Anyone remember when spud and others said the new game would get rid of ebay style sniping?

Play the game that exists, not the game you wish it was. To that end, if you've prioritized a guy, recruit like it. Nothing wrong with trying to sneak a guy for cheap, but there should obviously be consequences for that strategy, and you felt it here, someone came up to bite you. Of course, that was a pretty big risk for him too, because chances are that guys not going to sign on the first cycle, and you'll have a chance to counter. Bad luck for you.

It is irritating that the considering list lets teams at the bottom of the alphabet "hide" and thereby gives them some potential advantage by virtue of nothing other than alphabetical privilege. I am 99% sure it was unintended, and is a glitch of a change on top of a change; I remember seble even acknowledging that it would have to be watched and maybe fixed post-launch at the end of beta, when it was brought up a couple times. They should fix that. Until they do (and even when they do) the best way not to get sniped is to prioritize and recruit to value as you see it from the start.

Posted by Benis on 8/17/2017 8:53:00 AM (view original):
Rog- how do you know this is by design? It's been almost a year now but I don't remember everything that happened in Beta but I don't recall Seble ever wanting to 'muck up' the considering list.

I do know that one of the focus area was to help reduce the ebay style sniping or poaching which is where the signing preferences came into play (which were originally unknown in the first couple versions).

If the intention of 3.0 was to
1) increase/encourage battling
2) reduce sniping/poaching
then I don't see how limiting the # of teams on the considering list accomplishes these things. It does the opposite and encourages teams to hide and then pounce at the last moment instead of actively battling.

So....not muck up the considering list, but muck your ability to determine whether your opponent was in other battles and, therefore, weakened. That was the way we used to play the sniping game. If you were in any pre-signing cycle battle, then you could expect to be poached on another recruit. The way "reducing poaching" was to be accomplished, was to prevent you from knowing your opponent's resources. Mike's idea (stated later in this thread) is completely contrary to the premise of the change. You are NOT supposed to know your opponent's resources. So, the designers would not want to list by available resources within the considering list. That gives away the information that they are trying to hide!

The other major addition was AP and a cap on HV to limit how quickly one could put effort into a recruit. However, the initial plan was to have AP be the limiting factor, but there was to be INSTANTANEOUS feedback on visits!!! That's why they are coded to show you the precise time that you entered the visit. I pointed out that, if the initial signing cycle was run at 5:08 pm, then, in order to protect your targets, you NEEDED to be on your computer between 4:55 - 5:08 pm EST at the signing cycle. If not, then a poacher could simply send visits (if already unlocked) and receive instantaneous feedback as to when they had driven you to 'moderate' and stop and wait.

Signing preferences and the elimination of instant feedback were concessions to the fact that the original designs made poaching much easier! So, I have never believed that #2 on your list was really a goal, but more of an afterthought.

Posted by l80r20 on 8/17/2017 10:26:00 PM (view original):
"You have to play your hand open so the other guys can see what you have but they can play their cards closed."

False analogy ... totally. Here's a suggestion: make sense or just read.

What I've read here is that spud is ok with certain teams having advantages in recruiting based solely on their position in the alphabet. Good to know.

Posted by johnsensing on 8/18/2017 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 8/17/2017 10:26:00 PM (view original):
"You have to play your hand open so the other guys can see what you have but they can play their cards closed."

False analogy ... totally. Here's a suggestion: make sense or just read.

What I've read here is that spud is ok with certain teams having advantages in recruiting based solely on their position in the alphabet. Good to know.

I lurk these forums a lot, trying to learn, and you guys talk about him all the time, but dammit, I still can't see his posts. Would you mind saying which number post, on which page, he wrote? If he really said anything of the sort, which I somehow doubt, I really disagree with him. Thanks!

coachspud

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/18/2017 11:22:00 AM (view original):
coachspud

right, coachspud. Mike's memory is better than mine.

seble should be able to handle this

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=503781

Posted by fd343ny on 8/18/2017 9:54:00 PM (view original):
seble should be able to handle this

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=503781

Unless it was what he intended all along. Go Virginia, Washington, and Xavier, snipe those recruits!

Posted by CoachSpud on 8/19/2017 12:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 8/18/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by DeBeque on 8/18/2017 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 8/18/2017 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 8/17/2017 10:26:00 PM (view original):
"You have to play your hand open so the other guys can see what you have but they can play their cards closed."

False analogy ... totally. Here's a suggestion: make sense or just read.

What I've read here is that spud is ok with certain teams having advantages in recruiting based solely on their position in the alphabet. Good to know.

I lurk these forums a lot, trying to learn, and you guys talk about him all the time, but dammit, I still can't see his posts. Would you mind saying which number post, on which page, he wrote? If he really said anything of the sort, which I somehow doubt, I really disagree with him. Thanks!

l80r20 = spud. When 3.0 rolled out, there was a user - spud___ (I forget the number), who constantly trolled/functioned as an apologist for 3.0 and its many warts. However, one day, spud (apparently unintentionally) posted on the forums under his l80r20 ID, making clear that those two usernames were controlled by the same person. Following much mockery, the spud ID has apparently been retired, and l80r20 occasionally crawls out from under his bridge to frighten children/make stupid arguments. His comments regarding gameplay can be safely ignored.

LOL. You are so far off that you aren't even on the same planet.

Oops.