I hate the "if we knew there were humans pursuing the recruit..." comments.

If you want the guy, recruit like there ARE humans pursuing the recruit.

But, FWIW, only showing 10 is stupid. Why 10? Why not 5? Why not 25? 40? It's like picking a random round number and saying "Yep, that's the one!"

Rog- how do you know this is by design? It's been almost a year now but I don't remember everything that happened in Beta but I don't recall Seble ever wanting to 'muck up' the considering list.

I do know that one of the focus area was to help reduce the ebay style sniping or poaching which is where the signing preferences came into play (which were originally unknown in the first couple versions).

If the intention of 3.0 was to
1) increase/encourage battling
2) reduce sniping/poaching
then I don't see how limiting the # of teams on the considering list accomplishes these things. It does the opposite and encourages teams to hide and then pounce at the last moment instead of actively battling.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/16/2017 11:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 8/16/2017 11:29:00 PM (view original):
Ridiculous oversight that should have been corrected as soon as it was first identified

This was a deliberate design feature, not an oversight. They knew there would be plenty of players who would have more than 10 teams ante up.

Then make the 10 teams list random if it's working by design. But still a bad implementation.

Design scheme was designed to favor Xavier where several key Fox execs are alums?

This is a stupid glitch - should have been fixed in first weeks after launch - annoying now and then.

I can see making the list be a random ten - but dont think that is smart

Alphabetical display of very low - not giving priority to teams that have offered a schollie - is foolish

MIGHT be that showing ten was viewed as mobile device friendly - if so, add a "show all" button.

There are many ways this could have been easily solved: a scroll bar, a show all button, randomizing the list display order, making only the very low category organized by effort, changing the threshold such that any school that has offered a scholarship automatically gets classified as low or higher, or even choosing to not show any school at all that is in the very low category.

Posted by chapelhillne on 8/16/2017 11:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 8/16/2017 10:39:00 PM (view original):
"I am not a programmer, so this is an honest question. I just lost a whenever recruit on the first cycle. Was solidly in the lead at Very high with everyone else at very low. First cycle comes up and Bam - he signs with Tulsa, who I could not even see on the considering list because they start with a T and were more than 10 down on the list."

What would you have done differently if you had seen Tulsa on the list?

I would have put enough effort into him to be sure I was able to win the recruit.

TEN+ schools on his list didn't give you a clue that you would have to actually put some effort into recruiting him?

ten plus gave an incomplete and distorted picture. No good reason for it to be alphabetical

"This is a stupid glitch"

1. It isn't a glich.
2. The stupidity lies with a coach who cannot figure out that if TEN+ schools are on a recruit, then he better put in sufficient resources to be prepared for a battle. Since chapel isn't a stupid coach, I am frankly pretty astonished to see him climb on this particular whiney bandwagon.

Posted by l80r20 on 8/17/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):
"This is a stupid glitch"

1. It isn't a glich.
2. The stupidity lies with a coach who cannot figure out that if TEN+ schools are on a recruit, then he better put in sufficient resources to be prepared for a battle. Since chapel isn't a stupid coach, I am frankly pretty astonished to see him climb on this particular whiney bandwagon.

Oh good ... get to block another apologist contrarian.

Posted by l80r20 on 8/17/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):
"This is a stupid glitch"

1. It isn't a glich.
2. The stupidity lies with a coach who cannot figure out that if TEN+ schools are on a recruit, then he better put in sufficient resources to be prepared for a battle. Since chapel isn't a stupid coach, I am frankly pretty astonished to see him climb on this particular whiney bandwagon.

2. It's not really stupidity. Everyone wants to get a recruit while spending the least amount of resources. We have a decent idea of how SIMAI recruits. chapel's complaint lies in that a "hidden" human snapped up the recruit by piling resources in one cycle.

I'm not exactly sure why no one will just say "List top 10 humans according to resources spent" unless it's because an 11th could pile on resources in one cycle. Or maybe it's because people constantly complain about world populations but don't like it when a human actually competes against them.

I get that we should always assume there is a battle. Especially with good recruits. But since I am almost always recruiting for multiple spots, I'm usually rationing and redistributing my resources. If I don't have to spend recruiting money, I don't. If I can redistribute AP to other recruits, I do.

Knowing whether there are other humans watching my recruits, directly impacts my actions. I'm all for some things in recruiting remaining a mystery. I just don't think this should be one of them.

1 AP can get a school in the VL list, right?

Yep.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/17/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):
1 AP can get a school in the VL list, right?

It puts them on the list, yes.

And how do we know Tulsa was VL before the winning cycle? They could have done this starting from 0 APs, right?

This thread sounds a lot like a poaching argument.