Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/30/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Two D1 teams ... one grade apart in prestige ... "We both maxed out CV/HVs -- I spent 784 APs, vandydave spent 1200" so a 53% advantage to vandydave. You didn't say who was putting effort in earlier (it matters). From this, where is the problem that vandydave got the recruit? Was a one grade difference in prestige that significant in HD2.0 that you would expect it to overcome such a recruiting advantage to the other team?

+1 to possumfiend's post.

The issue is that attention points on appearance are a glorified simplistic version of 2.0 phone calls. And now they are the single biggest factor in signing a recruit as compared to other factors which most coaches would agree should be much more significant. Factors other than the coin flip of course.

This is 2.0 thinking, though. In reality, attention points are very significant. Because everyone will have the ability to (and we should assume they will) max out on visits for elite recruits, it makes sense that (along with preferences) probabilities in these battles are going to be predominantly impacted by attention points; they are the prime way of establishing how high of a priority this recruit is for you.

But why? What are attention points - what do they equate to in real life? A home visit, a campus visit, a phone call, those have real life counterparts - as much as 3.0 isn't supposed to be a "math formula" anymore, attention points are being revealed to be simply a math formula that don't seem to be reducing poaching which was likely part of their design.

This is all just a cluster, wasn't thought through and wasn't properly tested.

It equates to showing him the love, making him feel wanted, etc. That's how I look at it, anyway.

If you're showing the guy significant love from the start, and your opponent isn't, that should factor into his decision. He could still go the other way (as we see in another thread), but 3.0 is about maximizing your probabilities efficiently.

Pkoopman - in real life how do schools show a player love all throughout the recruiting process outside of in person visits?

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Pkoopman - in real life how do schools show a player love all throughout the recruiting process outside of in person visits?

I know what you're getting at, and I agree, it's not an ideal representation. Then again, visiting a recruit's home 200 times isn't very realistic either, is it? That's why I've always argued for eliminating cash altogether, and capping visits at 3. It would be less confusing, and less game-y. In reality, players make decisions based on 3 factors; priority (whether the player is a priority for the school), prestige, and preferences. Attention should be static (every coach has the same number of hours in a week), visits should be part of the process, but not the determinant, and not a proxy for a bidding game. And preferences should be key. 1 out of 3 is better than none. :)

In attempting to make the game less deterministic and less of a math formula a new unknown math formula with no real life correlation to recruiting called attention points may now be the single biggest factor in recruiting.

NO ONE ASKED FOR THIS.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/30/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Two D1 teams ... one grade apart in prestige ... "We both maxed out CV/HVs -- I spent 784 APs, vandydave spent 1200" so a 53% advantage to vandydave. You didn't say who was putting effort in earlier (it matters). From this, where is the problem that vandydave got the recruit? Was a one grade difference in prestige that significant in HD2.0 that you would expect it to overcome such a recruiting advantage to the other team?

+1 to possumfiend's post.

I have a bad feeling I'm feeding the troll here, but I'll respond anyway. My problem isn't necessarily that vandydave won the recruit (although I think his winning means that prestige does not matter nearly as much as I think it should, but I admit bias on that point) -- my problem is that I have absolutely no idea why he won, and therefore I can't learn from it. Was he leading? Was I? Were we 50/50? Did I have a 10% recruiting advantage based on the effort/prestige/preferences? Did he? I have no sense at all of who "should" win this battle -- so going forward, I can't apply strategy with any degree of certainty (really, at all). One of the things I liked about 2.0 recruiting in D-1 (and again, I admit bias because I usually had high prestige teams), was that the smarter players were rewarded -- there were ways for B+ teams to beat A+ teams, but you had to be smart about it. Here, it's just get yourself in the room at high and hope the RNG gives the recruit to you. I fail to see how this is going to help grow the game.

And yes, I would have won this battle with ease in 2.0 given these "facts" (although the changes in preferences/cost issues/caps on CVs/HVs make it so it's not an apples to apples comparison).

In the old game, a letter of prestige was about a 40-50% advantage. Let's be conservative and take the 40% number.

That would give john an edge of
8 HVs
.4 CV

and vandy an edge of
100 APs

To me, that looks like it should be a landslide. As I've said before, I have absolutely zero issue with the probabilistic signing logic. I think it improves the game. But this looks like at least a 55/45 battle in john's favor before the leading team boost. I'm not sure where the VH/H boundary is, but if this isn't at it, it should be close.

In the dev chat they said that a team listed as High has only beaten very high 3% of the time. Wow! I thought it'd be much higher.

Posted by jpmills3 on 9/30/2016 10:52:00 AM (view original):
This is pricelesly the issue with the randomness element. Awful. Takes away skill.

Dealing with unexpected results is it's own skill.

I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/30/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

Yep. With as fun as I think 3.0 is, I think getting the AP/prestige balance right is going to be the key to making it work well in D1

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Possum's post is very thoughtful, but I'll say this one more time -

if the goal is new user gain and retention then wis is essentially banking on coaches ability to restrain themselves from going all in after the top recruits they in theory have the capacity to get but in reality will lose more often than they win, with the result being lots of empty scholarships or awful last-second backup options.

The old game literally required you to build a dynasty slowly and work your way up. The promise of "everyone has a chance" is a double-edged sword I don't think people are going to have the patience or willingness to continue paying for.

I think you are overvaluing the "everyone has a chance" mantra. It is still far too early to see how all this will shake out. IMO, this system has opened up more possible strategies that can lead to success. I think we are confusing the idea that what worked before will no longer work with the idea that now there is no skill involved. I see it as that there is even more skilled involved now, it just has to be implemented in new ways. I love the fact that everyone is on here trying to exchange information about battles and trying to figure out the new system. There was PLENTY about the old system we didn't know either and tons of people who argue on here about their guess as to how certain things were calculated.

I do believe it is true that WIS has TEMPORARILY evened the playing field, but I still believe that the coaches who were good before will be the best again. Or at least, the things that made a good coach before will still make a good coach now. I still think you will see dynasties and people certainly having to work hard for a significant period of time to work their way up. It's way too early to tell, but we'll see. For example, what about the random mid-major that does sign a 5 star guy but has to take some pretty bad recruits also in order to do that. Will the be an effective strategy? Who knows- but one thing is for sure, that was impossible to try before now.

I know no one did, but if you ask me- right now, this game is WAY more exciting than it ever has been .

EDIT: Keep in mind- this is after losing my first big maxed out battle (5 star SF Loyd Clark in Tark - signed by C+ Iowa State over B+ Arkansas) to a school that would have had no chance at that recruit in the old system. I was ****** at first, but in a way- it's exciting to see. I've been also trying to determine what roll the RNG and APs played in this decision. I love that it will take some time to figure this out.

Posted by tarvolon on 9/30/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/30/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

Yep. With as fun as I think 3.0 is, I think getting the AP/prestige balance right is going to be the key to making it work well in D1

I totally agree. I don't think anyone ever should have gone into this thinking this wasn't going to take some tweaking, including the devs.

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/30/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

I also agree with this.

Posted by noleaniml on 9/30/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/30/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/30/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

Yep. With as fun as I think 3.0 is, I think getting the AP/prestige balance right is going to be the key to making it work well in D1

I totally agree. I don't think anyone ever should have gone into this thinking this wasn't going to take some tweaking, including the devs.

Isn't that what beta is for? The exact same thing happened in 2.0 -- they rolled it out before it was ready, and it was a fiasco.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/30/2016 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 9/30/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/30/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by goodtymes31 on 9/30/2016 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I think Rogelio hit onto something that may be the bigger issue. To give yourself a chance in a battle, you need to devote your AP's to 1 or 2 main targets (maybe 3) to give yourself a realistic chance to landing that recruit. Now that we are subject to a coinflip essentially, if you lose 2 coinflips, there is nowhere to turn to get a backup option.

In real life, if Duke misses on 2 recruits, then decides to jump in on a player that UNC Wilmington has been "showing the love" to for months, how many times will that recruit stick with Wilmington rather than heading to Duke. In 3.0, if you miss twice, your recruiting session is shot.

Yep. With as fun as I think 3.0 is, I think getting the AP/prestige balance right is going to be the key to making it work well in D1

I totally agree. I don't think anyone ever should have gone into this thinking this wasn't going to take some tweaking, including the devs.

Isn't that what beta is for? The exact same thing happened in 2.0 -- they rolled it out before it was ready, and it was a fiasco.

That's true, it is what beta's for, but other than producing a stable platform they were never going to garner meaningful results in beta because so many people who signed up for it just walked away mid-stream.