Posted by kcsundevil on 9/21/2016 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/21/2016 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/21/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
The words in the VH / H / etc. listing are misleading and meaningless in 3.0. Fun, right?

I dont think this situation is the same as we were talking yesterday. Not much different with current WOTS where it says the recruit is tight with a school and then someone drops 30HVs on the cycle before signings.

WOTS was intentionally placed off to the side, didn't update every cycle, and didn't pretend to give reliable information.

I thought it did pretend to give reliable information.

Well what about scholarship messages. I could get an email from a recruit saying "I can't wait to sign! Wish the season started today!"

Then before signings some other team drops a ton of HVs and he signs elsewhere. How is that any less misleading?

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/21/2016 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/21/2016 11:55:00 AM (view original):
So this recruit just signed with valpo?

Not any team can jump in because you need to unlock actions first. So while you were ahead valpo was still putting in effort.

We talked on the beta forums alot about preventing the signing if there was a huge swing in interest level. Just delay it 1 cycle so the other team has a chance to adjust. But the idea didnt gain much traction.

Yes, delaying 1 cycle if a school goes from Low --> Very High. Why would there be opposition to that?

If I recall, most of us did like this on the beta forums. I think in particular Gil was really pushing it. Maybe Spud didn't like it because he always seems to disagree with the majority, for the sake of being devil's advocate. Don't remember exactly.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/21/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Specific signing cycles are not predetermined. There is a chance that any given recruit with a signing preference could sign during any stage of the designated period.

Essentially each recruit rolls a random number in each cycle of their designated signing period and based on that roll they either sign or they don't.

Are you positive? I thought Seble had said that each had a predetermined time they would sign but that specific time was hidden. So whenever was a random time but it was determined in advance.

I could be wrong though.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/21/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/21/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
The words in the VH / H / etc. listing are misleading and meaningless in 3.0. Fun, right?

Yes, the VH and H are quite ambiguous but there is still meaning in them because VH still has greater probability of signing any given recruit than H but probabilities are what they are. Besides, based on our conversation yesterday, it still appears you'd much prefer the terms were even more ambiguous and had less meaning.

And in season's past when the Valpo's of HD were sitting on a solid mid-major recruit for two days of recruiting and the Indiana's of HD needed a reserve bench player to play five to ten minutes a game and swooped in at signing cycle and "strategically" "out-recruited" the Valpo's leaving them with no time to recover because the good players not in battles had all signed, that was fun for them too, right?

This version of the game isn't perfect, it's not how I would have designed it, and likely isn't how any of us other than seble would have designed it. In fact, there are probably very few of us who would agree with each other on how this game could be perfect. But at least now no one is immune from the "fun" you reference, and now most of this happens early enough in recruiting where there is plenty of time to recover and find a second choice.

Huh? You wildly misunderstood yesterday's conversation.

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/21/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/21/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Had you done all the home visits? It's designed so that the valpo's can't sneak up on you. You'll be able to see if there are humans on the recruits, and if they've offered a scholarship or not. You have to assume that a human who offers a scholarship intends to come after the guy. At that point, your decision (if you haven't already maxed effort) is to walk away, or roll with him and go all in. There's still a chance he's going to be able to surprise you, even with a prestige disadvantage, especially if the recruit's preferences match up well.

I had some home visits and the campus visit, could have had more, but when you're trying to recruit 4 guys you can't go all in on everyone. It seemed reasonable not to add more when I'd been Very High and he was at Low on every cycle. If I'd been given 1 cycle to see a change I could have shown the recruit "more love" if that's what he wanted. I just don't see how this situation would ever play out realistically.

Right, it comes down to priorities in 3.0. If that's a top target, you probably want to protect him by getting to max early on, especially if he's an early signee by preference. If he's not your top, but could be a C prestige top priority, well this is a realistic situation. You just need to watch what the other humans are doing. Even if he's low, if he's offered a scholarship, he's coming for you.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/21/2016 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 9/21/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/21/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
The words in the VH / H / etc. listing are misleading and meaningless in 3.0. Fun, right?

Yes, the VH and H are quite ambiguous but there is still meaning in them because VH still has greater probability of signing any given recruit than H but probabilities are what they are. Besides, based on our conversation yesterday, it still appears you'd much prefer the terms were even more ambiguous and had less meaning.

And in season's past when the Valpo's of HD were sitting on a solid mid-major recruit for two days of recruiting and the Indiana's of HD needed a reserve bench player to play five to ten minutes a game and swooped in at signing cycle and "strategically" "out-recruited" the Valpo's leaving them with no time to recover because the good players not in battles had all signed, that was fun for them too, right?

This version of the game isn't perfect, it's not how I would have designed it, and likely isn't how any of us other than seble would have designed it. In fact, there are probably very few of us who would agree with each other on how this game could be perfect. But at least now no one is immune from the "fun" you reference, and now most of this happens early enough in recruiting where there is plenty of time to recover and find a second choice.

Huh? You wildly misunderstood yesterday's conversation.

No, I think he got it pretty much right. What do you think he's misunderstanding?

The VH/H are very meaningful. You have to get to that point to have a shot to sign the recruit. VH is in a better position than H. Moderate and low (in this case, the team was previously low) won't be signed. But you can go from low to high, and if the recruit is not high enough of a priority for the A team, you can get lucky. It does take luck here, because you don't know which cycle he's going to sign. If you go all in as a C, and he doesn't sign that cycle, the other team (in this instance) can knock you back down.

One important feature to keep in mind - The game is designed to *encourage* battling for top recruits. This is a significant change in mindset from the past, where as possumfeind explained, top teams could get away with few, if any, battles, and then swoop down on whoever else they wanted. A feature of 3.0 is that this probably won't happen anymore, once players are used to how it operates. If the player is a top priority, lock him in so you at least get a max shot in the dice roll.

"Maybe Spud didn't like it because he always seems to disagree with the majority, for the sake of being devil's advocate."

Just to be clear for anyone who might be reading these forums but didn't participate in the beta forums, that is a false statement. Sometimes I agreed with the game design (eg. separating scouting and recruiting, establishing preferences, etc.), sometimes not (eg. Seble's red light and the D1 welfare that still exists). But my participation in the forums was always based on the merits of the game, not who advocated what, and that alone put me in a minority. I think guys like koopman, hughesjr and chapelhill also do that, to name a few, but of course none of them ever gets as abrasive as I do sometimes and they've all played the game longer. If I disagreed with the majority I didn't mind. Sometimes a majority can advocate an idea that is bad for the game. And on a few occasions there were guys who were simply haters, whom I dismissed as background noise. Any regular reader of these forums already knows who they are.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/21/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):
"Maybe Spud didn't like it because he always seems to disagree with the majority, for the sake of being devil's advocate."

Just to be clear for anyone who might be reading these forums but didn't participate in the beta forums, that is a false statement. Sometimes I agreed with the game design (eg. separating scouting and recruiting, establishing preferences, etc.), sometimes not (eg. Seble's red light and the D1 welfare that still exists). But my participation in the forums was always based on the merits of the game, not who advocated what, and that alone put me in a minority. If that meant disagreeing with the majority I didn't mind. Sometimes a majority can advocate an idea that is bad for the game. And on a few occasions there were guys who were simply haters, whom I dismissed as background noise. Any regular reader of these forums already knows who they are.

What's the red light? I've seen the reference as spud's red light, but I can't find what it actually means.

Posted by mempgrizz on 9/21/2016 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/21/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):
"Maybe Spud didn't like it because he always seems to disagree with the majority, for the sake of being devil's advocate."

Just to be clear for anyone who might be reading these forums but didn't participate in the beta forums, that is a false statement. Sometimes I agreed with the game design (eg. separating scouting and recruiting, establishing preferences, etc.), sometimes not (eg. Seble's red light and the D1 welfare that still exists). But my participation in the forums was always based on the merits of the game, not who advocated what, and that alone put me in a minority. If that meant disagreeing with the majority I didn't mind. Sometimes a majority can advocate an idea that is bad for the game. And on a few occasions there were guys who were simply haters, whom I dismissed as background noise. Any regular reader of these forums already knows who they are.

What's the red light? I've seen the reference as spud's red light, but I can't find what it actually means.

In 3.0, players' class projections aren't absolutes. Anyone can recruit anyone. In the early seasons of beta, some D3 teams were landing "top 100" recruits. Not necessarily good ones, but still better than we are used to seeing go to D3. The debate was on whether there should be hard caps. As I understand it, the "red light" was implemented - to CoachSpud's chagrin - so that in practice, if you are recruiting a guy projected to go a division above you, he won't sign until the second session. If you're D3 and recruiting a D1 guy, that's two divisions, and he won't sign (with you) until the final 24 hours.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/21/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/21/2016 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 9/21/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/21/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
The words in the VH / H / etc. listing are misleading and meaningless in 3.0. Fun, right?

Yes, the VH and H are quite ambiguous but there is still meaning in them because VH still has greater probability of signing any given recruit than H but probabilities are what they are. Besides, based on our conversation yesterday, it still appears you'd much prefer the terms were even more ambiguous and had less meaning.

And in season's past when the Valpo's of HD were sitting on a solid mid-major recruit for two days of recruiting and the Indiana's of HD needed a reserve bench player to play five to ten minutes a game and swooped in at signing cycle and "strategically" "out-recruited" the Valpo's leaving them with no time to recover because the good players not in battles had all signed, that was fun for them too, right?

This version of the game isn't perfect, it's not how I would have designed it, and likely isn't how any of us other than seble would have designed it. In fact, there are probably very few of us who would agree with each other on how this game could be perfect. But at least now no one is immune from the "fun" you reference, and now most of this happens early enough in recruiting where there is plenty of time to recover and find a second choice.

Huh? You wildly misunderstood yesterday's conversation.

No, I think he got it pretty much right. What do you think he's misunderstanding?

The VH/H are very meaningful. You have to get to that point to have a shot to sign the recruit. VH is in a better position than H. Moderate and low (in this case, the team was previously low) won't be signed. But you can go from low to high, and if the recruit is not high enough of a priority for the A team, you can get lucky. It does take luck here, because you don't know which cycle he's going to sign. If you go all in as a C, and he doesn't sign that cycle, the other team (in this instance) can knock you back down.

One important feature to keep in mind - The game is designed to *encourage* battling for top recruits. This is a significant change in mindset from the past, where as possumfeind explained, top teams could get away with few, if any, battles, and then swoop down on whoever else they wanted. A feature of 3.0 is that this probably won't happen anymore, once players are used to how it operates. If the player is a top priority, lock him in so you at least get a max shot in the dice roll.

Back to my mantra: "Words mean things."

I'm not going to rehash the entire discussion from yesterday to benefit people who either don't get it or don't want to get it.

"What's the red light? I've seen the reference as spud's red light, but I can't find what it actually means."

Seble's red light (certainly not mine) refers to an arbitrary and unnecessary barrier that Seble put in to protect D1's. For the entire recruiting period 1 a D2/D3 cannot get above Moderate on a recruit designated as deserving to be a level up, no matter how much recruiting effort they put in and no matter the merits of that effort. Not getting above Moderate also means not being able to sign the recruit. My position has always been that any artificial and arbitrary barrier to a recruiting result being based on the merits of the recruiting effort is bad for the game.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/21/2016 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mempgrizz on 9/21/2016 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/21/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):
"Maybe Spud didn't like it because he always seems to disagree with the majority, for the sake of being devil's advocate."

Just to be clear for anyone who might be reading these forums but didn't participate in the beta forums, that is a false statement. Sometimes I agreed with the game design (eg. separating scouting and recruiting, establishing preferences, etc.), sometimes not (eg. Seble's red light and the D1 welfare that still exists). But my participation in the forums was always based on the merits of the game, not who advocated what, and that alone put me in a minority. If that meant disagreeing with the majority I didn't mind. Sometimes a majority can advocate an idea that is bad for the game. And on a few occasions there were guys who were simply haters, whom I dismissed as background noise. Any regular reader of these forums already knows who they are.

What's the red light? I've seen the reference as spud's red light, but I can't find what it actually means.

In 3.0, players' class projections aren't absolutes. Anyone can recruit anyone. In the early seasons of beta, some D3 teams were landing "top 100" recruits. Not necessarily good ones, but still better than we are used to seeing go to D3. The debate was on whether there should be hard caps. As I understand it, the "red light" was implemented - to CoachSpud's chagrin - so that in practice, if you are recruiting a guy projected to go a division above you, he won't sign until the second session. If you're D3 and recruiting a D1 guy, that's two divisions, and he won't sign (with you) until the final 24 hours.

Yup exactly. There were legitimate concerns by a lot of people (not everyone but a lot) that this could be bad for the game. D3 teams could build powerhouse teams and SIMs would be completely neutered. A lot of these comments came from D3 coaches. So Seble came up with this new rule. I remember when he announced it, everyone was like, 'wow what a great idea, I like it". This kind of reaction was pretty rare in beta btw.

Then Spud came along and called this Seble's Red Light and blamed D1 coaches for it. This went on for the rest of Beta and he'd bring it up quite a bit saying that it was implemented to indemnify D1 coaches because of their 'whining'. Completely ignoring the fact that most of the people supporting it weren't even D1 coaches.

"to protect DIs" - one view....

or one can view it as

to bring the game to a more real basis

or one can view it as

to enhance game play and preserve rational incentives in building dynasties

"Seble's red light (certainly not mine) refers to an arbitrary and unnecessary barrier that Seble put in to protect D1's"

See.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/21/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):
"What's the red light? I've seen the reference as spud's red light, but I can't find what it actually means."

Seble's red light (certainly not mine) refers to an arbitrary and unnecessary barrier that Seble put in to protect D1's. For the entire recruiting period 1 a D2/D3 cannot get above Moderate on a recruit designated as deserving to be a level up, no matter how much recruiting effort they put in and no matter the merits of that effort. Not getting above Moderate also means not being able to sign the recruit. My position has always been that any artificial and arbitrary barrier to a recruiting result being based on the merits of the recruiting effort is bad for the game.

In all the discussions on this, I don't know of any other human that agrees with you on this. In my opinion and everyone else's, the restriction is considered to be an excellent idea.