See the post that I'm sure is about to blow up. What a joke. Stayed on for one more season because the recruiting was the same and my team should have a solid shot at winning it all, but this'll be it for me.

I assumed at first that the post was a joke.

Then i realized that it is broadly a joke.

Great news....
if these two actually listen to the customers..

I disagree. WIS clearly is listening to customers. Isn't that good? Let's give Redhawks and Cwisniewski a chance!

Everything is negative always.

So they had a guy write the new scheme. keep in mind, he said that they had to do a whole new scouting/recruiting scheme because the old legacy scheme was written by others and they could no longer make small improvements. Said that a year or more ago. leads the development and leaves in mid launch. new guys no doubt sincere may try to improve. Wanna bet? failure to address a number of meaningful concerns might possibly be connected to desire to launch prior to developer departure? Could be.

Now its launched and the priority will be de bugging and the like. the direction is set, the captain has left the bridge.

I've got 8 seasons and doubt i will use them all, but I'll try with my last surviving team.

It's also not encouraging to see the political type non answers coming out of the dev chat, for example

"About how many attention points would equal a home visit? 50? 100? 200? (sportsguy001 - Hall of Famer - 11:58 AM)

We'd rather not disclose the actual point value. But we can confirm home visits are worthwhile."

The question was about the value of attention points, not home visits, I feel like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the devs, answering the question they wanted to be asked, not what was actually asked.

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 5:35:00 PM (view original):
It's also not encouraging to see the political type non answers coming out of the dev chat, for example

"About how many attention points would equal a home visit? 50? 100? 200? (sportsguy001 - Hall of Famer - 11:58 AM)

We'd rather not disclose the actual point value. But we can confirm home visits are worthwhile."

The question was about the value of attention points, not home visits, I feel like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the devs, answering the question they wanted to be asked, not what was actually asked.

I know I can be Mr. Charitable Interpretation sometimes, but they're obviously not going to give you an exact number, so I took "HVs are still worthwhile" to basically be saying "APs are not so important that they're going to beat HVs." Based on that, I'd be pretty surprised if the number were anywhere near 50. Obviously, that leaves a lot of unknown, but I think the unknown is by design.

There is absolutely a huge gap between complete black box not giving any detail and laying every detail on the table. There's a middle ground that could be useful for users without spoiling the mystery.

Or how about this one?

"High vs Very High has been a big topic in the forums. Would you please use some examples to illustrate how differences in recruiting effort translate to the chances of signing a recruit, both in two-team battles and multiple-team battles? Thanks. (CoachSpud - Rookie - 12:42 PM)

We'd prefer not to go into too much detail on this topic. The interest level is range based (like an A and a B in school). The more you've recruited a player, the better shot you'll have at landing the recruit. Very High is better than High."

That answer wasn't "not too much detail" that was nothing, simply saying Very High is better than High

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 5:55:00 PM (view original):
There is absolutely a huge gap between complete black box not giving any detail and laying every detail on the table. There's a middle ground that could be useful for users without spoiling the mystery.

That's fair. And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out in my questions about prestige.

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Or how about this one?

"High vs Very High has been a big topic in the forums. Would you please use some examples to illustrate how differences in recruiting effort translate to the chances of signing a recruit, both in two-team battles and multiple-team battles? Thanks. (CoachSpud - Rookie - 12:42 PM)

We'd prefer not to go into too much detail on this topic. The interest level is range based (like an A and a B in school). The more you've recruited a player, the better shot you'll have at landing the recruit. Very High is better than High."

That answer wasn't "not too much detail" that was nothing, simply saying Very High is better than High

I really don't know why they didn't go into more detail in this answer, since so much relevant information was given away for free in the beta forum. The very high vs high thing is actually pretty simple, and I'm not sure why it's so misunderstood (or at least alleged to be confusing)

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 5:55:00 PM (view original):
There is absolutely a huge gap between complete black box not giving any detail and laying every detail on the table. There's a middle ground that could be useful for users without spoiling the mystery.

That's fair. And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out in my questions about prestige.

I thought you asked a great question and they gave nothing of any use in their answer

Frustrating. Left 2 months too late.

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bakerbarnett on 9/27/2016 5:55:00 PM (view original):
There is absolutely a huge gap between complete black box not giving any detail and laying every detail on the table. There's a middle ground that could be useful for users without spoiling the mystery.

That's fair. And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out in my questions about prestige.

I thought you asked a great question and they gave nothing of any use in their answer

"We're making sure prestige is still as important as in 2.0" is actually a pretty good answer IF you trust the programmers to have a sense of how important prestige was in 2.0 so that they can evaluate battles and make sure prestige remains important.

Not trusting them to have played the game at a high level is what makes me dissatisfied with the answer.