Posted by rogelio on 9/19/2016 4:03:00 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.

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?

The way I understand 3.0, both players would be Very High in that scenario, and either choice would make sense.

If Duke is very high and Minnesota is high, should Minnesota ever win? I vote no, because "very high" and "high" should mean different things. What say you?

The consideration classifications just represent a given range. The line between high and very high, as in where consideration falls on that range, is always going to be arbitrary, wherever it's set. And anyway, these are relative probabilities. You want classifications to mean different things, but why should "high consideration" translate to no shot? There are all sorts of instances where kids are leaning, or seem to be leaning in one direction, and then make a different choice when it comes down to it.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/19/2016 4:24:00 PM (view original):
The consideration classifications just represent a given range. The line between high and very high, as in where consideration falls on that range, is always going to be arbitrary, wherever it's set. And anyway, these are relative probabilities. You want classifications to mean different things, but why should "high consideration" translate to no shot? There are all sorts of instances where kids are leaning, or seem to be leaning in one direction, and then make a different choice when it comes down to it.

Then why use the words VH / H at all? Why not just go back to the old Considering list, since the old way wasn't actively misleading?

Agree with shoe on this. The VH vs. High are arbitrary constructs. Would you feel better if we just merged high and very high into one rating? We could just have three groupings Low, Moderate, and High. High would consist of what is presently High and VH. Then all would be copacetic?

seble offered to do that but most of the feedback was to keep them distinct so everyone would have a better idea of what their odds were.

Regardless of how we label "effort" there is a minimum threshold that has to be achieved comparative to other schools being considered in order to have a chance at a recruit and that minimum effort has been arbitrarily defined.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/19/2016 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/19/2016 4:24:00 PM (view original):
The consideration classifications just represent a given range. The line between high and very high, as in where consideration falls on that range, is always going to be arbitrary, wherever it's set. And anyway, these are relative probabilities. You want classifications to mean different things, but why should "high consideration" translate to no shot? There are all sorts of instances where kids are leaning, or seem to be leaning in one direction, and then make a different choice when it comes down to it.

Then why use the words VH / H at all? Why not just go back to the old Considering list, since the old way wasn't actively misleading?

So you think everyone who has a chance to sign should be listed as very high? Keeping in mind that this is based in probabilities, and not all teams are at the same probability even within a given classification, I don't think that set up would be any more amenable to players who dislike ambiguity.

I'm clearly in the minority. Guess we'll see how this goes over when signings start in earnest.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/19/2016 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 9/19/2016 4:03:00 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.

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?

The way I understand 3.0, both players would be Very High in that scenario, and either choice would make sense.

If Duke is very high and Minnesota is high, should Minnesota ever win? I vote no, because "very high" and "high" should mean different things. What say you?

Ok. If this just a line drawing exercise and re-labeling, then we can agree. On an effort split (by virtue of prestige*conferenceprestige*AP*actions match equivalence), then there could be a RNG to determine the winner. The question, and seble considered this, how far does that go.

Admin has been, for good reason, not forthcoming in what the odds split between VH & H would be. To me, on a scale of 100, if Team A hits 90; Team B hits 80; and Team C hits 70, maybe you draw the line at "must be at 80% effort of the leader to be at 'high'". So, Team C is out and A & B are assigned odds of winning and the RNG happens. My sense is that the odds don't lean heavily enough to the VH over the H, but that may not be the full story.

So, there are separate issues (1) whether the VH - H - moderate - low - very low labels need to be re-labeled or clarified (everyone should understand that "moderate" or worse is out); (2) where the cut-off as a function of the leader is pegged; and (3) what odds are assigned to the RNG. I could happily agree with you on (1). I think you and I could agree on (2)...although WIS is not going to make that too clear. Not sure what you think of (3).

For (3), once the bar is set high enough to limit "high" as a function of the VH leader, I don't really mind the "high" team having some chance. Maybe the labels could be "Leader"/"Virtual Tie"; "Dark Horse"; "Backup Option"; 'Low Interest"; "Very Little Interest". Just thinking out loud on that.

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.

Well stated, agree 100%.

Posted by crabman26 on 9/19/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):

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

Personally I prefer the 2.0 PBP over the 3.0 PBP.

Posted by emy1013 on 9/19/2016 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/19/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):

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

Personally I prefer the 2.0 PBP over the 3.0 PBP.

Interesting, guess I am in the minority...

Posted by crabman26 on 9/19/2016 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 9/19/2016 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/19/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):

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

Personally I prefer the 2.0 PBP over the 3.0 PBP.

Interesting, guess I am in the minority...

It's just night and day on the phone. Not even comparable. But it doesn't translate as well to the laptop or pc.

Posted by rogelio on 9/19/2016 3:03:00 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.
8. Lack of a Developer Chat at rollout of the biggest update in over 6 years. [edited]

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.

It's an excellent thread. It is an idea to help out to improve the new release.

1 to 4 need solutions.

In trivial stuff, I would say 1 and 4 needs ideas. I dropped my D3. Won't have any patience with D2. I could be down to 1 team soon uf nothing we say are taken seriously.