Thanks for proving my point PK.

TJ's program is very unsuccessful and Tennessee's team is very successful. Tennessee gets a Very Bad for rebuild and therefore TJ's team should be Very Good, not freaking neutral. They're success is the inverse of each other. What kind of dummy backwards ****** designed this?

Imagine if the distance preference worked this way. A recruit in NYC wants to play Close to Home. Hawaii shows up as Very Bad but St John's only shows up as neutral. Would that make sense to anyone? No, of course it wouldn't, because you likely have a functioning brain.

You know what, I would rather have a Benjamin than 10000 pennies but i wouldn't turn the coins away.

Posted by Benis on 7/7/2017 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for proving my point PK.

TJ's program is very unsuccessful and Tennessee's team is very successful. Tennessee gets a Very Bad for rebuild and therefore TJ's team should be Very Good, not freaking neutral. They're success is the inverse of each other. What kind of dummy backwards ****** designed this?

Imagine if the distance preference worked this way. A recruit in NYC wants to play Close to Home. Hawaii shows up as Very Bad but St John's only shows up as neutral. Would that make sense to anyone? No, of course it wouldn't, because you likely have a functioning brain.

There is no rational expectation that their standings for the success preference be inverse. You have stuck in your head that the preference means something it doesn't mean. It's not a linear, inverse relationship like distance. It's more nuanced, like play style. Having the preferences work differently along different parameters makes the setup more intelligent, not less.

Essentially, the way it's set up means that it's easier for lower division teams to get a better relative credit modifier for the wants rebuild preference; and it's easier for high baseline prestige teams to get a better relative modifier credit for the wants success preference. That's it. This limits the amount of sway the single preference can have in an intra-division battle.

Yes it is rational. And logical.

Recruit 1- "I want to play for a successful team"
Team- "We are very successful"
Recruit 1- "Yay! yahoo! I'm now super duper excited"

Recruit 2- "I want to play for a team that is bad but is rebuilding"
Team- "We are bad and are currently rebuilding"
Recruit 2- "meh. that's cool"

And let's take out the battling aspect. Having more VGs and Gs will allow you to unlock actions faster. What if I'm taking over a new school in the 2nd period and I need to unlock actions as quickly as possible. Now having a recruit match my preference doesn't help me at all. It just doesn't penalize me. Great system.

Shoe and poopman are twice the man you are!

Posted by Benis on 7/7/2017 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Yes it is rational. And logical.

Recruit 1- "I want to play for a successful team"
Team- "We are very successful"
Recruit 1- "Yay! yahoo! I'm now super duper excited"

Recruit 2- "I want to play for a team that is bad but is rebuilding"
Team- "We are bad and are currently rebuilding"
Recruit 2- "meh. that's cool"

There is a divisional difference here too, the preference doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the game recognizes that. The preference isn't about getting "super duper excited" at any level. It's about how much relative modifier credit gets applied to the attention and the visits.

I will say, if this part of the game was designed the way you want it, your case for capping recruiting to projected divisions would be a lot stronger.

It's not how I want it. It's how it should be based upon common sense.

Posted by Benis on 7/7/2017 4:25:00 PM (view original):
And let's take out the battling aspect. Having more VGs and Gs will allow you to unlock actions faster. What if I'm taking over a new school in the 2nd period and I need to unlock actions as quickly as possible. Now having a recruit match my preference doesn't help me at all. It just doesn't penalize me. Great system.

You're already unlocking faster - at least in terms of how this preference is working for you - than teams with bad or very bad. If you're playing catchup, then they've already worked a lot harder to get to their position with the recruit. You aren't owed an extra advantage just because you think the game should be a certain way. If you think you have to unlock faster, then look for better preference matches.

Posted by Benis on 7/7/2017 4:36:00 PM (view original):
It's not how I want it. It's how it should be based upon common sense.

False. The current system is a lot more intelligent than the system you want. It would make the game worse.

Good lord. I'd rather read some 19 y/o who can't afford to renew his team on time tell me I have no life than you two argue over modifiers. Paint dry watching seems more fun.

And, no, I didn't read past a line or two. I might could learn something if I didn't keep dozing off mid-sentence.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2017 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/7/2017 4:36:00 PM (view original):
It's not how I want it. It's how it should be based upon common sense.

False. The current system is a lot more intelligent than the system you want. It would make the game worse.

True.

Edit - I mean. My point is true. Yours is false.

Posted by Benis on 7/7/2017 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2017 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/7/2017 4:36:00 PM (view original):
It's not how I want it. It's how it should be based upon common sense.

False. The current system is a lot more intelligent than the system you want. It would make the game worse.

True.

Edit - I mean. My point is true. Yours is false.

Your "common sense" approach would make for a less intelligent game. Dumb.

You guys know you are arguing semantics, right?

benis wants it to work the way it does (or at least is smart enough to realize it's close the **** enough) and just wants the words changed.

shoe thinks the words are unimportant and only the numerical value is relevant.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2017 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/7/2017 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/7/2017 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/7/2017 4:36:00 PM (view original):
It's not how I want it. It's how it should be based upon common sense.

False. The current system is a lot more intelligent than the system you want. It would make the game worse.

True.

Edit - I mean. My point is true. Yours is false.

Your "common sense" approach would make for a less intelligent game. Dumb.

The game already isn't intelligent. LOLLLL