Huh? You wildly misunderstood yesterday's conversation.

No, as you stated again in a post above "words have meaning", you also suggested that we shouldn't overly complicate things by actually trying to understand the math and the difference between VH and H, but that you are perfectly willing to accept the coin flip solution in close battles.

This seems to imply that you take seble and WIS at their word (through use of arbitrary labeling) if two schools are labelled with the same consideration level. The problem I have with that is that arbitrarily assigned words tells me nothing about how close a battle actually is.

Extrapolating that point we could arbitrarily say that two teams are VH and if we actually peeled back the formulas find that one team made 1 HV and posted 100 APs and the other made 20 HVs and posted 1000 APs. You'd be fine with that because "words have meaning".

Conversely, we could arbitrarily say that instead of 1 HV and 100 APs the first team had 19 HVs and 950 APs but for the purposes of the game (and to give the Coach an indication that he's behind) we are calling that H. You would not be okay with the team having a chance now because "words have meaning"

To me the second scenario would be the closer battle and be more justified in being decided by a coin flip. In your own words - which I presume have meaning - you seem to disagree with that notion. That's what I don't understand in your argument.

"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."

LOL. Now that we know who speaks for "everyone," we won't need forums any more and WIS can save a lot of money.

Except that you don't speak for everyone. Some people besides me believe that recruiting results being based on the merits of recruiting effort is good for the game, and an artificial and arbitrary barrier to that is not.

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/21/2016 11:43:00 AM (view original):
First off I've never been a fan of the term "poaching" in HD, but I am 100% for realism in the game.

Call it sour grapes or whatever, but if I'm Indiana (A prestige) and am 'Very High' on a recruit for every cycle and no other school being higher than 'Moderate' in what universe does a player wake up and say "Hey I'm going to go to Valparaiso" who is a C prestige. This kind of randomness is the crap that will more than likely drive me out of the game.

Maybe I have misunderstood while reading these forums, but I thought 3.0 was created to eliminate that? Now any school can jump in on any school?

Do I have a valid point or am I out of line and this is what coaches wanted from the game?

Since this thread has gone off track a little bit, let me return to the initial question.

No, poaching is not gone. However, it is significantly more difficult. In order to successfully poach, a school must: (1) already have enough low-level effort to unlock HVs--you can't poach if you're starting at zero, like you could in 2.0, and (2) be extremely lucky (signing times are determined by RNG, so if you're trying to poach, you're relying on luck--there's no way you can ensure that all the effort you dumped in comes at exactly the time that the recruit will decide to sign)


However, others are correct in saying that there was support in the beta for a mechanism that would delay signing by a cycle if there was a radical shift in signing odds on the signing cycle. IIRC, seble thought it was going to be way too complicated for relatively minimal payoff.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/21/2016 2:46:00 PM (view original):
"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."

LOL. Now that we know who speaks for "everyone," we won't need forums any more and WIS can save a lot of money.

Except that you don't speak for everyone. Some people besides me believe that recruiting results being based on the merits of recruiting effort is good for the game, and an artificial and arbitrary barrier to that is not.

Not that I want to jump down the rabbit hole with you, but I don't know of anyone else here in the forums that agrees with you on this. Name one other human who disagrees that a D3 team needs to wait til Period 2 to sign their D2 target.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/21/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Huh? You wildly misunderstood yesterday's conversation.

No, as you stated again in a post above "words have meaning", you also suggested that we shouldn't overly complicate things by actually trying to understand the math and the difference between VH and H, but that you are perfectly willing to accept the coin flip solution in close battles.

This seems to imply that you take seble and WIS at their word (through use of arbitrary labeling) if two schools are labelled with the same consideration level. The problem I have with that is that arbitrarily assigned words tells me nothing about how close a battle actually is.

Extrapolating that point we could arbitrarily say that two teams are VH and if we actually peeled back the formulas find that one team made 1 HV and posted 100 APs and the other made 20 HVs and posted 1000 APs. You'd be fine with that because "words have meaning".

Conversely, we could arbitrarily say that instead of 1 HV and 100 APs the first team had 19 HVs and 950 APs but for the purposes of the game (and to give the Coach an indication that he's behind) we are calling that H. You would not be okay with the team having a chance now because "words have meaning"

To me the second scenario would be the closer battle and be more justified in being decided by a coin flip. In your own words - which I presume have meaning - you seem to disagree with that notion. That's what I don't understand in your argument.

I'm not reading all that.

Posted by npb7768 on 9/21/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/21/2016 2:46:00 PM (view original):
"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."

LOL. Now that we know who speaks for "everyone," we won't need forums any more and WIS can save a lot of money.

Except that you don't speak for everyone. Some people besides me believe that recruiting results being based on the merits of recruiting effort is good for the game, and an artificial and arbitrary barrier to that is not.

Not that I want to jump down the rabbit hole with you, but I don't know of anyone else here in the forums that agrees with you on this. Name one other human who disagrees that a D3 team needs to wait til Period 2 to sign their D2 target.

Here's the principle I stand behind: "Some people besides me believe that recruiting results being based on the merits of recruiting effort is good for the game, and an artificial and arbitrary barrier to that is not." I don't care to name anyone who agrees with this, because too many people will simply attack them. And I don't care who lines up where, because I am discussing this principle on its merits. If you care to discuss the matter on its merits, I'll be happy to do so, but let's not hijack this thread. If discussing a principle on its merits is setting the bar too high, just go back on ignore.

Back on ignore.

Posted by Benis on 9/21/2016 1:46:00 PM (view original):

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.

Pretty sure ... see below

seble
Posts: 2480 (0)
Site Staff
Remove Favorite

Posted by skinzfan36 on 6/30/2016 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 6/30/2016 4:53:00 PM (view original):
I just explained why. The 6 hour cycles messed up the signing odds.

what do you mean the signing odds? I thought players already had a specific cycle they are assigned to sign in within the range of their preference...

No, they aren't assigned a specific cycle. There are odds for each time the normal cycles run, based on their preference and where it is in the schedule. For example, a guy who wants to sign early might have 70% chance the first cycle, 80% the second cycle, etc. So he'd sign within a few cycles.

Switching to 6 hour cycles cuts in half the number of possible signing times, so I'll need to adjust the odds formulas to match the cycle change, assuming we stick with it.
6/30/2016 5:06 PM

Posted by npb7768 on 9/21/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/21/2016 2:46:00 PM (view original):
"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."

LOL. Now that we know who speaks for "everyone," we won't need forums any more and WIS can save a lot of money.

Except that you don't speak for everyone. Some people besides me believe that recruiting results being based on the merits of recruiting effort is good for the game, and an artificial and arbitrary barrier to that is not.

Not that I want to jump down the rabbit hole with you, but I don't know of anyone else here in the forums that agrees with you on this. Name one other human who disagrees that a D3 team needs to wait til Period 2 to sign their D2 target.

Cap'n Crunch. Homer Simpson. Peter Pan. Elmer Fudd.

Tons of folks!

Posted by possumfiend on 9/21/2016 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/21/2016 1:46:00 PM (view original):

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.

Pretty sure ... see below

seble
Posts: 2480 (0)
Site Staff
Remove Favorite

Posted by skinzfan36 on 6/30/2016 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 6/30/2016 4:53:00 PM (view original):
I just explained why. The 6 hour cycles messed up the signing odds.

what do you mean the signing odds? I thought players already had a specific cycle they are assigned to sign in within the range of their preference...

No, they aren't assigned a specific cycle. There are odds for each time the normal cycles run, based on their preference and where it is in the schedule. For example, a guy who wants to sign early might have 70% chance the first cycle, 80% the second cycle, etc. So he'd sign within a few cycles.

Switching to 6 hour cycles cuts in half the number of possible signing times, so I'll need to adjust the odds formulas to match the cycle change, assuming we stick with it.
6/30/2016 5:06 PM

Nice! Thanks for sharing, I missed that.

And back to the OP's question ...

There is no set turn for a player to sign .. they could sign on any turn. There is just 'X' probability they will sign on this turn. Some signings have to take place in the 2nd recruiting session (any one going up one level .. if the recruit does not sign with someone in their division in the first signing period) .. some recruits are also LATE signers.

For everyone else, they can sign on the next turn.

If they do sign on 'This Turn' (based on the RNG) .. every team that is Very High or High has some probability to get the player. But, a player does not have to get into the lead to possibly sign the recruit .. they only have to get into High or Very High on the signing turn to have 'some possibility' of signing.

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.

I'm outed - this is really what drove me away - not enough "protection" from D2 and D3 geniuses like spudhole.

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.

I wanted to rename it "Spud's red light on the way to the D1 candy store" - LOL Just kidding with you Spud. The "red light" is when it was implemented that D3 teams could not sign D1 prospects until the last day, and D2 teams could not sign a D1 player until the second session.Spud was opposed to this feeling that this blocked D3 teams from getting to the D1 "candy store". It was the source of many debates on the beta forums. I still found that even with those restrictions, it was not hard for a D3 team to sign a D1 player, but that was in Beta. At first, D3 teams were signing like 4 star players very early in the first session before D1 teams would move on to backup options, so the "red light" was put in place to prevent this from happening.

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/21/2016 11:43:00 AM (view original):
First off I've never been a fan of the term "poaching" in HD, but I am 100% for realism in the game.

Call it sour grapes or whatever, but if I'm Indiana (A prestige) and am 'Very High' on a recruit for every cycle and no other school being higher than 'Moderate' in what universe does a player wake up and say "Hey I'm going to go to Valparaiso" who is a C prestige. This kind of randomness is the crap that will more than likely drive me out of the game.

Maybe I have misunderstood while reading these forums, but I thought 3.0 was created to eliminate that? Now any school can jump in on any school?

Do I have a valid point or am I out of line and this is what coaches wanted from the game?

i may have been c prestige, but when that pg signed with us i was at `high` on his considering list..i offered a start+minutes, kept some attn pts on him..my guess he signed with valpo because of distance also..i'm happy..guess you're not

Posted by franklynne on 9/22/2016 12:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by joeykw18 on 9/21/2016 11:43:00 AM (view original):
First off I've never been a fan of the term "poaching" in HD, but I am 100% for realism in the game.

Call it sour grapes or whatever, but if I'm Indiana (A prestige) and am 'Very High' on a recruit for every cycle and no other school being higher than 'Moderate' in what universe does a player wake up and say "Hey I'm going to go to Valparaiso" who is a C prestige. This kind of randomness is the crap that will more than likely drive me out of the game.

Maybe I have misunderstood while reading these forums, but I thought 3.0 was created to eliminate that? Now any school can jump in on any school?

Do I have a valid point or am I out of line and this is what coaches wanted from the game?

i may have been c prestige, but when that pg signed with us i was at `high` on his considering list..i offered a start+minutes, kept some attn pts on him..my guess he signed with valpo because of distance also..i'm happy..guess you're not

The cycle before you were 'Low' or I would have put more into him to knock you back to at least moderate. As for distance I was considered "Very Good" as well.

I think the best way to sustain success is to be in a conference alone. I had fairly low expectations for 3.0 and it's pretty much exactly what I expected. I'll probably drop my Indiana team. I'll keep Vermont for a season and re-evaluate.

Bold prediction: Memphis will be a contender in almost every world, every year.