Posted by shoe3 on 6/11/2021 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cal_bears on 6/11/2021 1:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/10/2021 1:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cal_bears on 6/9/2021 11:27:00 PM (view original):
It seems almost like cw that the lower % team wins at a very disproportionate rate.

Sure, if you believe what people say on CC and the forums. The problem with that is most folks remember the bad beats a whole lot better and longer than the ho-hum 65-35 battles they win, well, ~65% of the time. I don’t think we’re all intentionally lying, but most of us are pretty unreliable sources when it comes to isolated and small sample size reporting.

I meant to quote you for the above comment. It would seem it doesn't really pay to try to win a battle, meaning just be in the game, don't try to knock them off, is a viable strategy. It's not my preferred one, but I imagine some people are successful that way.

I don’t doubt your personal numbers, I’ve had two stretches when put together amount to what you report (a little worse actually), starting 1 for 11 at Oregon, and then 2 for 12 at UConn a while back. Especially frustrating at an A+ baseline school, right? But 3 for 23 is a drop in the bucket in a sea of thousands of battles in a season. It’s certainly valid to adapt strategies, though; I recommend it to players who continue to spend AP and effort only on a few very high-level, high-priority recruits, but find themselves frustrated and constantly disappointed in their class. When I go 0-7 in battles like I did at Wisconsin last season, the 3 guys I did sign (without battles if I recall, because I took them from D2/3 teams) won’t get me to the promised land by themselves obviously, but when they’re upperclassmen, can be good role players on a bridge squad that can be quite good if a decent class can be scored this year.

Beyond being willing to take some lower level players, other coaches also find it beneficial to do what you suggest, and instead of maxing on say 3.5 guys, they’ll try to get just in to range on 6-8 guys. It’s another way to play the percentages, and it works out for some (sometimes). It probably takes a little more planning and adaptability, since you have less control over who signs and when, but if what you’re really after is just generic overall talent with those resources, and can fill in holes in other ways, you can make that work.

I'm still waiting for the coach to post that they have won 30 of 35 battles when they were in the 50-70% range, or something like that.

Posted by fd343ny on 6/11/2021 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Stormfury on 6/11/2021 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 6/9/2021 5:47:00 AM (view original):
one note - the percentage appears only after the players signs - and is visible only to those who were H or VH - you only see the cards if you were in the game

Is this true? I had VH for Richard Macek while Michigan had H and I never ever was shown the percentages. Does this mean despite VH, I was never 'in the game"?

I dont know - never seen that happen

me neither. also folks who are listed as high but end as 0% due to lack of open scholarships still see those odds, so i don't really even know what it would mean to be high or very high and not have a % shown. perhaps you just overlooked it in that case? grab a screen shot if you see it again, that would serve as proof positive of a bug, i believe.

Posted by gillispie on 6/12/2021 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 6/11/2021 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Stormfury on 6/11/2021 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 6/9/2021 5:47:00 AM (view original):
one note - the percentage appears only after the players signs - and is visible only to those who were H or VH - you only see the cards if you were in the game

Is this true? I had VH for Richard Macek while Michigan had H and I never ever was shown the percentages. Does this mean despite VH, I was never 'in the game"?

I dont know - never seen that happen

me neither. also folks who are listed as high but end as 0% due to lack of open scholarships still see those odds, so i don't really even know what it would mean to be high or very high and not have a % shown. perhaps you just overlooked it in that case? grab a screen shot if you see it again, that would serve as proof positive of a bug, i believe.

I'm assuming in this case, the OP was only looking at his main Recruiting page and expecting it to show him the odds there (and instead it just says "signed by school X").

The only place one can see the odds is on the player's card profile on his "Considering" tab and you will only see the percentage odds if you are listed at H or VH.

Posted by cal_bears on 6/12/2021 1:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/11/2021 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cal_bears on 6/11/2021 1:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/10/2021 1:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cal_bears on 6/9/2021 11:27:00 PM (view original):
It seems almost like cw that the lower % team wins at a very disproportionate rate.

Sure, if you believe what people say on CC and the forums. The problem with that is most folks remember the bad beats a whole lot better and longer than the ho-hum 65-35 battles they win, well, ~65% of the time. I don’t think we’re all intentionally lying, but most of us are pretty unreliable sources when it comes to isolated and small sample size reporting.

I meant to quote you for the above comment. It would seem it doesn't really pay to try to win a battle, meaning just be in the game, don't try to knock them off, is a viable strategy. It's not my preferred one, but I imagine some people are successful that way.

I don’t doubt your personal numbers, I’ve had two stretches when put together amount to what you report (a little worse actually), starting 1 for 11 at Oregon, and then 2 for 12 at UConn a while back. Especially frustrating at an A+ baseline school, right? But 3 for 23 is a drop in the bucket in a sea of thousands of battles in a season. It’s certainly valid to adapt strategies, though; I recommend it to players who continue to spend AP and effort only on a few very high-level, high-priority recruits, but find themselves frustrated and constantly disappointed in their class. When I go 0-7 in battles like I did at Wisconsin last season, the 3 guys I did sign (without battles if I recall, because I took them from D2/3 teams) won’t get me to the promised land by themselves obviously, but when they’re upperclassmen, can be good role players on a bridge squad that can be quite good if a decent class can be scored this year.

Beyond being willing to take some lower level players, other coaches also find it beneficial to do what you suggest, and instead of maxing on say 3.5 guys, they’ll try to get just in to range on 6-8 guys. It’s another way to play the percentages, and it works out for some (sometimes). It probably takes a little more planning and adaptability, since you have less control over who signs and when, but if what you’re really after is just generic overall talent with those resources, and can fill in holes in other ways, you can make that work.

I'm still waiting for the coach to post that they have won 30 of 35 battles when they were in the 50-70% range, or something like that.

I can be that guy right now. After a horrid stretch that began in January 2020, I'm pretty much on fire with rolls. I was 3-0 at Louisville this year, 2-0 last season (I lost a bad 70-30 roll today. But it was a roll i didn't care about as i was just looking for table scraps 12th man). 1-0 in RS1 at Missouri (I did lose some last season). 1-1 at Portland (1-0 last year). 1-0 at Michigan. And I won some rolls at my D2 schools as well. So you can definitely get hot.

So that's like 8-2ish lately. Even then, the importance of those rolls, and the talent I got from them, I feel like I'm 50-2 lately. It happens!

Edit, two days later..... won 2 more. I won't be adding to this any longer. Just pointing out the good streaks happen

Posted by buddhagamer on 6/12/2021 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 6/12/2021 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 6/11/2021 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Stormfury on 6/11/2021 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 6/9/2021 5:47:00 AM (view original):
one note - the percentage appears only after the players signs - and is visible only to those who were H or VH - you only see the cards if you were in the game

Is this true? I had VH for Richard Macek while Michigan had H and I never ever was shown the percentages. Does this mean despite VH, I was never 'in the game"?

I dont know - never seen that happen

me neither. also folks who are listed as high but end as 0% due to lack of open scholarships still see those odds, so i don't really even know what it would mean to be high or very high and not have a % shown. perhaps you just overlooked it in that case? grab a screen shot if you see it again, that would serve as proof positive of a bug, i believe.

I'm assuming in this case, the OP was only looking at his main Recruiting page and expecting it to show him the odds there (and instead it just says "signed by school X").

The only place one can see the odds is on the player's card profile on his "Considering" tab and you will only see the percentage odds if you are listed at H or VH.

No, I was looking at the recruit's considering tab and had 1 open scholly.

Posted by Stormfury on 6/8/2021 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by texashick on 6/8/2021 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Hate to be that person, but not really sure what the grip is. They stretch the odds so you had a better than 75% chance of winning. It just didn’t come up in your favor. That’s a bummer but part of the game (and clearly better than the 2.0 system which was just an auction). It’s better he signed early, gives you more time to adjust. If you want to he sure you get him, knock the other coach to moderate.

I think the issue, at least in my eyes isn't that it happened. it's how frequent it happens. I'm 1 for 14 on recruits in which I have 50% or higher odds to win (most above 60%). It's downright frustrating. Feels like Baseline Prestige trumps all the recruiting Prefs. I don't expect to win all of them, or even 60% of them, but my odds should be better than 7% of the time.

Something feels broken in the rolls. My 2 cents.

This happened to me right after HD 3.0 rolled out. I lost something like 17 of my first 19 signings, and I was ahead on all but 2 or 3 of them.

After that, I've won my fair share. I'd imagine if you look at my aggregate success rate it would match nicely with my aggregate odds. It does even out over time.

That being said, I still hate the 3.0 recruiting system, and if I ever don't have the credits to keep playing for free I'll be gone. But then, that's been the case ever since 3.0 rolled out, but due to tanked world populations that's never really been a threatened outcome.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/12/2021 12:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/11/2021 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 6/11/2021 12:39:00 PM (view original):
i wish they'd narrow the band for a competitive battle a bit, the amount of recruits that go to a coin flip seems like it is too many. especially now with more population.

I like that thought as well. It's very challenging lately, which is realistic to some degree at least. Some of the new D1 coaches are reaching too high though and paying a price in general, but every once in a while one will work out. But it does make if tougher for the coaches of the top programs that were used to skating by with very few challenges. So, it is more realistic from that standpoint. Very few of the top players go somewhere without at least some challenge.

I mean you kind of answered the question, right? Isn’t the thought of elite players going to any team unchallenged kind of ludicrous right off the bat? So any game that wants to simulate a college basketball recruiting experience has to start from that place - no elite players can go unchallenged. And when we start talking about closing that gap within which teams can reasonably compete for recruits, that’s eventually where we end up again, because once teams with limited resources have to worry about how losing too many battles will decimate their entire class, especially those they might not even be able to get into, they will begin to leave those prize recruits for the big fish again, and we’re back at square one.

And this is why I fought so hard for removing resources from the game entirely. It shouldn’t be a resource allocation simulation. Elite players should have 20-30 teams on them with no thought about “but what if he chooses another school, and I’m out all that cash!” That’s just not how recruiting works.

This sounds like a terrible idea. Sacrificing reasonable game design in favor of realism is almost always a bad decision.

count me out for having 60 battles for recruits with 20-30 teams after each one...

Posted by cal_bears on 6/12/2021 1:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/11/2021 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cal_bears on 6/11/2021 1:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/10/2021 1:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cal_bears on 6/9/2021 11:27:00 PM (view original):
It seems almost like cw that the lower % team wins at a very disproportionate rate.

Sure, if you believe what people say on CC and the forums. The problem with that is most folks remember the bad beats a whole lot better and longer than the ho-hum 65-35 battles they win, well, ~65% of the time. I don’t think we’re all intentionally lying, but most of us are pretty unreliable sources when it comes to isolated and small sample size reporting.

I meant to quote you for the above comment. It would seem it doesn't really pay to try to win a battle, meaning just be in the game, don't try to knock them off, is a viable strategy. It's not my preferred one, but I imagine some people are successful that way.

I don’t doubt your personal numbers, I’ve had two stretches when put together amount to what you report (a little worse actually), starting 1 for 11 at Oregon, and then 2 for 12 at UConn a while back. Especially frustrating at an A+ baseline school, right? But 3 for 23 is a drop in the bucket in a sea of thousands of battles in a season. It’s certainly valid to adapt strategies, though; I recommend it to players who continue to spend AP and effort only on a few very high-level, high-priority recruits, but find themselves frustrated and constantly disappointed in their class. When I go 0-7 in battles like I did at Wisconsin last season, the 3 guys I did sign (without battles if I recall, because I took them from D2/3 teams) won’t get me to the promised land by themselves obviously, but when they’re upperclassmen, can be good role players on a bridge squad that can be quite good if a decent class can be scored this year.

Beyond being willing to take some lower level players, other coaches also find it beneficial to do what you suggest, and instead of maxing on say 3.5 guys, they’ll try to get just in to range on 6-8 guys. It’s another way to play the percentages, and it works out for some (sometimes). It probably takes a little more planning and adaptability, since you have less control over who signs and when, but if what you’re really after is just generic overall talent with those resources, and can fill in holes in other ways, you can make that work.

I'm still waiting for the coach to post that they have won 30 of 35 battles when they were in the 50-70% range, or something like that.

I’ve won 30 of 33 battles i’ve been 60-80% on. I’m the guy who balances the scale. I’ve only won 4 of 15 battles for guys ive been 20-40% on. 2 of those 4 were in the same session ironically. 11 for 26 on battles ive been 40-60% on.

Also, even thought i’m 11 for 26 i had a streak where i lost 7 VH-VH battles in a row in Illinois and lost 7 battles of all percentages in a row in Iba, including a VH-VH and 2 VH-H.

Ive never lost a VH-H at Illinois. 15 for 15, it’s ridiculous.

Posted by gillispie on 6/15/2021 6:28:00 PM (view original):
count me out for having 60 battles for recruits with 20-30 teams after each one...

The kind of process I was fighting for wouldn’t have resulted in 20-30 team *battles* at least not the way we think about battles in the current system. I mean kids in real life don’t do 20-30 campus visits either. What I’m saying is that elite players should have 20-30 teams *on them*, ie, recruiting them, not a whole bunch of teams that should be at least showing interest laying off because they’re afraid of a resource battle with a team with max scholarships.

There are lots of good ways to design games that get beyond resource allocation. My process included *some* resource allocation (essentially what we call attention points now) but was much more focused on preference and prioritization, so it was more about finding good matches, and strategic planning, rather than deciding when I’m going to drop all these visits on these 2-5 players, and then whether or not I’m going to bother seeing about lining up any backup options I can sign for cheap if they fall through. So recruiting rather than bidding. I think it would be a better college basketball simulation, and someday maybe I’ll go make it. But this one has been what it is for so long, it’s just hard for people to see around the idea of buying recruits being the only way to do it.

My problem is not with the change to the format of recruiting. My problem is with your fundamental description of how, in your mind, it would work.

The difference between mediocre HD players and good HD players is recruiting.
The difference between good HD players and great HD players is gameplanning.
The difference between great HD players and the truly elite is team building.

I don't see how a recruiting format such as you are describing would not, at least in D1, destroy the edge of the best HD players. Right now the highest-level skill in the game is planning and executing a design for your team. This is, admittedly, not a great thing if what you're trying to design is the best basketball sim. Real college basketball coaches would be happy to take the top 5 PG recruits in the country in a single class, or the top 5 SFs, etc. In the real world talent trumps the kind of team planning that matters in HD. But in the real world coaches get to build and modify systems around their players. All the strategic elements of on-court coaching are borderline impossible to simulate in a large-scale game like this. Even if there were a sufficiently elegant way for all the players to draw up offensive and defensive schemes, determine how well the players could 'learn' them given their complexity, and deploy them in-game, simulating 5 independent players and their interaction with the opposing schemes for every play for every game is just too resource-expensive. And even if you could do it, it wouldn't be interactive, so you'd still have nothing resembling the real-life in-game strategy that coaches make a living on. All of this is making the basic point that a huge driver of coaching success in the real world - actual basketball coaching - can only be very poorly simulated in a game like this. To make a good GAME, you need to add another strategic element. That element, in HD, is the team planning. If you come up with a system where it's borderline impossible to tell who might sign any of the top players, you can't really engage in high-level team planning anymore. You need to come up with a way for the best coaches to differentiate themselves in this game you're proposing.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/16/2021 1:37:00 AM (view original):
My problem is not with the change to the format of recruiting. My problem is with your fundamental description of how, in your mind, it would work.

The difference between mediocre HD players and good HD players is recruiting.
The difference between good HD players and great HD players is gameplanning.
The difference between great HD players and the truly elite is team building.

I don't see how a recruiting format such as you are describing would not, at least in D1, destroy the edge of the best HD players. Right now the highest-level skill in the game is planning and executing a design for your team. This is, admittedly, not a great thing if what you're trying to design is the best basketball sim. Real college basketball coaches would be happy to take the top 5 PG recruits in the country in a single class, or the top 5 SFs, etc. In the real world talent trumps the kind of team planning that matters in HD. But in the real world coaches get to build and modify systems around their players. All the strategic elements of on-court coaching are borderline impossible to simulate in a large-scale game like this. Even if there were a sufficiently elegant way for all the players to draw up offensive and defensive schemes, determine how well the players could 'learn' them given their complexity, and deploy them in-game, simulating 5 independent players and their interaction with the opposing schemes for every play for every game is just too resource-expensive. And even if you could do it, it wouldn't be interactive, so you'd still have nothing resembling the real-life in-game strategy that coaches make a living on. All of this is making the basic point that a huge driver of coaching success in the real world - actual basketball coaching - can only be very poorly simulated in a game like this. To make a good GAME, you need to add another strategic element. That element, in HD, is the team planning. If you come up with a system where it's borderline impossible to tell who might sign any of the top players, you can't really engage in high-level team planning anymore. You need to come up with a way for the best coaches to differentiate themselves in this game you're proposing.

Yeah I’ll just refer you back to the last sentence of my last post. I understand that you don’t see how it would work without resource allocation as it’s core, and I understand why. That’s ok, don’t worry. It’s not happening to HD anyway.

I mean, most of us were raised in western settler-colonial America with game theory economics as the foundation of basically our entire modern life, so I get that it’s hard to take those glasses off.

Again, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, if not wilfully ignoring it because you don't have a satisfactory answer. I don't care if you want to remove resource allocation, but you need to explain where/how you're going to replace that element of strategy. How, in your mind, would the best players differentiate themselves from the good players?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/16/2021 11:06:00 PM (view original):
Again, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, if not wilfully ignoring it because you don't have a satisfactory answer. I don't care if you want to remove resource allocation, but you need to explain where/how you're going to replace that element of strategy. How, in your mind, would the best players differentiate themselves from the good players?

Lol. No. This isn’t a debate, and you’re not a judge anyway. I did the “explaining“ years ago, and I’m not going to rehash it now. And in any case, your premise is flawed. Games don’t exist to sort out the “good” players from the “best” players. Those are made up constructs anyway, you’re using arbitrary ordered thinking, and it’s dumb. Games exist for entertainment. I don’t play games as a measuring stick, or to feel like I’m dominating something. I play if and because I enjoy the process. By that standard, a college basketball game doesn’t need to have *any* mechanism to satisfactorily differentiate “best” players from “good” players, as if we all go walking around with those labels attached to us just waiting for someone to recognize us. A college basketball simulation just needs to be an enjoyable approximation of the real life adventure.