Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/26/2016 9:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/25/2016 9:01:00 PM (view original):
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%.
Why is it OK for this to happen in the game? The exact thing you guys say that you're worried about is already in the game......
Sure .. it has opened it up such that anyone with more than 35% probability has an opportunity to get the guy.
And your only problem is the label of High vs Very High .. which is just a 5% different in probability (at most). At the least differential, a high COULD be at almost the exact same effort as a Very High (if the high is right at the upper cutoff point for H and the Very High is right at the low cutoff point for VH).
The bottom line is .. there is hardly any REAL measurable difference between High and Very High except the label. And every team with at least 54% of the effort of the Max Effort team (which correlates to more than a 35% probability) has a chance to sign the guy. If that was made only very high, the effort would go 67% of max effort or 40% probability. That is NOT a huge difference in either total effort or probability, Conceptually they are the same thing with just an adjustment of the numbers separating them.