Posted by kcsundevil on 9/19/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/19/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I love the PBP, so much easier to follow the game chronologically now...

I disagree. New PBP feels like a half-court layout. Tough to follow. (And I generally really like the new layout.)

The only thing I do not like is near the end of the game when they show the changes in offenses/ defenses...sometimes its cumbersome to read through that when I just want to read if someone scored or not

Posted by rogelio on 9/19/2016 1:06:00 PM (view original):
I'm going to list the things that I think are completely legitimate points on which you may be angry & *****, then list the ones that I think are totally illegitimate. I am going to keep an open mind to allow myself to be persuaded to shift, add or delete items from this list.

Legitimate:

1. New coaches to a world* must play season #1 without being able to recruit any of their own players.
2. Early Entry victims will not be able to recruit adequate replacements in period #2.
3. Preferences are a good concept, but may be too powerful and some functions poorly implemented [edited.]
4. Hiding transfers at the start of period #2 is the wrong way to go.
5. Puerto Rico cannot be scouted by any method.
6. [Intentionally deleted]
7. Asst. Coach cannot be sent to scout only for JuCo's or Transfers.

Minor / Trivial: [Edit: Used to be "Bitchy"]

1. Assignment of players in recruiting is a "coin-flip"**
2. I need to check every 6 hours during recruiting!
3. Deletion of maxed emails on player improvement.
4. Scouting level 1 is useless.
5. Spud's red-light.
6. Although Preferences are a bad concept, some complaints about specific functions...
7. In-season recruiting is a terrible idea, pushed by users that had not given the issues serious thought.***
8. Not liking the new "look" of the site.
9. PBP was far more readable side by side and the home/away colors on text are not sufficient to help. [Demoted to Trivial...not OP's choice.]

* Note that coaches moving to a new job will move before the 2nd recruiting period and have some opportunity to rescind scholarships and recruit a few players.

** Although, I would agree that the range of teams that should be allowed in the assignment RNG should be very small and the probability weighted more heavily toward the effort winner.

*** This has always been my thought, I recognize it for what it is.

How about adding a point to legitimate #2 that says, "Also only 1.18 recruits generated per opening, instead of 1.73 which not only eliminates backup options for Low DI, DII, and DIII but compounds the EE problem."

Posted by rogelio on 9/19/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):
The purpose is the opposite of what rsvphr mentions. People are starting turd-tornadoes for the purpose of starting turd-tornadoes. My goal is to attempt to focus the conversation in a way that will help the developers understand how to fix the rollout.

Here's my thought: (A) There was never any chance, once FOX decided to put the development time into this, that 3.0 wasn't going to be rolled out before the start of the RL college season; (B) It appears to me that the developer in charge of this rollout has been re-assigned or quit; (C) I'm hoping that someone is taking a fresh look at what has been rolled out and is trying to filter through some of the results to make decisions on what to fix.

There are plenty of usernames that have been obviously just venting and ******** for months. Some of it is legitimate; some is just ********. I'm hoping to create a handy road-map for whoever takes over the patching.

+1

"How about adding a point to legitimate that says, only 1.18 recruits generated per opening, which not only eliminates backup options but compounds the EE problem."

Is this an accurate number? My understanding was that recruit generation itself is unchanged (overall), but the assignments between divisions have been adjusted. In other words, a search of D1 will be vastly different, but the actual recruits (both number & quality) has not changed. Just some that had been "D1", depending on the school's Division & prestige, are now listed as "D2" or worse.

Bravo for tracking this. I think your lists are fairly accurate, except if the number of DI recruits were dropped -- a fact we need to track over a few seasons.

And thanks for leaving the EEs as a legitimate issue, despite the Spudibuster. It is an issue, although one that WiS is choosing to ignore and daring us to leave when it happens to us.....

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/19/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Assignment of players in recruiting is a "coin-flip"**

How is this on the trivial list? This is one of my biggest issues with the new recruiting mechanism. There are probably 50% of the coaches or more who feel the same way. Just because you happen to fall in the group that doesn't see this as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a meaningful concern. It represents a massive functional change in the way the game works and not inherently for the better. If you have a tightish battle on a guy who wants to sign late you have no idea whether or not you need to be signing someone else. At D2 and D3, this may be fine, as there will likely be an adequate backup option late, especially with the world populations plummeting. In D1 this can be almost as big an issue as EEs, as teams losing on a late signing won't have a lot of backup options. If they had, say, a 75-90% chance of signing the guy, you could argue they did everything right and still wind up with a glaring hole 10-25% of the time. And the guy who shouldn't have been messing around in that battle or didn't commit adequately to win gets rewarded for that?

I can see how some people see a little extra indeterminacy encouraging more battles as a good thing. But I certainly don't view it as a feature. I prefer a game where doing the right things rewards the users as often as possible. There's already plenty of randomness in this game within the simulations themselves. How often do you think the best team wins the title? Maybe 20/25% of the time? So now the best recruiting jobs won't even lead to the best teams? I don't see that as an improvement. And for me it's certainly not an insignificant or "trivial" problem.

The flip-side of this argument...the old recruiting system led to a battle to avoid having too many recruits considering your school. As much as many current users liked it, including me (nicely erected straw-man argument, BTW...), WIS determined that it did not function as intended. Top D1 teams would simply refuse to battle one another over recruits. Personally, I would have preferred WIS make some attempts at minor modifications, but the developer's decision was to make it possible, even necessary, to battle.

My note "**" is intended to point out that I agree with much of what you are saying, but the reality is that it is not a "coin-flip". The issue can be adjusted by adjusting the range that includes a school in "High" or, in plain language, in the range in which it will be included in the RNG for assignment AND the ratios of the likelihood of assignment. Probably, the bigger change would be to limit the range of inclusion in "High". That way, a team could outright win a battle or two on a primary target (assuming top prestige / top division / & resources).

In other words, I could include something in "Legitimate" (and probably should) regarding the range for inclusion within the RNG, but it is water under the bridge to think we are going back to the old system. Besides, if UNC give 1 more iota of effort over Duke (100 HV + 20 min. to 100 HV + 10 min. for instance), why should that mean that UNC is the 100% winner? I agree that 75 HV Virginia Tech should have no chance at winning, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't as it stands.

Legitimate
1) As soon as the biggest rollout in several seasons occurs, the programmer of the rollout disappears.

Respectfully, you're continuing to use the "coin flip" semantics to too easily dismiss the very real concern about noo recruiting being overly luck-based.

Posted by mullycj on 9/19/2016 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Legitimate
1) As soon as the biggest rollout in several seasons occurs, the programmer of the rollout disappears.

Yes, it's been pretty loony for WIS to not have a dev chat on this massive a change.

Posted by rogelio on 9/19/2016 1:41:00 PM (view original):
"How about adding a point to legitimate that says, only 1.18 recruits generated per opening, which not only eliminates backup options but compounds the EE problem."

Is this an accurate number? My understanding was that recruit generation itself is unchanged (overall), but the assignments between divisions have been adjusted. In other words, a search of D1 will be vastly different, but the actual recruits (both number & quality) has not changed. Just some that had been "D1", depending on the school's Division & prestige, are now listed as "D2" or worse.

Yu. Skinzfan calculated 1.18 recruits per opening in 3.0 ad 1.73 recruits per opening in 2.0.

Here it is

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/19/2016 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 9/19/2016 1:41:00 PM (view original):
"How about adding a point to legitimate that says, only 1.18 recruits generated per opening, which not only eliminates backup options but compounds the EE problem."

Is this an accurate number? My understanding was that recruit generation itself is unchanged (overall), but the assignments between divisions have been adjusted. In other words, a search of D1 will be vastly different, but the actual recruits (both number & quality) has not changed. Just some that had been "D1", depending on the school's Division & prestige, are now listed as "D2" or worse.

Yu. Skinzfan calculated 1.18 recruits per opening in 3.0 ad 1.73 recruits per opening in 2.0.

Here it is

That's just D1. As was argued on that thread, and here, if you're just taking players who used to be D1 and are now better classified as D2, the overall number of recruits doesn't change. We just have better classification.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/19/2016 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Respectfully, you're continuing to use the "coin flip" semantics to too easily dismiss the very real concern about noo recruiting being overly luck-based.

It isn't "overly luck-based". It's based on priorities and probabilities. "Luck" is an imprecise term here that obfuscates what actually happens, giving the impression that users have little control over what happens to their roster. You control who you target, you control priorities, you control how many backup options you pursue, and how aggressively. You control how balanced your classes are. You control how much risk you want to take on. You control whether or not you want to leave open a scholarship or two, or fill your roster. You control how many battles you want to engage in. You control how minutely you want to parse out preferences. You control whether or not you care at all about prferences. You have lots of control over who ends up on your team. The fact that battles are no longer going to be 100% determined on who got the most effort credit doesn't mean "coin flip" or "luck" determines your roster. That's extreme hyperbole. I'll maintain there is more strategy and planning involved in long-term success in 3.0, not less.

Posted by buddhagamer on 9/19/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
I believe Puerto Rico recruits have been included as Internationals, so you can discover them like other recruits (at least it was in this last season in the BETA).

incorrect, only ones that are showing are top 100s

Posted by shoe3 on 9/19/2016 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/19/2016 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Respectfully, you're continuing to use the "coin flip" semantics to too easily dismiss the very real concern about noo recruiting being overly luck-based.

It isn't "overly luck-based". It's based on priorities and probabilities. "Luck" is an imprecise term here that obfuscates what actually happens, giving the impression that users have little control over what happens to their roster. You control who you target, you control priorities, you control how many backup options you pursue, and how aggressively. You control how balanced your classes are. You control how much risk you want to take on. You control whether or not you want to leave open a scholarship or two, or fill your roster. You control how many battles you want to engage in. You control how minutely you want to parse out preferences. You control whether or not you care at all about prferences. You have lots of control over who ends up on your team. The fact that battles are no longer going to be 100% determined on who got the most effort credit doesn't mean "coin flip" or "luck" determines your roster. That's extreme hyperbole. I'll maintain there is more strategy and planning involved in long-term success in 3.0, not less.

We pretty much completely disagree.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/19/2016 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Respectfully, you're continuing to use the "coin flip" semantics to too easily dismiss the very real concern about noo recruiting being overly luck-based.

I do not intend to be dismissive. The question really boils down to whether any RNG for the assignment is "overly" luck based?

Take my example of Duke & UNC. Assume they both put in 100 HV, have identical Prestige, and ignore preferences. Should an extra 5 minutes promised or HV determine the outcome? Is there any situation where the designers should have the target recruit have to make a choice?