The continuing saga of a new guy here--I parlayed a decent season at DIII to Clayton State (Allen World). Inherited what I think is a very good returning roster and have already signed 2 D1 SG's who should be solid players at D2 level.

It feels like I have much more $ to recruit with, even with 4 openings, which assisted me greatly in identifying D1 AND D2 players to fit what I was looking for; whereas at Finlandia, it felt as though I didn't have enough $ to identify enough D2 and D3 players to fit my openings.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Like I said the verdict will be the sub numbers. Pkoop and Hughes can spew all the bs spins they want to but the bottom line is that the majority of people won't sign up to play this game anymore for the same reasons that I've given throughout this thread.

With all due respect metsmaniac, you keep complaining that the new game is not realistic and not logical and wish the game
stayed at version 2.0.

Let's look at version 2.0:
At the start of every season a coach could see the current ratings of EVERY recruit in the country. Not realistic at all.

If a team had 6 openings that you were recruiting against and you had 2 openings and the teams were generally in
at the same level--you had no chance at all of getting in a battle with that team. Completely unrealistic.

If you wanted to scout a point guard and your team desperately needed a PG that could pass you could spend money until you
were blue in the face sending your assistant coach out to see if you could determine if the PG was a good passer with no guarantee
that you would ever find out about his passing ability. Totally unrealistic and totally illogical.

All 3 of these have improved dramatically in version 3.0. By your complaints you keep inferring that version 2.0 was a totally realistic
and logical game--which it was not. And I could keep going with more examples like the above 3. Sorry, but version 2.0 was a flawed game
that needed fixing. I hope you can look at this situation a little more with an open mind and give it a try. And most importantly: Let's Go Mets!!!!!

Posted by tooslim on 10/25/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Like I said the verdict will be the sub numbers. Pkoop and Hughes can spew all the bs spins they want to but the bottom line is that the majority of people won't sign up to play this game anymore for the same reasons that I've given throughout this thread.

With all due respect metsmaniac, you keep complaining that the new game is not realistic and not logical and wish the game
stayed at version 2.0.

Let's look at version 2.0:
At the start of every season a coach could see the current ratings of EVERY recruit in the country. Not realistic at all.

If a team had 6 openings that you were recruiting against and you had 2 openings and the teams were generally in
at the same level--you had no chance at all of getting in a battle with that team. Completely unrealistic.

If you wanted to scout a point guard and your team desperately needed a PG that could pass you could spend money until you
were blue in the face sending your assistant coach out to see if you could determine if the PG was a good passer with no guarantee
that you would ever find out about his passing ability. Totally unrealistic and totally illogical.

All 3 of these have improved dramatically in version 3.0. By your complaints you keep inferring that version 2.0 was a totally realistic
and logical game--which it was not. And I could keep going with more examples like the above 3. Sorry, but version 2.0 was a flawed game
that needed fixing. I hope you can look at this situation a little more with an open mind and give it a try. And most importantly: Let's Go Mets!!!!!

I've never said that I want HD to go back to 2.0. If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I agree that in recruiting if a recruit has multiple schools at very high that it should be a toss up. What I don't agree with is a recruit picking a team that is high over a very high.

I also have never said that 2.0 was realistic. I agree that HD needed changes, but change isn't automatically good.

I understand that some people think there should be no RNG in signings. I strongly disagree with that point (I see no reason why a team with 50.1% of the effort should get the recruit 100% of the time), but I understand it.

What I really don't understand is coaches so vehemently arguing that we should get less information about the state of our battles.

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I understand that some people think there should be no RNG in signings. I strongly disagree with that point (I see no reason why a team with 50.1% of the effort should get the recruit 100% of the time), but I understand it.

What I really don't understand is coaches so vehemently arguing that we should get less information about the state of our battles.

If one school was at 50.1 and another at 49.9, they'd both be very high schools - so I agree with you guys that in that scenario it should be random. I don't agree that a very high school should lose a recruit to a high team.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I understand that some people think there should be no RNG in signings. I strongly disagree with that point (I see no reason why a team with 50.1% of the effort should get the recruit 100% of the time), but I understand it.

What I really don't understand is coaches so vehemently arguing that we should get less information about the state of our battles.

If one school was at 50.1 and another at 49.9, they'd both be very high schools - so I agree with you guys that in that scenario it should be random. I don't agree that a very high school should lose a recruit to a high team.

But what you're asking for is less information. Right now, we can tell the difference between a battle with a 50.1/49.9 effort disparity (very high vs very high), a battle with a 60/40 effort disparity (very high vs high), and a battle between a 65/35 effort disparity (very high vs moderate). If you collapse very high and high into the same category, it takes away information.

[I understand that alternatively, you could change the threshold that gets teams in the signing RNG, making it apply only to VH schools. But if you do this, then you've put yourself into one of two situations, both of which I find distasteful: either (1) there is an effort percentage (other than 50%) where your signing odds can jump from 0% to 35% with an additional one AP, or (2) there are some teams are very high that still only have a 1% chance of signing the recruit.]

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I understand that some people think there should be no RNG in signings. I strongly disagree with that point (I see no reason why a team with 50.1% of the effort should get the recruit 100% of the time), but I understand it.

What I really don't understand is coaches so vehemently arguing that we should get less information about the state of our battles.

If one school was at 50.1 and another at 49.9, they'd both be very high schools - so I agree with you guys that in that scenario it should be random. I don't agree that a very high school should lose a recruit to a high team.

But what you're asking for is less information. Right now, we can tell the difference between a battle with a 50.1/49.9 effort disparity (very high vs very high), a battle with a 60/40 effort disparity (very high vs high), and a battle between a 65/35 effort disparity (very high vs moderate). If you collapse very high and high into the same category, it takes away information.

[I understand that alternatively, you could change the threshold that gets teams in the signing RNG, making it apply only to VH schools. But if you do this, then you've put yourself into one of two situations, both of which I find distasteful: either (1) there is an effort percentage (other than 50%) where your signing odds can jump from 0% to 35% with an additional one AP, or (2) there are some teams are very high that still only have a 1% chance of signing the recruit.]

You apparently have reading comprehension issues because you keep putting words and concepts into my mouth that I never said or advocated.

I don't want them to remove the distinction between very high and high. They are two different things and need two different groups. What I did say is that a recruit shouls never pick a team that is high over a team that is very high. That's the only issue with the game that I've raised.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I understand that some people think there should be no RNG in signings. I strongly disagree with that point (I see no reason why a team with 50.1% of the effort should get the recruit 100% of the time), but I understand it.

What I really don't understand is coaches so vehemently arguing that we should get less information about the state of our battles.

If one school was at 50.1 and another at 49.9, they'd both be very high schools - so I agree with you guys that in that scenario it should be random. I don't agree that a very high school should lose a recruit to a high team.

But what you're asking for is less information. Right now, we can tell the difference between a battle with a 50.1/49.9 effort disparity (very high vs very high), a battle with a 60/40 effort disparity (very high vs high), and a battle between a 65/35 effort disparity (very high vs moderate). If you collapse very high and high into the same category, it takes away information.

[I understand that alternatively, you could change the threshold that gets teams in the signing RNG, making it apply only to VH schools. But if you do this, then you've put yourself into one of two situations, both of which I find distasteful: either (1) there is an effort percentage (other than 50%) where your signing odds can jump from 0% to 35% with an additional one AP, or (2) there are some teams are very high that still only have a 1% chance of signing the recruit.]

You apparently have reading comprehension issues because you keep putting words and concepts into my mouth that I never said or advocated.

I don't want them to remove the distinction between very high and high. They are two different things and need two different groups. What I did say is that a recruit shouls never pick a team that is high over a team that is very high. That's the only issue with the game that I've raised.

I'm not sure where the animosity is coming from, considering that you are advocating exactly what I said was one of the only two options consistent with your position.

But, as I said, if you never have recruits sign with "high" over "very high," then you either have a threshold problem (there is a point where one more AP increases your odds from 0% to 35%), or you have some schools who are "very high" yet only have a 1% chance of getting the recruit. I think both of those results would be bigger issues than the existing one that you raised.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I understand that some people think there should be no RNG in signings. I strongly disagree with that point (I see no reason why a team with 50.1% of the effort should get the recruit 100% of the time), but I understand it.

What I really don't understand is coaches so vehemently arguing that we should get less information about the state of our battles.

If one school was at 50.1 and another at 49.9, they'd both be very high schools - so I agree with you guys that in that scenario it should be random. I don't agree that a very high school should lose a recruit to a high team.

But what you're asking for is less information. Right now, we can tell the difference between a battle with a 50.1/49.9 effort disparity (very high vs very high), a battle with a 60/40 effort disparity (very high vs high), and a battle between a 65/35 effort disparity (very high vs moderate). If you collapse very high and high into the same category, it takes away information.

[I understand that alternatively, you could change the threshold that gets teams in the signing RNG, making it apply only to VH schools. But if you do this, then you've put yourself into one of two situations, both of which I find distasteful: either (1) there is an effort percentage (other than 50%) where your signing odds can jump from 0% to 35% with an additional one AP, or (2) there are some teams are very high that still only have a 1% chance of signing the recruit.]

You apparently have reading comprehension issues because you keep putting words and concepts into my mouth that I never said or advocated.

I don't want them to remove the distinction between very high and high. They are two different things and need two different groups. What I did say is that a recruit shouls never pick a team that is high over a team that is very high. That's the only issue with the game that I've raised.

It'd be helpful if you provided some information on how you'd define VH vs H. Otherwise we're just talking semantics.

50.1 vs 49.9% is okay to you. How about 55 vs 45? 70 vs 30? Where is your threshold?

Posted by Benis on 10/25/2016 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I understand that some people think there should be no RNG in signings. I strongly disagree with that point (I see no reason why a team with 50.1% of the effort should get the recruit 100% of the time), but I understand it.

What I really don't understand is coaches so vehemently arguing that we should get less information about the state of our battles.

If one school was at 50.1 and another at 49.9, they'd both be very high schools - so I agree with you guys that in that scenario it should be random. I don't agree that a very high school should lose a recruit to a high team.

But what you're asking for is less information. Right now, we can tell the difference between a battle with a 50.1/49.9 effort disparity (very high vs very high), a battle with a 60/40 effort disparity (very high vs high), and a battle between a 65/35 effort disparity (very high vs moderate). If you collapse very high and high into the same category, it takes away information.

[I understand that alternatively, you could change the threshold that gets teams in the signing RNG, making it apply only to VH schools. But if you do this, then you've put yourself into one of two situations, both of which I find distasteful: either (1) there is an effort percentage (other than 50%) where your signing odds can jump from 0% to 35% with an additional one AP, or (2) there are some teams are very high that still only have a 1% chance of signing the recruit.]

You apparently have reading comprehension issues because you keep putting words and concepts into my mouth that I never said or advocated.

I don't want them to remove the distinction between very high and high. They are two different things and need two different groups. What I did say is that a recruit shouls never pick a team that is high over a team that is very high. That's the only issue with the game that I've raised.

It'd be helpful if you provided some information on how you'd define VH vs H. Otherwise we're just talking semantics.

50.1 vs 49.9% is okay to you. How about 55 vs 45? 70 vs 30? Where is your threshold?

Whatever the the distinction is for being catagorized as very high or high right now.

Mets - let me start with "I completely agree with you". Now, let me try to change your way of thinking so that maybe you accept this new game.

1) Players will ONLY sign with teams that are "HIGH" on their consideration list. Teams that can only get to moderate have 0% chance of signing a player. In % terms, if you can't spend >40% effort on a player compared to other teams, you cant sign him.
2) Teams that a recruit WILL sign with are then split into 2 categories, "High" and "Very High". This is done so you know where you stand. A team that is only "high" has, at most, a 35% chance of signing the recruit.

So teams that are high/very high on a recruit list are all being seriously considered and left up to the RNG on who ultimately gets him, with Very High teams having the best chance.

Posted by mullycj on 10/25/2016 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Mets - let me start with "I completely agree with you". Now, let me try to change your way of thinking so that maybe you accept this new game.

1) Players will ONLY sign with teams that are "HIGH" on their consideration list. Teams that can only get to moderate have 0% chance of signing a player. In % terms, if you can't spend >40% effort on a player compared to other teams, you cant sign him.
2) Teams that a recruit WILL sign with are then split into 2 categories, "High" and "Very High". This is done so you know where you stand. A team that is only "high" has, at most, a 35% chance of signing the recruit.

So teams that are high/very high on a recruit list are all being seriously considered and left up to the RNG on who ultimately gets him, with Very High teams having the best chance.

Right, I understand all of that.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/25/2016 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Mets - let me start with "I completely agree with you". Now, let me try to change your way of thinking so that maybe you accept this new game.

1) Players will ONLY sign with teams that are "HIGH" on their consideration list. Teams that can only get to moderate have 0% chance of signing a player. In % terms, if you can't spend >40% effort on a player compared to other teams, you cant sign him.
2) Teams that a recruit WILL sign with are then split into 2 categories, "High" and "Very High". This is done so you know where you stand. A team that is only "high" has, at most, a 35% chance of signing the recruit.

So teams that are high/very high on a recruit list are all being seriously considered and left up to the RNG on who ultimately gets him, with Very High teams having the best chance.

Right, I understand all of that.

My point is just that a recruit should never sign with a school that is listed as high when there is another school on the same recruit at very high. If there is no team at very high but one or more schools at high, then the recruit should be able to sign with any of the schools at high.

If 3 schools are listed at very high then the recruit should be able to sign with any of the three schools.

?If there are 3 very high schools and 2 high schools then the recruit should only be able to sign with the 3 very high schools, and neither of the high schools.

Mets- I know you won't like this answer but you're looking at this way too literally.

In a scenario where it says the recruit is VH on 2 schools and H on 1 school - he is actually VERY INTERESTED in all 3 schools. To the recruit (if he were a person) it is very, very close in his mind but 2 schools are just a tad bit better. But he still very much likes the 3rd school. It is split out to the benefit of the user so we know if we're behind or ahead. Otherwise, we just list all 3 schools as VH and have no idea if we have a 70% of signing him or a 20%. By doing the VH and H, we have a MUCH better idea. This is all that's happening here.

Maybe they shouldn't have done away with emails. Maybe they should have just made the VH one big pool and then you'd get an email saying if you were ahead or behind. Maybe that'd work better.. I don't know.

But regardless, once you realize that the VH and H split is done for our benefit and as a tool to help us, you'll see that it actually makes sense and does work (while still operating under a certain amount of ambiguity that Seble wanted to create.)

Benis - its like we share the same half brain :)

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/25/2016 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I understand that some people think there should be no RNG in signings. I strongly disagree with that point (I see no reason why a team with 50.1% of the effort should get the recruit 100% of the time), but I understand it.

What I really don't understand is coaches so vehemently arguing that we should get less information about the state of our battles.

If one school was at 50.1 and another at 49.9, they'd both be very high schools - so I agree with you guys that in that scenario it should be random. I don't agree that a very high school should lose a recruit to a high team.

But what you're asking for is less information. Right now, we can tell the difference between a battle with a 50.1/49.9 effort disparity (very high vs very high), a battle with a 60/40 effort disparity (very high vs high), and a battle between a 65/35 effort disparity (very high vs moderate). If you collapse very high and high into the same category, it takes away information.

[I understand that alternatively, you could change the threshold that gets teams in the signing RNG, making it apply only to VH schools. But if you do this, then you've put yourself into one of two situations, both of which I find distasteful: either (1) there is an effort percentage (other than 50%) where your signing odds can jump from 0% to 35% with an additional one AP, or (2) there are some teams are very high that still only have a 1% chance of signing the recruit.]

You apparently have reading comprehension issues because you keep putting words and concepts into my mouth that I never said or advocated.

I don't want them to remove the distinction between very high and high. They are two different things and need two different groups. What I did say is that a recruit shouls never pick a team that is high over a team that is very high. That's the only issue with the game that I've raised.

I'm not sure where the animosity is coming from, considering that you are advocating exactly what I said was one of the only two options consistent with your position.

But, as I said, if you never have recruits sign with "high" over "very high," then you either have a threshold problem (there is a point where one more AP increases your odds from 0% to 35%), or you have some schools who are "very high" yet only have a 1% chance of getting the recruit. I think both of those results would be bigger issues than the existing one that you raised.

The game includes the exact scenario that you're already worried about. One more AP point can move a team from moderate to high, and their odds would improve from 0% to x%.