Posted by rsvphr on 3/6/2017 11:24:00 AM (view original):
There is no threshold. If the odds are 99-1 and 1 comes in, 1 wins. Now, recruiting is using your resources to influence the likelihood of an outcome. Period. Any team with any fractional percentage of possible success has the potential to win. The kick in the shins comes when the 3 guys who you lose to a lower percentage happen to be the 3 out of 10 in that likelihood equation. You either develop a strategy to accumulate players in this environment or you're SOL. For example, don't seek out a slew of 3 and 4 team battles. 40-30-30 is much worse than 70-30. Be mindful of prestige and preferences. Be prepared to walk away as much as go all in.
And let's keep sh**ing on the folks that are frustrated versus offering some encouragement. The Big Conferences look real fun with 7 and 8 SIMS.

I think what ward is saying (dangerous sentence) is that signing odds start at around 20%, for the lowest "high". The way to test that is to look for battles where the signing odds are wider than 80-20. I haven't seen them.

Posted by hoosierkyle on 3/6/2017 9:34:00 AM (view original):
The latest bitter recruiting coin flip to go against me.

I was 70% favorite to sign a player.

I was Very High vs. High.

Player signs with someone else. When and how are they planning on fixing these issues?

I think it's ridiculous as well. The coach that puts in the most effort should get the recruit.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

It's hard for me to agree with this. I know you can't have all aspects of real life in this game, however in recruiting there is no such thing as an upset. You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player. If I'm a recruit, I'm going to the school that's most appealing, even if it's close. WIS claimed the reason for the change was to create a more realistic approach to the game, but under the circumstances of the signing odds, that can't be true.

Define "most appealing".

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/6/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Define "most appealing".

Just as in the game. If I'm a player and a coach offers me a start, minutes, attention, home visits etc and is a higher prestige school, then that's the school that I would be most interested in. Even if it comes out to a 51% advantage(by game definition).

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

It's hard for me to agree with this. I know you can't have all aspects of real life in this game, however in recruiting there is no such thing as an upset. You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player. If I'm a recruit, I'm going to the school that's most appealing, even if it's close. WIS claimed the reason for the change was to create a more realistic approach to the game, but under the circumstances of the signing odds, that can't be true.

Have you ever followed real life recruiting? Upsets happen quite often. Just because a coach visits a kid as much as possible and is in the most contact does not assure that a kid ends up choosing them. Appealing does not always correlate with recruiting effort.

Not saying what WIS has here is perfect, but to just reward the recruit to whomever puts in the most effort would probably be further from realistic than what we currently have

It would be a return to 2.0.

Most people when making big one-time decisions don't typically go with some huge discrepancy in favoring one item or another (they will usually pick the one leading in all these cases).

When buying a house or new vehicle (or choosing a college in this case), usually don't pick the one you like less (especially when nothing has change to influence you in some other way late in the process).

I can understand when choosing between having burgers or tacos for dinner, sometime you just say screw it I want a bit of variety and choose something that you like less, but its not like the recruit goes to college more than once in HD.

I don't think going back to the days of 51 always beating 49, but something in-between where maybe the roll only occurs all are VH (and the effort is more along 55/45 at most) is a better compromise.

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

It's hard for me to agree with this. I know you can't have all aspects of real life in this game, however in recruiting there is no such thing as an upset. You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player. If I'm a recruit, I'm going to the school that's most appealing, even if it's close. WIS claimed the reason for the change was to create a more realistic approach to the game, but under the circumstances of the signing odds, that can't be true.

"You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player."

I'll disagree. There are many reasons why a recruit might not necessarily go to the school that puts in the most effort in real life:

1) They think the coach is a dick
2) They really like and/or respect the coach at the other school better
3) They don't like the school
4) They don't like what they think their role will be at the school
5) Their girlfriend goes to the other school
6) They know they're not going to make a living off of basketball after college, the other school has more to offer academically
7) etc.

Posted by BergPride on 3/6/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

It's hard for me to agree with this. I know you can't have all aspects of real life in this game, however in recruiting there is no such thing as an upset. You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player. If I'm a recruit, I'm going to the school that's most appealing, even if it's close. WIS claimed the reason for the change was to create a more realistic approach to the game, but under the circumstances of the signing odds, that can't be true.

Have you ever followed real life recruiting? Upsets happen quite often. Just because a coach visits a kid as much as possible and is in the most contact does not assure that a kid ends up choosing them. Appealing does not always correlate with recruiting effort.

Not saying what WIS has here is perfect, but to just reward the recruit to whomever puts in the most effort would probably be further from realistic than what we currently have

And I would concur there are other elements in the decision making process, however if that's the case, why not just add those to the game instead of ******* off a bunch of coaches? I'm sure most would agree with me, except a lot of those coaches have already left.

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/6/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Define "most appealing".

Just as in the game. If I'm a player and a coach offers me a start, minutes, attention, home visits etc and is a higher prestige school, then that's the school that I would be most interested in. Even if it comes out to a 51% advantage(by game definition).

I'm sure you know that's not how it works in the real world.

Tons of schools offer those things. Some kids pick schools because the girls were prettier, the weather was nicer, their uncle went there, their buddies are going their, their mom hates LSU, etc, etc.

Effort does not necessarily mean a recruit attends your school.

Football but I recall Nkemdiche committing to Clemson. His momma threw a fit, his brother was going to Ole Miss and he changed his mind. Seems now that Ole Miss was paying everybody but the kid wanted Clemson, and Clemson was the better choice, but he went elsewhere.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/6/2017 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

It's hard for me to agree with this. I know you can't have all aspects of real life in this game, however in recruiting there is no such thing as an upset. You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player. If I'm a recruit, I'm going to the school that's most appealing, even if it's close. WIS claimed the reason for the change was to create a more realistic approach to the game, but under the circumstances of the signing odds, that can't be true.

"You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player."

I'll disagree. There are many reasons why a recruit might not necessarily go to the school that puts in the most effort in real life:

1) They think the coach is a dick
2) They really like and/or respect the coach at the other school better
3) They don't like the school
4) They don't like what they think their role will be at the school
5) Their girlfriend goes to the other school
6) They know they're not going to make a living off of basketball after college, the other school has more to offer academically
7) etc.

Yep, that's true, but feel those factors should somehow be put into the game The respect aspect should be put into loyalty/reputation category.

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/6/2017 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/6/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 3/6/2017 10:31:00 AM (view original):
I think the data is great - lets me learn from experience. yes, it is frustrating and yes there are a number of aspects of 3.0 that I dislike and think were mistakes - but I am trying it for a few seasons. Learning is good.

I agree, it's helpful data.

Longshots and upsets are part of sports. At the end of every competitive result, someone is frustrated, and someone is satisfied. That's how it goes. Probabilistic recruiting makes the game more competitive and realistic. Whether it's more fun for you is up to you to decide, I personally think the game is much better now, rather than the previous version where 51 always beat 49, and everyone just avoided battles they weren't sure they could win.

It's hard for me to agree with this. I know you can't have all aspects of real life in this game, however in recruiting there is no such thing as an upset. You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player. If I'm a recruit, I'm going to the school that's most appealing, even if it's close. WIS claimed the reason for the change was to create a more realistic approach to the game, but under the circumstances of the signing odds, that can't be true.

"You put in the the most effort into a recruit, you should be rewarded with that player."

I'll disagree. There are many reasons why a recruit might not necessarily go to the school that puts in the most effort in real life:

1) They think the coach is a dick
2) They really like and/or respect the coach at the other school better
3) They don't like the school
4) They don't like what they think their role will be at the school
5) Their girlfriend goes to the other school
6) They know they're not going to make a living off of basketball after college, the other school has more to offer academically
7) etc.

Yep, that's true, but feel those factors should somehow be put into the game The respect aspect should be put into loyalty/reputation category.

I agree, but I like to think those are built in with the 'randomness' that we see with the current system. Building them into the game separately would probably take a lot of more coding on their end. Plus building them in would just make it more of a math game than actually having some randomness, which I wouldn't agree with.

That said, the percentages do need to actually be true to their percentages (at least from what I've seen). Getting some clarity that it is actually coded into the game properly would help answer some of these questions, because right now, it seems like the percentages we see are just window dressing for a coin flip. Then again, we mostly only see those that are mad they lost, so it may just be a bad representation...

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/6/2017 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 3/6/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/6/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Define "most appealing".

Just as in the game. If I'm a player and a coach offers me a start, minutes, attention, home visits etc and is a higher prestige school, then that's the school that I would be most interested in. Even if it comes out to a 51% advantage(by game definition).

I'm sure you know that's not how it works in the real world.

Tons of schools offer those things. Some kids pick schools because the girls were prettier, the weather was nicer, their uncle went there, their buddies are going their, their mom hates LSU, etc, etc.

Effort does not necessarily mean a recruit attends your school.

Football but I recall Nkemdiche committing to Clemson. His momma threw a fit, his brother was going to Ole Miss and he changed his mind. Seems now that Ole Miss was paying everybody but the kid wanted Clemson, and Clemson was the better choice, but he went elsewhere.

Yep! Exactly! Again, why not put those elements into the game?

And if those factors are part of the real life equation, then it is my belief the signing advantage should be minimized.

What you listed are factors, but very small and not to the extent of 70/30.