I love these buttholes who down vote the OP but then proceed to make this the most populated thread in the past several weeks.

Posted by Benis on 1/31/2018 7:46:00 AM (view original):
Okay thanks for the great input.

I do what I can when I can. I know you think your opinion is always right but, considering the source of your opinion, you're often wrong.

Posted by Benis on 1/31/2018 7:47:00 AM (view original):
I love these buttholes who down vote the OP but then proceed to make this the most populated thread in the past several weeks.

Who pays attention to that?

Posted by Benis on 1/31/2018 7:47:00 AM (view original):
I love these buttholes who down vote the OP but then proceed to make this the most populated thread in the past several weeks.

Benis and Buttholes, someone GET MTV ON THE LINE NOW.

Butt seriously, Mike’s point is pretty good here. As I’ve said to zorzii, the question is how wide should the competitive window be? You claim the problem is “extreme longshots” but in a 75-25 battle, you’re looking at teams that are actually pretty close to the 60-40 difference in effort credit you would accept. The only thing making it look like an “extreme longshot” is the effort credit leader stretch.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2018 8:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/31/2018 7:46:00 AM (view original):
Okay thanks for the great input.

I do what I can when I can. I know you think your opinion is always right but, considering the source of your opinion, you're often wrong.

My opinion is ALWAYS right. Obviously.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/31/2018 8:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/31/2018 7:47:00 AM (view original):
I love these buttholes who down vote the OP but then proceed to make this the most populated thread in the past several weeks.

Benis and Buttholes, someone GET MTV ON THE LINE NOW.

Butt seriously, Mike’s point is pretty good here. As I’ve said to zorzii, the question is how wide should the competitive window be? You claim the problem is “extreme longshots” but in a 75-25 battle, you’re looking at teams that are actually pretty close to the 60-40 difference in effort credit you would accept. The only thing making it look like an “extreme longshot” is the effort credit leader stretch.

A one in four chance of winning isn't an "extreme longshot" anywhere but here.

Anyway, I've been in 11-12 battles.
I won 2 as an underdog. 32% and 45%
I lost 2 as a favorite. 62% and 55%
The other 7-8 went to the favorite.

It's obviously possible that I could lose the next 72 as a favorite but it's unlikely.

It also makes many owners happy. You know, the ones that win the battles against your frustrated owners.

The problem those frustrated owners have is that they're not playing the game provided. They want to play the game they design.

The system we have now, stretching the odds to favor the effort credit leader, was implemented in beta to appease the folks worried about “high” beating “very high” too often. So odds are stretched, and high beats very high less often.

I don't think many people understand this. ^^

In reality, without the stretching of odds there would be even MORE upsets. People here really don't get that.
Think about it this way.
Team A has a 60-40 recruiting advantage over Team B. But Seble/HD doesn't think its fair for the underdog to win that battle 40% of the time so they skew the odds on the side of the favorite so the favorite actually wins this battle 75% of the time. It really isn't a bad system if people understood the mechanics.

Now can we talk about the BS of EEs!!??

I don't understand one thing in these threads. Why aren't more coaches using the underdog strategy?

When it comes to recruiting, putting all your eggs in one basket, and having them break when that basket is dropped, of course that's going to be frustrating.

If I remember right, In 2.0 whoever had the most effort won that recruit. Every time. The only variable was distance and cost to show that effort. So throwing everything into one battle made more sense.

In 3.0, I find that spreading out your options works better. I've battled a lot. And I've won most of them. But I almost always have my effort spread to backup options. There are enough recruits to always land decent players even if they aren't your prime targets.

My only experience recruiting has been in D3. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but D2 and D1 should have enough recruiting money to easily beat out D3 coaches. So instead of whining about losing your battles and D3 getting players that are too skilled, focus more attention on backup targets, and those skilled players might end up D1 or D2.

Posted by craigaltonw on 1/31/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand one thing in these threads. Why aren't more coaches using the underdog strategy?

When it comes to recruiting, putting all your eggs in one basket, and having them break when that basket is dropped, of course that's going to be frustrating.

If I remember right, In 2.0 whoever had the most effort won that recruit. Every time. The only variable was distance and cost to show that effort. So throwing everything into one battle made more sense.

In 3.0, I find that spreading out your options works better. I've battled a lot. And I've won most of them. But I almost always have my effort spread to backup options. There are enough recruits to always land decent players even if they aren't your prime targets.

My only experience recruiting has been in D3. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but D2 and D1 should have enough recruiting money to easily beat out D3 coaches. So instead of whining about losing your battles and D3 getting players that are too skilled, focus more attention on backup targets, and those skilled players might end up D1 or D2.

No disrespect guy (and I'm a little late here)... But i assume these coaches are dealing with a level of talent that coaches like you and i haven't reached yet.

You or i might be able to just take any quality player and do well with implementing him into our team/system. But if someone is building a championship caliber team, replacing a missed target isn't always "easy".

Once again, this game isn't real life. But think about Duke, Kentucky, Kansas..... If they are aiming for the #6 PG in the country, and miss, sure they can find a quality player and end up with the #41 PG instead. But they may not be winning a title as soon as they hoped. Maybe Final Four is their peak.

Also, to grow as a team and coach, you have to "reach up" for better guys. I'm sure these coaches aren't looking for one, and only one, target to pursue. But it does throw a wrench in things when you lose a battle for your main target. We all experience that. And "enough money" doesn't always equal out to signing the recruit all the time in 3.0.

And my last point is about "there are enough recruits to always land decent players....". That is true to an extent. But do you think Duke goes out and says..... "Ok we really want Marvin Bagley III! But there are plenty of decent guys out here. So if we miss on him, no big deal. There's plenty of back ups"..... Champion teams want championship recruits. (I HATE Duke! Not sure why I'm using them as an example). And you can't get those studs without major effort.

Posted by topdogggbm on 2/1/2018 6:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by craigaltonw on 1/31/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand one thing in these threads. Why aren't more coaches using the underdog strategy?

When it comes to recruiting, putting all your eggs in one basket, and having them break when that basket is dropped, of course that's going to be frustrating.

If I remember right, In 2.0 whoever had the most effort won that recruit. Every time. The only variable was distance and cost to show that effort. So throwing everything into one battle made more sense.

In 3.0, I find that spreading out your options works better. I've battled a lot. And I've won most of them. But I almost always have my effort spread to backup options. There are enough recruits to always land decent players even if they aren't your prime targets.

My only experience recruiting has been in D3. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but D2 and D1 should have enough recruiting money to easily beat out D3 coaches. So instead of whining about losing your battles and D3 getting players that are too skilled, focus more attention on backup targets, and those skilled players might end up D1 or D2.

No disrespect guy (and I'm a little late here)... But i assume these coaches are dealing with a level of talent that coaches like you and i haven't reached yet.

You or i might be able to just take any quality player and do well with implementing him into our team/system. But if someone is building a championship caliber team, replacing a missed target isn't always "easy".

Once again, this game isn't real life. But think about Duke, Kentucky, Kansas..... If they are aiming for the #6 PG in the country, and miss, sure they can find a quality player and end up with the #41 PG instead. But they may not be winning a title as soon as they hoped. Maybe Final Four is their peak.

Also, to grow as a team and coach, you have to "reach up" for better guys. I'm sure these coaches aren't looking for one, and only one, target to pursue. But it does throw a wrench in things when you lose a battle for your main target. We all experience that. And "enough money" doesn't always equal out to signing the recruit all the time in 3.0.

And my last point is about "there are enough recruits to always land decent players....". That is true to an extent. But do you think Duke goes out and says..... "Ok we really want Marvin Bagley III! But there are plenty of decent guys out here. So if we miss on him, no big deal. There's plenty of back ups"..... Champion teams want championship recruits. (I HATE Duke! Not sure why I'm using them as an example). And you can't get those studs without major effort.

They go Marvin Bagley, R.J. Barrett (future fav of mine), and if they miss, they patch. The dropoff is huge.