sounds like your getting into to many battles, try to find someone who your not going to get into a battle with, i know your not always right sometimes people will end up battling me for a guy i didn't expect , so i may have to offer a start or minutes when i didnt think i had to just to knock them down to moderate so there is no roll , i literally just did that with 2 recruits last session , id rather have the guy locked in that leave it up to the dice rolls. try to have a good balance of early signings mixed in with a late or end of period 1 would even help, so once you lose 1 say, then you got that same AP to keep pumping into your other questionable gets, hope that helps dont get down

I'll ignore spud's unhelpful and pointless comments -- get back under your bridge.

That sucks, zorzii. I think that the engine should be changed such that in a two-team battle, if you're not at 40%, you shouldn't have a chance to win. These low-probability wins are hurting the game, as from what I've seen, coaches are absolutely infuriated when they lose these battles, and the winning coach has more a sheepish, "gee, I was lucky -- didn't deserve it" reaction than anything else.

Hey, my last post is supported by psychology:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/your-money/why-people-remember-negative-events-more-than-positive-ones.html

I like this Johnsensing guy. One of my new favorite posters.

I think the parameters are just right as they are. Right now, you have to be at ~60% of the effort credit of the leader. When all effort and promises are equal, that works out to about 2 full prestige grades; meaning that a C+ team can challenge an A+ team for a recruit and be on the cusp of getting in signing range, depending on preferences. Sometimes he'll be locked out at moderate, sometimes he'll get up to something like a one-in-four-or-five chance.

The only thing that should definitely change is removing the percentages after the fact. At this point, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how the system works, and how to put yourself in the best position to compete for recruits. Showing the percentages only serves to sow resentment.

If you want to eliminate the "high" category, fine. But then you won't know anything at all about your chances relative to the leader. I would think that introduces a whole new set of frustrations. I'll adjust either way. Just don't narrow the parameters, because the recruiting game needs to stay competitive for those top recruits. Minnesota needs to be able to compete with Michigan State for recruits, and win them once in a while, even the ones MSU really wants.

Posted by crzyballplay on 9/27/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):
sounds like your getting into to many battles, try to find someone who your not going to get into a battle with, i know your not always right sometimes people will end up battling me for a guy i didn't expect , so i may have to offer a start or minutes when i didnt think i had to just to knock them down to moderate so there is no roll , i literally just did that with 2 recruits last session , id rather have the guy locked in that leave it up to the dice rolls. try to have a good balance of early signings mixed in with a late or end of period 1 would even help, so once you lose 1 say, then you got that same AP to keep pumping into your other questionable gets, hope that helps dont get down

Alabama is overly contested in Tarkanian... UAB, South Illinois, full SEC!

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
I think the parameters are just right as they are. Right now, you have to be at ~60% of the effort credit of the leader. When all effort and promises are equal, that works out to about 2 full prestige grades; meaning that a C+ team can challenge an A+ team for a recruit and be on the cusp of getting in signing range, depending on preferences. Sometimes he'll be locked out at moderate, sometimes he'll get up to something like a one-in-four-or-five chance.

The only thing that should definitely change is removing the percentages after the fact. At this point, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how the system works, and how to put yourself in the best position to compete for recruits. Showing the percentages only serves to sow resentment.

If you want to eliminate the "high" category, fine. But then you won't know anything at all about your chances relative to the leader. I would think that introduces a whole new set of frustrations. I'll adjust either way. Just don't narrow the parameters, because the recruiting game needs to stay competitive for those top recruits. Minnesota needs to be able to compete with Michigan State for recruits, and win them once in a while, even the ones MSU really wants.

I disagree. What were the odds I lost all three, when it occurs, understand I spent most my resources and still have 4 roster spots to fill. I am late in all late parties with no $ left almost so no chance to even get to high. I say get rid of high. Or as John says, 40 % is the threshold. Everybody beating me to the players did not think it was fair : they took the gift.

It happens. That's how probability works. In Naismith, I lost 5 battles in a row over two recruiting seasons, the product being the last two seasons where I've had no top-level upperclassmen, just guys I've been able to get with no battle. UV weathered it, we're back in contention, and the last three seasons I've won my share of battles. The game is working as intended; the only thing to change is how detailed the information you have about it at the end. It was a mistake to show the odds post-battle, and that should change.

"The only thing that should definitely change is removing the percentages after the fact. At this point, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how the system works, and how to put yourself in the best position to compete for recruits. Showing the percentages only serves to sow resentment. "

Yeah...because I don't want to have any idea if my recruiting strategy is the correct one or if I'm getting screwed <sarc> . That idea accomplishes nothing and hinders players ability to learn from each battle.

I suppose you also think its a good idea to not show a post game box score either because players would get upset about "how" they lost.

I feel ya.

Up until a season ago, I never won anything that I was under 49%, and I lost once that I had 76%, 74%, and 63%. I was definitely more on the end of bad luck. Still somehow managed to bring hell of a crew to my squad despite all of this because I also did good decisions with the other recruits, definitely you gotta have a list of players that are not really sought after and get them as your safety net.

I think one of the most important traits you can have in recruiting is the willingness to let go. Many guys are glued to players they really covet that they seek after them at all costs and lose big, you definitely gotta come up and ready to be willing to accept to let go of a player if he's out of reach and move on. If I just went after sought after players, I'd probably have half a solid team and half garbage, but it's because of those safety net that I got a good all around team with depth.

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
"The only thing that should definitely change is removing the percentages after the fact. At this point, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how the system works, and how to put yourself in the best position to compete for recruits. Showing the percentages only serves to sow resentment. "

Yeah...because I don't want to have any idea if my recruiting strategy is the correct one or if I'm getting screwed <sarc> . That idea accomplishes nothing and hinders players ability to learn from each battle.

I suppose you also think its a good idea to not show a post game box score either because players would get upset about "how" they lost.

I just don't think it's a good idea to go back to where "correct strategy" means don't battle anyone who has more scholarships, or better prestige. The parameters are about 2 full grade levels right now, that's where it should stay.

Posted by zorzii on 9/27/2017 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 12:45:00 PM (view original):
I think the parameters are just right as they are. Right now, you have to be at ~60% of the effort credit of the leader. When all effort and promises are equal, that works out to about 2 full prestige grades; meaning that a C+ team can challenge an A+ team for a recruit and be on the cusp of getting in signing range, depending on preferences. Sometimes he'll be locked out at moderate, sometimes he'll get up to something like a one-in-four-or-five chance.

The only thing that should definitely change is removing the percentages after the fact. At this point, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how the system works, and how to put yourself in the best position to compete for recruits. Showing the percentages only serves to sow resentment.

If you want to eliminate the "high" category, fine. But then you won't know anything at all about your chances relative to the leader. I would think that introduces a whole new set of frustrations. I'll adjust either way. Just don't narrow the parameters, because the recruiting game needs to stay competitive for those top recruits. Minnesota needs to be able to compete with Michigan State for recruits, and win them once in a while, even the ones MSU really wants.

I disagree. What were the odds I lost all three, when it occurs, understand I spent most my resources and still have 4 roster spots to fill. I am late in all late parties with no $ left almost so no chance to even get to high. I say get rid of high. Or as John says, 40 % is the threshold. Everybody beating me to the players did not think it was fair : they took the gift.

The odds are like 4%. It won't happen often that you lose all three like that, but it happens.