum drivel is. Show us it's "random".

Knowing how to recruit the "right" way doesn't make you a good recruiter. Your recruiting skill doesn't determine if you sign your target.

Just like in craps where you set up your play to the best of your ability (ie: pick the recruits you're going after), and then the RNG decides if you get anyway. That's not skill based.

You want to look at one microcosm of recruiting that you have control over and then want to say you have control over the whole thing .......... WRONG.

the skills and tactics have changed in 3.0 - not gone

the recruiting resolution process is now probabalistic - thats the new game. Some folks dont like that and prefer a process where the final resolution is deterministic.

success in the probabalistic process will for sure require lots of skills - but it is quite different. Its a new game at that level.

The game engine is the same. Scouting is quite different. recruiting is quite different.

But we do not want luck to decide D1 outcomes. D2 and D3 still are skills except for top players from D1 going D2 and making it unbalanced.

When you build a team, you try to tilt the scales in your favor. The better team doesn't always win. I'm not sure how recruiting is much different. You try to tilt the scales in your direction. But, even when you do, you don't always win.

Posted by zorzii on 12/20/2016 7:35:00 AM (view original):
Mike : I think d2and d3 is working properly, lots of different strategy to be used. You obviously did get carried away in the battle you mentioned and had to take a walk-on, it's something will avoid going further. I haven't seen less owners in D2 IBA and RUPP. We have kept our conferences intact and I still find the same rivalries. In D1, it's another story. People left... so we have to stop being blindsided and need to address the problems.

Me getting a walk-on was less mistake and more by design. I was OK with a walk-on. Only have 1 SR so now I'll be recruiting 2 spots. I was going to do that anyway by cutting a SIMAI SO. Now I have the option of keeping said player or getting better class balance by recruiting 3.

That said, the mistake I made was loading virtually all my AP into one recruit initially. I was only able to open the scholarship on option 2 when the SIM D1s showed up. And I was a cycle short on opening the scholarship on option 3(no one was on him). I could have allocated my AP a little better and possibly signed options 2 or 3. I learned something so it wasn't a total loss.

I don't want to tell anyone how they should think, well I do but that won't go over well, but as long as you think recruiting is just a dice roll, you are not going to like the game. It's not going back to 2.0. So, really, the options are accept it as is and play or just give it up. If you choose "just give it up", it would be nice if you just moved on to your next internet excursion. The negativity in the forums isn't good for the game and, quite honestly, some of us want to play. And we'd like others to join us.

That said, WifS should probably change their policy on posting rights when they make a big game change. It thinks it's "make a purchase in the last two years." "Last three months" probably calms the forums a lot quicker. Then I could make fun of the guy complaining about how much it sucks because I know he sent Wifs money within the last 90 days.

I personally agree with both Shoe and Mets. I get where you both are coming from and both of what you're saying is true to an extent.

I don't think "it's all random" but I get why this is being said. The new system boxes us into a corner at D1. You can only do 20 HVs. You can only do 80 APs per cycle. You can only do 1 CV. So if I'm at UNC and my competitor is at Duke, we could likely have very similar preferences. So what happens - we both 'max' out and go 'all in' on the player. What happens next is that both of us are Very High and then an RNG will determine who wins.

I don't have a problem with the RNG necessarily and I'm fine with it for the most part. But in this situation, it's silly. I think the cap is the real problem here. If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget. But, we're handcuffed to only ~20% of our budget each. THIS is the issue which causes us to be in so many of these VH vs VH situations and makes many feel like there is no strategy. You go all in and I go all in then we roll a weighted die to see who wins.

The playing field has already been leveled enough with the removal of bonus cash and rollover. There will still be battles if there are no caps on effort. People won't be afraid to battle, IMO.

After seeing that explanation, I could get on board with removing caps at the D1 level. Benis used a B6 vs B6 example, but my thinking is that it could give an advantage to a very aggressive low D1 coach with a bunch of scholarships. It would definitely add another strategic aspect to the game.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 9:17:00 AM (view original):
I personally agree with both Shoe and Mets. I get where you both are coming from and both of what you're saying is true to an extent.

I don't think "it's all random" but I get why this is being said. The new system boxes us into a corner at D1. You can only do 20 HVs. You can only do 80 APs per cycle. You can only do 1 CV. So if I'm at UNC and my competitor is at Duke, we could likely have very similar preferences. So what happens - we both 'max' out and go 'all in' on the player. What happens next is that both of us are Very High and then an RNG will determine who wins.

I don't have a problem with the RNG necessarily and I'm fine with it for the most part. But in this situation, it's silly. I think the cap is the real problem here. If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget. But, we're handcuffed to only ~20% of our budget each. THIS is the issue which causes us to be in so many of these VH vs VH situations and makes many feel like there is no strategy. You go all in and I go all in then we roll a weighted die to see who wins.

The playing field has already been leveled enough with the removal of bonus cash and rollover. There will still be battles if there are no caps on effort. People won't be afraid to battle, IMO.

Well said, and I second the idea of removing DI effort caps. Would certainly add strategic nuance.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 9:17:00 AM (view original):
I personally agree with both Shoe and Mets. I get where you both are coming from and both of what you're saying is true to an extent.

I don't think "it's all random" but I get why this is being said. The new system boxes us into a corner at D1. You can only do 20 HVs. You can only do 80 APs per cycle. You can only do 1 CV. So if I'm at UNC and my competitor is at Duke, we could likely have very similar preferences. So what happens - we both 'max' out and go 'all in' on the player. What happens next is that both of us are Very High and then an RNG will determine who wins.

I don't have a problem with the RNG necessarily and I'm fine with it for the most part. But in this situation, it's silly. I think the cap is the real problem here. If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget. But, we're handcuffed to only ~20% of our budget each. THIS is the issue which causes us to be in so many of these VH vs VH situations and makes many feel like there is no strategy. You go all in and I go all in then we roll a weighted die to see who wins.

The playing field has already been leveled enough with the removal of bonus cash and rollover. There will still be battles if there are no caps on effort. People won't be afraid to battle, IMO.

"I don't have a problem with the RNG necessarily and I'm fine with it for the most part. But in this situation, it's silly. I think the cap is the real problem here. If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget. But, we're handcuffed to only ~20% of our budget each. THIS is the issue which causes us to be in so many of these VH vs VH situations and makes many feel like there is no strategy. You go all in and I go all in then we roll a weighted die to see who wins."

When you have a battle between two evenly matched teams, in terms of prestige and preferences, this is literally *exactly* how it looks in real life. If Coach Cal and Coach K are fighting for a kid, it's the kid's choice. Cal and K can't control it. That doesn't mean it's "luck" or "random". It's out of their hands. So they roll. What kind of "skill" is added by removing effort caps? Then it goes back to resources and scholarships and then the "skill" becomes stashing resources and avoiding battles. Back to a singular dominant strategy; talk about removing skill. The game isn't going to go back to that.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/20/2016 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 9:17:00 AM (view original):
I personally agree with both Shoe and Mets. I get where you both are coming from and both of what you're saying is true to an extent.

I don't think "it's all random" but I get why this is being said. The new system boxes us into a corner at D1. You can only do 20 HVs. You can only do 80 APs per cycle. You can only do 1 CV. So if I'm at UNC and my competitor is at Duke, we could likely have very similar preferences. So what happens - we both 'max' out and go 'all in' on the player. What happens next is that both of us are Very High and then an RNG will determine who wins.

I don't have a problem with the RNG necessarily and I'm fine with it for the most part. But in this situation, it's silly. I think the cap is the real problem here. If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget. But, we're handcuffed to only ~20% of our budget each. THIS is the issue which causes us to be in so many of these VH vs VH situations and makes many feel like there is no strategy. You go all in and I go all in then we roll a weighted die to see who wins.

The playing field has already been leveled enough with the removal of bonus cash and rollover. There will still be battles if there are no caps on effort. People won't be afraid to battle, IMO.

"I don't have a problem with the RNG necessarily and I'm fine with it for the most part. But in this situation, it's silly. I think the cap is the real problem here. If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget. But, we're handcuffed to only ~20% of our budget each. THIS is the issue which causes us to be in so many of these VH vs VH situations and makes many feel like there is no strategy. You go all in and I go all in then we roll a weighted die to see who wins."

When you have a battle between two evenly matched teams, in terms of prestige and preferences, this is literally *exactly* how it looks in real life. If Coach Cal and Coach K are fighting for a kid, it's the kid's choice. Cal and K can't control it. That doesn't mean it's "luck" or "random". It's out of their hands. So they roll. What kind of "skill" is added by removing effort caps? Then it goes back to resources and scholarships and then the "skill" becomes stashing resources and avoiding battles. Back to a singular dominant strategy; talk about removing skill. The game isn't going to go back to that.

Not exactly like real life. It's never going to be like real life because there are approximately 1,265 other influences that determine where a player goes to school. Heck, nowadays it's other players who recruit their friends to come play with them. Those guys are all friends and know each other from AAU ball so they talk non stop about where they're going to play. It's a HUGE influence.

And again, you can't stash resources like you could before. This is a different game. The amount of extra resources for each opening isn't like before. Previously in 2.0 if you had 2 openings and I had 4 then I had double the reasources. Now if you have 2 and I have then I have only 65% more money. It's not gigantic. I'm not going to be scared off by a team with a couple more openings.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 12/20/2016 7:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/20/2016 12:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 12/19/2016 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/19/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 12/19/2016 10:13:00 PM (view original):
It's random. I just beat Alabama when I was High, went all-in, we had same preferences. It came down to a roll, the kid was in SC, under 300 miles from Alabama, on the top 100 list for everyone to see. The last four rolls, I won 1 out of 4... was happy to finally catch a break since I had lost two rolls when I was VH to H. There is no strategy in this... you look to the top 100, and think, this kid is good, and hope people get to other battles or fear your prestige or your preferences. If you are in a battle, know you will get to a roll, you focus on this. D1 is in need of some programming.

Sorry kid, you're apparently just as dense as our mets pal. Saying "there's no strategy in this" and 'It's random" is just flagrantly asinine.

I am not a kid. No strategy...

Cool. If there's "no strategy", then prove it. Don't look at who you're scouting, don't bother to prioritize, just randomly select guys to put attention points on. Haphazardly move them around in a "random" way. Don't worry about strategy, right? There is none.

Put your gameplan where your forum drivel is. Show us it's "random".

Knowing how to recruit the "right" way doesn't make you a good recruiter. Your recruiting skill doesn't determine if you sign your target.

Just like in craps where you set up your play to the best of your ability (ie: pick the recruits you're going after), and then the RNG decides if you get anyway. That's not skill based.

You want to look at one microcosm of recruiting that you have control over and then want to say you have control over the whole thing .......... WRONG.

If you think it's just craps, then prove it. Come back and recruit as if it's "all random", and see how well your team does.

Its actually reverse. There is so much skill, so many more strategies to navigate than the duck all bigger fish strategy that dominated 2.0. You are the one choosing to isolate on the chance factor, and concluding that skill has been removed. If you want to stand by that stupid statement, then prove it.

You are the guy who goes to the doctor, finds out he's overweight and has high blood pressure, but refuses to take the doctor's advice seriously because there's a chance he could die from something "random" like a piano falling on his head. There's more skill in the game that currently exists, and the people who will excel at it are going to be the ones who understand how and where to make their choices for the most impact.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 10:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/20/2016 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 9:17:00 AM (view original):
I personally agree with both Shoe and Mets. I get where you both are coming from and both of what you're saying is true to an extent.

I don't think "it's all random" but I get why this is being said. The new system boxes us into a corner at D1. You can only do 20 HVs. You can only do 80 APs per cycle. You can only do 1 CV. So if I'm at UNC and my competitor is at Duke, we could likely have very similar preferences. So what happens - we both 'max' out and go 'all in' on the player. What happens next is that both of us are Very High and then an RNG will determine who wins.

I don't have a problem with the RNG necessarily and I'm fine with it for the most part. But in this situation, it's silly. I think the cap is the real problem here. If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget. But, we're handcuffed to only ~20% of our budget each. THIS is the issue which causes us to be in so many of these VH vs VH situations and makes many feel like there is no strategy. You go all in and I go all in then we roll a weighted die to see who wins.

The playing field has already been leveled enough with the removal of bonus cash and rollover. There will still be battles if there are no caps on effort. People won't be afraid to battle, IMO.

"I don't have a problem with the RNG necessarily and I'm fine with it for the most part. But in this situation, it's silly. I think the cap is the real problem here. If Duke could put in 100% of it's budget on this player then it would almost certainly win vs UNC's 50% budget. But, we're handcuffed to only ~20% of our budget each. THIS is the issue which causes us to be in so many of these VH vs VH situations and makes many feel like there is no strategy. You go all in and I go all in then we roll a weighted die to see who wins."

When you have a battle between two evenly matched teams, in terms of prestige and preferences, this is literally *exactly* how it looks in real life. If Coach Cal and Coach K are fighting for a kid, it's the kid's choice. Cal and K can't control it. That doesn't mean it's "luck" or "random". It's out of their hands. So they roll. What kind of "skill" is added by removing effort caps? Then it goes back to resources and scholarships and then the "skill" becomes stashing resources and avoiding battles. Back to a singular dominant strategy; talk about removing skill. The game isn't going to go back to that.

Not exactly like real life. It's never going to be like real life because there are approximately 1,265 other influences that determine where a player goes to school. Heck, nowadays it's other players who recruit their friends to come play with them. Those guys are all friends and know each other from AAU ball so they talk non stop about where they're going to play. It's a HUGE influence.

And again, you can't stash resources like you could before. This is a different game. The amount of extra resources for each opening isn't like before. Previously in 2.0 if you had 2 openings and I had 4 then I had double the reasources. Now if you have 2 and I have then I have only 65% more money. It's not gigantic. I'm not going to be scared off by a team with a couple more openings.

There is already a big advantage in open scholarships. More scholarships means you roll for more players. Removing the cap will have disastrous effects, and that's why a cap was inserted after a season of beta. If you don't think people will avoid battles with the team with 6 openings and unlimited effort, you're, crazy. You'll try it once, get blown out of the water, and never do it again. Number of scholarships should mean nothing to an elite kid choosing between two elite schools.

Unlimited effort?

now who is speaking in hyperbole...