Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):
I'm pretty sure this is about Jimmy Baker. I had shown him a fair amount of attention, had offered a scholarship, but didn't have the resources to do home visits until I lost an early entry. So I was moderate, with a scholarship offered prior to the interim period, then moved to very high earlier today. I had mentioned in another thread that it may feel like poaching to you, if I was able to pull it off. But I was very clearly coming after him.

This ties back in to the early entry debate. As I've been saying for a long time, it is very possible to deal with a reasonable number of early entries in 3.0 (i.e., 1 or 2 early entries, when you have other scholarship resources to expend).

As to whether there should be a delineation between high and very high in how we were listed, I'm agnostic. We were both within the signing parameters. I'd guess I was on the high end of high, but obviously I have no way to know that. Anyway, you can make a case for just having one name for the teams that are within signing parameters, so you don't know when you've been beaten from behind. But then you don't have that info when you're playing the game either, and then you're dealing with less info and more ambiguity. Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around.

I don't care about poaching. I've poached people before, it's a realistic part of the game.

"Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around."

This quote is why I'll be leaving. Don't worry, I'm not delusional enough to think any of you will care. The game just isn't realistic. There is no reason in real life that a recruit would pick a school that they had less interest in. If you guys can enjoy this crap, then have fun.

But, I already said it is NOT the interest the recruit has in YOU .. it is the corrected (for prestige and preferences) interest that YOU have in the RECRUIT.

By definition that corrected interest that you have in the recruit gives you a specific probability to sign the recruit. Other teams also have a probability to sign the recruit based on the corrected effort (or interest) that they put into the recruit.

So, your definition of what Interest means is not the definition of interest in the game.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 8:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):
I'm pretty sure this is about Jimmy Baker. I had shown him a fair amount of attention, had offered a scholarship, but didn't have the resources to do home visits until I lost an early entry. So I was moderate, with a scholarship offered prior to the interim period, then moved to very high earlier today. I had mentioned in another thread that it may feel like poaching to you, if I was able to pull it off. But I was very clearly coming after him.

This ties back in to the early entry debate. As I've been saying for a long time, it is very possible to deal with a reasonable number of early entries in 3.0 (i.e., 1 or 2 early entries, when you have other scholarship resources to expend).

As to whether there should be a delineation between high and very high in how we were listed, I'm agnostic. We were both within the signing parameters. I'd guess I was on the high end of high, but obviously I have no way to know that. Anyway, you can make a case for just having one name for the teams that are within signing parameters, so you don't know when you've been beaten from behind. But then you don't have that info when you're playing the game either, and then you're dealing with less info and more ambiguity. Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around.

I don't care about poaching. I've poached people before, it's a realistic part of the game.

"Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around."

This quote is why I'll be leaving. Don't worry, I'm not delusional enough to think any of you will care. The game just isn't realistic. There is no reason in real life that a recruit would pick a school that they had less interest in. If you guys can enjoy this crap, then have fun.

But, I already said it is NOT the interest the recruit has in YOU .. it is the corrected (for prestige and preferences) interest that YOU have in the RECRUIT.

By definition that corrected interest that you have in the recruit gives you a specific probability to sign the recruit.

So, your definition of what Interest means is not the definition of interest in the game.

My definition of what interest means is what it ACTUALLY means in real life. Not what some brain dead computer coder decided to arbitrarily make it in the game. I understand that there is a difference in what interest actually means and what it means in the game which is why I'm quitting.

Some of us in BETA believed many users would feel exactly as you do about how Seble programmed this Mets. Not surprised you and many others are quitting due to the RNG of recruiting.

People don't like bad beats. And one "good beat" doesn't offset a bad beat in peoples minds.

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 8:43:00 AM (view original):
Some of us in BETA believed many users would feel exactly as you do about how Seble programmed this Mets. Not surprised you and many others are quitting due to the RNG of recruiting.

People don't like bad beats. And one "good beat" doesn't offset a bad beat in peoples minds.

That is certainly true. Some people will like the new rationale / premise for recruiting and think that model is more realistic in modelling how 18 year old basketball players choose what school they go to.

Other people will absolutely hate that rationale and not want to play that way at all.

If they understand the rationale, then individual coaches will certainly then have to decide if they want to play or not want to play when recruiting is done in that way.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 8:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 8:43:00 AM (view original):
Some of us in BETA believed many users would feel exactly as you do about how Seble programmed this Mets. Not surprised you and many others are quitting due to the RNG of recruiting.

People don't like bad beats. And one "good beat" doesn't offset a bad beat in peoples minds.

That is certainly true. Some people will like the new rationale / premise for recruiting and think that model is more realistic in modelling how 18 year old basketball players choose what school they go to.

Other people will absolutely hate that rationale and not want to play that way at all.

If they understand the rationale, then individual coaches will certainly then have to decide if they want to play or not want to play when recruiting is done in that way.

Hughes, did you get recruited by any schools when you were in high school, or are you just guessing at what it'd be like?

Guys, this is nothing like real life. We need to stop either say it is or isn't like real life. Or expecting it to replicate real life.

In real life there are a hundred other things that will influence a recruits decision on where they will go to school. Academics, parents opinion, friendships, a girlfriend, church, nightlife, etc etc etc. You can go on for forever naming off things that a person would consider when deciding where to go to school. None of these things are going to be included in HD.

I think we need to look at it from the lens of - is this a fun and sustainable game? The RNG of signing is polarizing. Some hate it while others really like it. It's a matter of opinion and preference. But the argument of 'real life' is so flawed from the very start that I don't think there's much point in debating whether a recruit in HD is behaving like a recruit in real life.

Put the odds up then. Get rid of the h to vh rationale. That way, interest will be clear...

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 8:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 8:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 8:43:00 AM (view original):
Some of us in BETA believed many users would feel exactly as you do about how Seble programmed this Mets. Not surprised you and many others are quitting due to the RNG of recruiting.

People don't like bad beats. And one "good beat" doesn't offset a bad beat in peoples minds.

That is certainly true. Some people will like the new rationale / premise for recruiting and think that model is more realistic in modelling how 18 year old basketball players choose what school they go to.

Other people will absolutely hate that rationale and not want to play that way at all.

If they understand the rationale, then individual coaches will certainly then have to decide if they want to play or not want to play when recruiting is done in that way.

Hughes, did you get recruited by any schools when you were in high school, or are you just guessing at what it'd be like?

No, I am a brain dead computer programmer (software engineer actually).

I did play high school football, basketball and baseball, and had scholarship offers to play baseball in 1981. But I was enlisted in the delayed entry program to join the US Navy .. where I stayed for 20 years before I retired and started my second life in the IT industry.

Not everyone who has sports scholarships and a commitment to the US military gets treated like David Robinson or Keenan Reynolds .. some of us have to meet our entire commitment before we can consider playing sports.

Now I play computer sports simulation games.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 9:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 8:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 8:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 8:43:00 AM (view original):
Some of us in BETA believed many users would feel exactly as you do about how Seble programmed this Mets. Not surprised you and many others are quitting due to the RNG of recruiting.

People don't like bad beats. And one "good beat" doesn't offset a bad beat in peoples minds.

That is certainly true. Some people will like the new rationale / premise for recruiting and think that model is more realistic in modelling how 18 year old basketball players choose what school they go to.

Other people will absolutely hate that rationale and not want to play that way at all.

If they understand the rationale, then individual coaches will certainly then have to decide if they want to play or not want to play when recruiting is done in that way.

Hughes, did you get recruited by any schools when you were in high school, or are you just guessing at what it'd be like?

No, I am a brain dead computer programmer (software engineer actually).

I did play high school football, basketball and baseball, and had scholarship offers to play baseball in 1981. But I was enlisted in the delayed entry program to join the US Navy .. where I stayed for 20 years before I retired and started my second life in the IT industry.

Not everyone who has sports scholarships and a commitment to the US military gets treated like David Robinson or Keenan Reynolds .. some of us have to meet our entire commitment before we can consider playing sports.

Now I play computer sports simulation games.

I got recruited for soccer in 2009 so I was just curious.

I wasn't implying that all computer coders are brain dead, just the one that programmed HD.

Posted by zorzii on 10/24/2016 9:12:00 AM (view original):
Put the odds up then. Get rid of the h to vh rationale. That way, interest will be clear...

They did put up the odds .. then, like free throws and Level 2 and Level 3 recruiting, the obfuscated the exact numbers with categories. Then they hinted at the exact numbers, just like they did with grade letters, in the beta forums.

But if you look at the several beta links I listed here, the rationale and basic numbers become clear.

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 9:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 9:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 8:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/24/2016 8:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/24/2016 8:43:00 AM (view original):
Some of us in BETA believed many users would feel exactly as you do about how Seble programmed this Mets. Not surprised you and many others are quitting due to the RNG of recruiting.

People don't like bad beats. And one "good beat" doesn't offset a bad beat in peoples minds.

That is certainly true. Some people will like the new rationale / premise for recruiting and think that model is more realistic in modelling how 18 year old basketball players choose what school they go to.

Other people will absolutely hate that rationale and not want to play that way at all.

If they understand the rationale, then individual coaches will certainly then have to decide if they want to play or not want to play when recruiting is done in that way.

Hughes, did you get recruited by any schools when you were in high school, or are you just guessing at what it'd be like?

No, I am a brain dead computer programmer (software engineer actually).

I did play high school football, basketball and baseball, and had scholarship offers to play baseball in 1981. But I was enlisted in the delayed entry program to join the US Navy .. where I stayed for 20 years before I retired and started my second life in the IT industry.

Not everyone who has sports scholarships and a commitment to the US military gets treated like David Robinson or Keenan Reynolds .. some of us have to meet our entire commitment before we can consider playing sports.

Now I play computer sports simulation games.

I got recruited for soccer in 2009 so I was just curious.

I wasn't implying that all computer coders are brain dead, just the one that programmed HD.

And I wasn't trying to come off as negative as my initial posts sounded. I just wanted to try and point out how "interest" was defined, not necessarily argue the merits of the definition. While I personally like it, I certainly understand that others do not like it.

Posted by zorzii on 10/24/2016 9:12:00 AM (view original):
Put the odds up then. Get rid of the h to vh rationale. That way, interest will be clear...

There were similar suggestions to Seble to make the odds more clear, but he rejected them all because he liked ambiquity. (sp)
Maybe the new programmers will have better ideas.

Could you have to CS department put an analysis of what occurred on this thread so we can all understand how "random" recruiting has become? I really got ****** off in Wooden but had not enough specifics for them to research with. I ended up taking three walkons, and I KNOW I lost two battles that I was the ONLY very high on. So we really want more analysis of what is happening so we may learn from this instead of complain when this happens!

Posted by metsmaniac2 on 10/24/2016 8:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/24/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):
I'm pretty sure this is about Jimmy Baker. I had shown him a fair amount of attention, had offered a scholarship, but didn't have the resources to do home visits until I lost an early entry. So I was moderate, with a scholarship offered prior to the interim period, then moved to very high earlier today. I had mentioned in another thread that it may feel like poaching to you, if I was able to pull it off. But I was very clearly coming after him.

This ties back in to the early entry debate. As I've been saying for a long time, it is very possible to deal with a reasonable number of early entries in 3.0 (i.e., 1 or 2 early entries, when you have other scholarship resources to expend).

As to whether there should be a delineation between high and very high in how we were listed, I'm agnostic. We were both within the signing parameters. I'd guess I was on the high end of high, but obviously I have no way to know that. Anyway, you can make a case for just having one name for the teams that are within signing parameters, so you don't know when you've been beaten from behind. But then you don't have that info when you're playing the game either, and then you're dealing with less info and more ambiguity. Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around.

I don't care about poaching. I've poached people before, it's a realistic part of the game.

"Basically, you either adapt your mindset to play the game that exists now - where you don't have to be "ahead" to win a recruit - or you're going to be banging your head against a wall for as long as you stick around."

This quote is why I'll be leaving. Don't worry, I'm not delusional enough to think any of you will care. The game just isn't realistic. There is no reason in real life that a recruit would pick a school that they had less interest in. If you guys can enjoy this crap, then have fun.

To be clear, I said it might feel like poaching. What I did wasn't really anything like poaching, or the more precise term sniping. I got within the signability parameters, and the recruit chose my team. If you and others are sure the game experience would improve if we had both just been listed as very high, fine. I'm skeptical that people would actually prefer that situation though, because there would be more, not less ambiguity.

As far as realism, 3.0 recruiting is more realistic than the previous version. The ambiguity is precisely what makes it more realistic. In the real world, publications who publish listings of recruits, and who they're considering, often get it wrong. There's often no such thing as an objective leader. The previous version was completely unrealistic in that there was a clearly defined leader who got the recruit 100% of the time, regardless of how close the battle was.

Just like all the other times that HD (or GD or any of the WIS sim games) were changed, it reignites an old argument about how much info "should" be spoon fed to us and how much "should" be left to us to analyze and develop our own strategies. I like being able to analyze the game and develop our own strategies. Some people don't. To each his own.

BTW, recruiting hasn't become "random." It is based on probabilities, and we can influence the probabilities and the outcomes. I just include this for the benefit of newbies who might think that it is "random." Nope, you can influence it all along.