Need to hide team prestige as soon as the season ends - so folks wont be scared off by high prestige

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 12:06:00 PM (view original):
As a coach which is hit with EEs every season, are some of you guys serious?

No other coach is sitting there asking "how many EEs did UCLA get hit with to decide if I should battle him?" and that hiding that information would actually benefit that other coach (if anything it benefits me to hide that information).

Look it is the coaches that get hit with EEs that is trying to find recruits to pick up to fill slots and when we do start recruiting replacements in R2 to replace those EEs, the coaches already on that recruit would "benefit" knowing how much extra $$$$ we got due to the number of EEs (keeping them in the dark isn't the way to help them by the way).

Some of you guys are so blinded by the EE issue you think we get handed these so called "elite" recruits with no battles what so ever and if we do win them fairly, we still should get punished multiple times over.

This is nonsense. Does it benefit you, or harm you? Both? Neither? What's the argument here?

Why do you think people want the information? What other reason, besides determining if they will devote those late session HVs to a recruit where UCLA is lurking, or not? If someone presents me with a plausible alternate reason for the desire to easily review other teams EEs, I'll amend my assessment.

Posted by metsmax on 3/22/2017 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Need to hide team prestige as soon as the season ends - so folks wont be scared off by high prestige

The difference being that prestige is a very realistic and intuitive way to gauge your relative standing, and chances with the recruit. How many resources your opponents have to compete in a resource-driven commodity battle is not.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 12:06:00 PM (view original):
As a coach which is hit with EEs every season, are some of you guys serious?

No other coach is sitting there asking "how many EEs did UCLA get hit with to decide if I should battle him?" and that hiding that information would actually benefit that other coach (if anything it benefits me to hide that information).

Look it is the coaches that get hit with EEs that is trying to find recruits to pick up to fill slots and when we do start recruiting replacements in R2 to replace those EEs, the coaches already on that recruit would "benefit" knowing how much extra $$$$ we got due to the number of EEs (keeping them in the dark isn't the way to help them by the way).

Some of you guys are so blinded by the EE issue you think we get handed these so called "elite" recruits with no battles what so ever and if we do win them fairly, we still should get punished multiple times over.

This is nonsense. Does it benefit you, or harm you? Both? Neither? What's the argument here?

Why do you think people want the information? What other reason, besides determining if they will devote those late session HVs to a recruit where UCLA is lurking, or not? If someone presents me with a plausible alternate reason for the desire to easily review other teams EEs, I'll amend my assessment.

Like every other coach here, it would seem to be obvious that providing the non-EE coach that information helps them make an *informed* decision. Hiding that information makes zero sense if you want to help them (like others point out, if anything it helps the coach who actually had the EE).

People want this information no differently than I would want to see the prestige a school has. You could argue that hiding that information would promote more battles but they would be only doing so because they think the need to "punish" EE teams by having other schools staying in fights they might otherwise have no reason to. If you are for hiding the EEs status (whether they declared or not), then you should also be for hiding prestige, # of openings are any other various things that could "hinder" a coach from staying in a battle with an elite.

Sounds like you have an agenda against teams that experience EEs for some reason.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 3/22/2017 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Need to hide team prestige as soon as the season ends - so folks wont be scared off by high prestige

The difference being that prestige is a very realistic and intuitive way to gauge your relative standing, and chances with the recruit. How many resources your opponents have to compete in a resource-driven commodity battle is not.

Then you should also hide how many openings a school has by that very same reasoning.

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 12:06:00 PM (view original):
As a coach which is hit with EEs every season, are some of you guys serious?

No other coach is sitting there asking "how many EEs did UCLA get hit with to decide if I should battle him?" and that hiding that information would actually benefit that other coach (if anything it benefits me to hide that information).

Look it is the coaches that get hit with EEs that is trying to find recruits to pick up to fill slots and when we do start recruiting replacements in R2 to replace those EEs, the coaches already on that recruit would "benefit" knowing how much extra $$$$ we got due to the number of EEs (keeping them in the dark isn't the way to help them by the way).

Some of you guys are so blinded by the EE issue you think we get handed these so called "elite" recruits with no battles what so ever and if we do win them fairly, we still should get punished multiple times over.

This is nonsense. Does it benefit you, or harm you? Both? Neither? What's the argument here?

Why do you think people want the information? What other reason, besides determining if they will devote those late session HVs to a recruit where UCLA is lurking, or not? If someone presents me with a plausible alternate reason for the desire to easily review other teams EEs, I'll amend my assessment.

Like every other coach here, it would seem to be obvious that providing the non-EE coach that information helps them make an *informed* decision. Hiding that information makes zero sense if you want to help them (like others point out, if anything it helps the coach who actually had the EE).

People want this information no differently than I would want to see the prestige a school has. You could argue that hiding that information would promote more battles but they would be only doing so because they think the need to "punish" EE teams by having other schools staying in fights they might otherwise have no reason to. If you are for hiding the EEs status (whether they declared or not), then you should also be for hiding prestige, # of openings are any other various things that could "hinder" a coach from staying in a battle with an elite.

Sounds like you have an agenda against teams that experience EEs for some reason.

I don't really care who is helped or harmed. My agenda is to make sure all elite commodities get battled for, and that under no circumstances should the non-competitive "snowball" method be viable in this game. If I foresee a move toward non-competitiveness in a commodity game, I'm going to oppose it.

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 3/22/2017 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Need to hide team prestige as soon as the season ends - so folks wont be scared off by high prestige

The difference being that prestige is a very realistic and intuitive way to gauge your relative standing, and chances with the recruit. How many resources your opponents have to compete in a resource-driven commodity battle is not.

Then you should also hide how many openings a school has by that very same reasoning.

No, prestige and known graduating seniors both make realistic sense, and I'm fine with using them to gauge standing. Graduating seniors isn't something the game could legitimately hide if it wanted to.

In any case, the information is not "hidden". It's just not compiled into an easy viewing format, or preserved. Coaches motivated to use it as part of their "informed" decision on who to battle for certainly can. But compiling and preserving it openly would have a chilling effect on teams willing to battle UCLA for a late recruit, and you know it would. You're too smart to pretend not to know that.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 12:06:00 PM (view original):
As a coach which is hit with EEs every season, are some of you guys serious?

No other coach is sitting there asking "how many EEs did UCLA get hit with to decide if I should battle him?" and that hiding that information would actually benefit that other coach (if anything it benefits me to hide that information).

Look it is the coaches that get hit with EEs that is trying to find recruits to pick up to fill slots and when we do start recruiting replacements in R2 to replace those EEs, the coaches already on that recruit would "benefit" knowing how much extra $$$$ we got due to the number of EEs (keeping them in the dark isn't the way to help them by the way).

Some of you guys are so blinded by the EE issue you think we get handed these so called "elite" recruits with no battles what so ever and if we do win them fairly, we still should get punished multiple times over.

This is nonsense. Does it benefit you, or harm you? Both? Neither? What's the argument here?

Why do you think people want the information? What other reason, besides determining if they will devote those late session HVs to a recruit where UCLA is lurking, or not? If someone presents me with a plausible alternate reason for the desire to easily review other teams EEs, I'll amend my assessment.

Like every other coach here, it would seem to be obvious that providing the non-EE coach that information helps them make an *informed* decision. Hiding that information makes zero sense if you want to help them (like others point out, if anything it helps the coach who actually had the EE).

People want this information no differently than I would want to see the prestige a school has. You could argue that hiding that information would promote more battles but they would be only doing so because they think the need to "punish" EE teams by having other schools staying in fights they might otherwise have no reason to. If you are for hiding the EEs status (whether they declared or not), then you should also be for hiding prestige, # of openings are any other various things that could "hinder" a coach from staying in a battle with an elite.

Sounds like you have an agenda against teams that experience EEs for some reason.

I don't really care who is helped or harmed. My agenda is to make sure all elite commodities get battled for, and that under no circumstances should the non-competitive "snowball" method be viable in this game. If I foresee a move toward non-competitiveness in a commodity game, I'm going to oppose it.

Why just the elite ones? Why not all commodities? And if elite commodities are battled for (and won) why are *some* punished and others not?

And why stop punishing them with just recruits leaving. Why not ask WIS to say EEs are instantly replaced with walk-ons while you at it (or drop their prestige or something like that). Could think of hundreds of ways to make sure teams which recruit EEs get punished for some coach's perceived benefits of having said recruit on their roster for 2 or 3 seasons with crap IQ.

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 12:06:00 PM (view original):
As a coach which is hit with EEs every season, are some of you guys serious?

No other coach is sitting there asking "how many EEs did UCLA get hit with to decide if I should battle him?" and that hiding that information would actually benefit that other coach (if anything it benefits me to hide that information).

Look it is the coaches that get hit with EEs that is trying to find recruits to pick up to fill slots and when we do start recruiting replacements in R2 to replace those EEs, the coaches already on that recruit would "benefit" knowing how much extra $$$$ we got due to the number of EEs (keeping them in the dark isn't the way to help them by the way).

Some of you guys are so blinded by the EE issue you think we get handed these so called "elite" recruits with no battles what so ever and if we do win them fairly, we still should get punished multiple times over.

This is nonsense. Does it benefit you, or harm you? Both? Neither? What's the argument here?

Why do you think people want the information? What other reason, besides determining if they will devote those late session HVs to a recruit where UCLA is lurking, or not? If someone presents me with a plausible alternate reason for the desire to easily review other teams EEs, I'll amend my assessment.

Like every other coach here, it would seem to be obvious that providing the non-EE coach that information helps them make an *informed* decision. Hiding that information makes zero sense if you want to help them (like others point out, if anything it helps the coach who actually had the EE).

People want this information no differently than I would want to see the prestige a school has. You could argue that hiding that information would promote more battles but they would be only doing so because they think the need to "punish" EE teams by having other schools staying in fights they might otherwise have no reason to. If you are for hiding the EEs status (whether they declared or not), then you should also be for hiding prestige, # of openings are any other various things that could "hinder" a coach from staying in a battle with an elite.

Sounds like you have an agenda against teams that experience EEs for some reason.

I don't really care who is helped or harmed. My agenda is to make sure all elite commodities get battled for, and that under no circumstances should the non-competitive "snowball" method be viable in this game. If I foresee a move toward non-competitiveness in a commodity game, I'm going to oppose it.

Why just the elite ones? Why not all commodities? And if elite commodities are battled for (and won) why are *some* punished and others not?

And why stop punishing them with just recruits leaving. Why not ask WIS to say EEs are instantly replaced with walk-ons while you at it (or drop their prestige or something like that). Could think of hundreds of ways to make sure teams which recruit EEs get punished for some coach's perceived benefits of having said recruit on their roster for 2 or 3 seasons with crap IQ.

Because it's the most valuable commodities that render the most value. Easily replaceable commodities, in terms of supply and demand, are... replaceable. As to why some lose those commodities and some don't, that's volatility, and it's often tied to elite talent, certainly real life college basketball players.

I don't care about punishing anyone. Removing an advantage is not punishment. If you want a valuable commodity, you will have to fight for it. If you want to replace a valuable and *volatile* commodity (in other words, elite basketball prospects), you are going to have to fight for it, and plan for it. That's competitiveness, not punishment.

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here shoe.

Posted by Benis on 3/22/2017 2:05:00 PM (view original):
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here shoe.

Nah, I'm not the one suggesting that something needs to change. If you want a change, the onus is on you to prove that the change is necessary or at least beneficial.

I'm indifferent. But I don't think anyone is getting much of a recruiting advantage from it. Its minimal.

And its a change requested to fix something that most would agree is unintended.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/22/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 3/22/2017 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Need to hide team prestige as soon as the season ends - so folks wont be scared off by high prestige

The difference being that prestige is a very realistic and intuitive way to gauge your relative standing, and chances with the recruit. How many resources your opponents have to compete in a resource-driven commodity battle is not.

Then you should also hide how many openings a school has by that very same reasoning.

No, prestige and known graduating seniors both make realistic sense, and I'm fine with using them to gauge standing. Graduating seniors isn't something the game could legitimately hide if it wanted to.

In any case, the information is not "hidden". It's just not compiled into an easy viewing format, or preserved. Coaches motivated to use it as part of their "informed" decision on who to battle for certainly can. But compiling and preserving it openly would have a chilling effect on teams willing to battle UCLA for a late recruit, and you know it would. You're too smart to pretend not to know that.

If you think prestige and seniors on the roster both make realistic sense (I'd like you to point out to me what exactly UConn or Wisconsin's prestige is by the way in RL), but the fact that its not sensible that coaches should not be able to look up if Player X and Player Y declared for the NBA draft or not. I think your reasoning is to just furthers *your* agenda that your only doing it to make these valuable commodities battle (which according to you as long as UCLA battles and wins elite recruits, why not just remove EEs altogether then if that is all your agenda is, to ensure that *all* elite recruits don't come free or at very little cost).

Posted by Benis on 3/22/2017 2:15:00 PM (view original):
I'm indifferent. But I don't think anyone is getting much of a recruiting advantage from it. Its minimal.

And its a change requested to fix something that most would agree is unintended.

If there was no recruiting advantage to "fixing" it, why would people want it "fixed"? Having it in the newsfeed means coaches who want to use it as part of their determination can. What needs to be "fixed"?

People are assuming its unintentional, but that's not a safe assumption at all. Seble was very intentional about eliminating the "snowball" method from the recruiting game.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/22/2017 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 3/22/2017 2:15:00 PM (view original):
I'm indifferent. But I don't think anyone is getting much of a recruiting advantage from it. Its minimal.

And its a change requested to fix something that most would agree is unintended.

If there was no recruiting advantage to "fixing" it, why would people want it "fixed"? Having it in the newsfeed means coaches who want to use it as part of their determination can. What needs to be "fixed"?

People are assuming its unintentional, but that's not a safe assumption at all. Seble was very intentional about eliminating the "snowball" method from the recruiting game.

I didn't say no recruiting advantage. I said it's not much and used the word minimal.

Again, I think you're making a bigger deal out of the snowball thing than it really is in this particular situation. I'm not going to invest my entire 1st session going after a player and spending money and resources to then just completely stop going for him when I see that the other team has 2 EEs. Let's say I'm already all in and even or a little ahead of the other team. I know he can't all of a sudden drop 50 HVs against me because of the cap. So why would I now, all of a sudden, get scared off? I can already look and see that he has some guys on the big board and get a good idea of whether he will have EEs already. In fact, I LIKE the fact that he has EEs because now he has more openings to fill and may not to battle me.

I don't agree with your assessment at all that people will get scared and it's some kind of big snowball advantage if EEs are known. It's ridiculous.