the new game is like a bad job. Increased effort and increased frustration. Drudgery in the scouting process. In real life, I have made a point of getting out of bad jobs. Same thing here. Leaving with seasons unused.

Posted by vandydave on 9/23/2016 9:47:00 PM (view original):
I know pkoopman means well and has been posting insightfully - but all those who are basically encouraging players who have played the game for a long time (or trying to entice new players for that matter), regardless of success, to basically enjoy the dice rolls because its more "fun" or "enjoyable", is a horrible strategy for wis to have based the future of HD upon.

If the goal was to retain all the players who remained, I'd say you may be right about the strategy. But they obviously want to grow - and this is a good opportunity to reach potential players who haven't been interested yet, for a variety of reasons. Lots of game players enjoy games based on probability rather than determinism. The problem isn't that 3.0 moved recruiting to probability based rather than hard determinism; the problem is *it changed* and that's always hard for people to deal with, to varying degrees. I'm not unsympathetic, but I'm not going to stop encouraging people to let go of that game, because this one is fun, too. More fun for lots of us.

“ … please tell me why it is fair to allow total randomness to occur in the recruiting process …”
It isn’t. That has been covered over and over and over again in the forums in the last two weeks or so. Saying something like “total randomness in recruiting” is so last month.

“Think in terms of 3rd person objective, not 3rd person omniscient.”
Oh sweet Jesus I love it! You just went sailing over so many heads

Posted by pkoopman on 9/23/2016 11:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/23/2016 9:47:00 PM (view original):
I know pkoopman means well and has been posting insightfully - but all those who are basically encouraging players who have played the game for a long time (or trying to entice new players for that matter), regardless of success, to basically enjoy the dice rolls because its more "fun" or "enjoyable", is a horrible strategy for wis to have based the future of HD upon.

If the goal was to retain all the players who remained, I'd say you may be right about the strategy. But they obviously want to grow - and this is a good opportunity to reach potential players who haven't been interested yet, for a variety of reasons. Lots of game players enjoy games based on probability rather than determinism. The problem isn't that 3.0 moved recruiting to probability based rather than hard determinism; the problem is *it changed* and that's always hard for people to deal with, to varying degrees. I'm not unsympathetic, but I'm not going to stop encouraging people to let go of that game, because this one is fun, too. More fun for lots of us.

I personally 100% disagree with your statement about the problem. I had no issue with change and would even have had championed many of the overall goals of this update, it's the actual changes they chose to implement. I think wis and many users/apologists for the changes likely shake their heads and says "those coaches were going to leave no matter what we did" and that's flat out untrue.

Posted by vandydave on 9/22/2016 7:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wedgeva on 9/22/2016 4:21:00 PM (view original):
Okay - Knight has finished processing recruiting period 1. 16 of the 17 top 25 recruits that signed, were signed by Big Six schools (congrats to Cornell, who broke through)! 94% success signing rate! What was it that you guys were whining about again?

The absurdity of Cornell signing a top 25 recruit - was that somehow unclear?

I believe the third ranked recruit coming out of high school, sometime back in the mid 90s, Adonal Foyle, who played for Colgage. Didn't amount to much in the NBA, but was drafted 8th overall.

To follow up on my earlier post, I do not care one bit that a player signs with a smaller school, or a less popular school, or even a schools whose colors are different....just so long as his interest level was showing for EVERYBODY to see Very High. I hope seble or whomever is now in charge of HD understands that we require that one constant to play by.

Posted by wvufan76 on 9/24/2016 1:14:00 AM (view original):
To follow up on my earlier post, I do not care one bit that a player signs with a smaller school, or a less popular school, or even a schools whose colors are different....just so long as his interest level was showing for EVERYBODY to see Very High. I hope seble or whomever is now in charge of HD understands that we require that one constant to play by.

Again, from seble's comments in beta, interest level is cosmetic in nature. The idea of eliminating VH and VL was discussed during beta and most of those involved in the discussion were against the idea.

Most preferred having the range where a recruit would become eligible for signing to be split into two groups because they wanted to know if they were in the high or low end of the recruits signing credit range.

Changing the artificial labeling would not have changed the signing credit range, it would have merely meant that what we now see as H or VH would have all been merged under a single H range.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/24/2016 4:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wvufan76 on 9/24/2016 1:14:00 AM (view original):
To follow up on my earlier post, I do not care one bit that a player signs with a smaller school, or a less popular school, or even a schools whose colors are different....just so long as his interest level was showing for EVERYBODY to see Very High. I hope seble or whomever is now in charge of HD understands that we require that one constant to play by.

Again, from seble's comments in beta, interest level is cosmetic in nature. The idea of eliminating VH and VL was discussed during beta and most of those involved in the discussion were against the idea.

Most preferred having the range where a recruit would become eligible for signing to be split into two groups because they wanted to know if they were in the high or low end of the recruits signing credit range.

Changing the artificial labeling would not have changed the signing credit range, it would have merely meant that what we now see as H or VH would have all been merged under a single H range.

This is how I feel as well. Which is why I say it comes down to preference. The credit range that is required to get into the signing lottery doesn't change, only the labeling. So you have two options-

1) Lump VH and H together so you have only 1 label that recruits signed from
2) Separate VH and H but H still gets ping pong balls in the lottery

The 2nd option just gives you a better idea of how many ping pong balls you have. The 1st option, you have no idea if you have a 40% chance of signing of a 70% chance.

I'd personally prefer to have a better idea of where I stand in a battle but I can see why others would feel more comfortable if they were in just one big pool of an interest level that is considered 'signable'.

I don't think that's his point possum. I think he is saying teams under 40% chance of signing a player should not be signing players.

Posted by mullycj on 9/24/2016 8:28:00 AM (view original):
I don't think that's his point possum. I think he is saying teams under 40% chance of signing a player should not be signing players.

Not sure which post, or whose point you're referring too. But let's also be clear that the chance of signing a player is not equal to the "effort" extended ... it's not a 1:1 ratio. A 40% chance to sign a player is probably pretty close to 48% vs. 52% in effort.

Not sure which post, or whose point you're referring too. But let's also be clear that the chance of signing a player is not equal to the "effort" extended ... it's not a 1:1 ratio. A 40% chance to sign a player is probably pretty close to 48% vs. 52% in effort.

I am curious...and how do you know this? From 3 abbreviated Test seasons during which the rules were constantly being adjusted? Or was it the less than one season of current experience? I see people post often what they consider to be absolute truths on how the 3.0 runs when what appears to me is simple guess work and could indeed be totally wrong as equally as it could be close to the truth.

I think Vandy hit into a major issue. WIS, and especially HD, has been built on the backs of a bunch of loyal customers who have been with HD for a long time, and account for several teams across multiple worlds. They have done a terrible job reaching out and bringing in new customers.

I just don't see how a complicated recruiting system with random results is going to help retain new customers. If I am a new HD player, and I lose 2 coinflips where I was "Very High" to another school who was "High" in both cases, there is no way I am paying for another season to see if I can get better or if the game grows on me.

Listen, I understand that in real life things happen. Heck, I am a Pitt football fan, and they have been recruiting a 4 star DE who is local for 2 years, comes to all the home games, wears all Pitt gear, praises Narduzzi as much as he can. Takes one weekend visit to South Bend after they recruiting him for 2 weeks, and he's now a Notre Dame Commit.

The difference is, they are asking me to pay to play this game. If all it is going to do is cause confusion and aggrevation, why would I continue to play. Additionally, Seble going MIA after the release is unacceptable to me.

We just had an instance in Wooden where there 3 schools "Very High" on a recruit, 2 of them A+, one of them me. I had min of 30 Att Points every cycle, good preferences, maxed out all my visits, promised a start and 20 minutes, and lost him to a 4th school who was C+ prestige and just"High". Why should I continue to pay to play this game? Someone please tell me.

Posted by taniajane on 9/24/2016 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Not sure which post, or whose point you're referring too. But let's also be clear that the chance of signing a player is not equal to the "effort" extended ... it's not a 1:1 ratio. A 40% chance to sign a player is probably pretty close to 48% vs. 52% in effort.

I am curious...and how do you know this? From 3 abbreviated Test seasons during which the rules were constantly being adjusted? Or was it the less than one season of current experience? I see people post often what they consider to be absolute truths on how the 3.0 runs when what appears to me is simple guess work and could indeed be totally wrong as equally as it could be close to the truth.

Seble told us. Its not guesswork. He gave some information on a couple battles.

Posted by taniajane on 9/24/2016 11:10:00 AM (view original):
Not sure which post, or whose point you're referring too. But let's also be clear that the chance of signing a player is not equal to the "effort" extended ... it's not a 1:1 ratio. A 40% chance to sign a player is probably pretty close to 48% vs. 52% in effort.

I am curious...and how do you know this? From 3 abbreviated Test seasons during which the rules were constantly being adjusted? Or was it the less than one season of current experience? I see people post often what they consider to be absolute truths on how the 3.0 runs when what appears to me is simple guess work and could indeed be totally wrong as equally as it could be close to the truth.

What Benis said above. And because, as I posted earlier, the following is a direct quote from seble AFTER he made adjustments.

An example is that a breakdown of 52% to 48% credit would generate odds around 62% to 38%. This skewing was increased based on the feedback from you guys a few weeks ago. Previous to that, the odds would be 58% to 42%.

"I just don't see how a complicated recruiting system with random results is going to help retain new customers."

True enough. Good thing it isn't random results. For that matter, good thing the recruiting system isn't so complicated once you take the time to learn it.