Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

I am not arguing that.

I am arguing your statement in two separate threads that hiding the final signing %s will somehow keep people from getting upset about losing battles.

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

I am not arguing that.

I am arguing your statement in two separate threads that hiding the final signing %s will somehow keep people from getting upset about losing battles.

Recruiting is probabilistic now. It's not deterministic. So being in the mindset of "I was ahead, I got screwed" is not the proper mindset. That's playing the game that used to exist. There's no "ahead" or behind. There is in signing range, and not in signing range. Like real life, the kid will consider you, or he won't. But you can't effect the result you want. The ultimate decision, past trying to put yourself in the best position for the most number of the best recruits, is not within your control.

So publishing the odds (which, as you know, have already been stretched to favor the leader, which was the right call to address this concern in the first place) is not accomplishing anything for you, except further conditioning you to harbor mistaken perceptions about the game.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/27/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

Thanks bad luck, I bet you know!

It sucks to lose 3 in a row but you know, if you're in a battle, you might lose.

Welcome back, Spud. I notice no one disagreed with you. Welcome back pkoopman, too.

Posted by cubcub113 on 9/27/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):
I like this Johnsensing guy. One of my new favorite posters.

Its almost like people who are good at the game also know what they're talking about. Wacky!

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Until you are good enough to play high level DI in this game you should really go back to the kids table because you sound like an idiot to those of us who do Spud.

LMAO!

If only they didn't act like they invented water....

Posted by l80r20 on 9/27/2017 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Welcome back, Spud. I notice no one disagreed with you. Welcome back pkoopman, too.

My absolute favorite thing about the forums -- and probably one of my top 3 or 4 favorite things about this game in general right now -- is spud's dedication to keeping up the fiction that he and l80r20 aren't the same person. Just delightful.

"So publishing the odds (which, as you know, have already been stretched to favor the leader, which was the right call to address this concern in the first place) is not accomplishing anything for you, except further conditioning you to harbor mistaken perceptions about the game. "

Well you can't really speak for ME. Seeing the odds on every battle DOES help me understand the system. Maybe it doesn't accomplish anything for YOU.
Like I said before when using the box score as an analogy.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

I am not arguing that.

I am arguing your statement in two separate threads that hiding the final signing %s will somehow keep people from getting upset about losing battles.

Recruiting is probabilistic now. It's not deterministic. So being in the mindset of "I was ahead, I got screwed" is not the proper mindset. That's playing the game that used to exist. There's no "ahead" or behind. There is in signing range, and not in signing range. Like real life, the kid will consider you, or he won't. But you can't effect the result you want. The ultimate decision, past trying to put yourself in the best position for the most number of the best recruits, is not within your control.

So publishing the odds (which, as you know, have already been stretched to favor the leader, which was the right call to address this concern in the first place) is not accomplishing anything for you, except further conditioning you to harbor mistaken perceptions about the game.

I think this argument is based solely on semantics. "I was ahead, I got screwed," and "I had a 73% chance of winning and lost, I got screwed" are pretty much the same thing. I don't really understand why taking that post-battle informational point away helps the game -- why is less information better than more?

I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to go back to a deterministic model (to use your term) -- the people that felt that way quit a year ago. I don't see complaining about a 55/45 battle loss. Instead, I think there's a lot of frustration about "outlier" recruiting results that really puts a bad taste in people's mouths. No one's explained to me why it's a good idea to infuriate the user base, or why it's a bad idea to up the threshold to where you have a chance to win to 40% or so.

Posted by johnsensing on 9/27/2017 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 9/27/2017 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Welcome back, Spud. I notice no one disagreed with you. Welcome back pkoopman, too.

My absolute favorite thing about the forums -- and probably one of my top 3 or 4 favorite things about this game in general right now -- is spud's dedication to keeping up the fiction that he and l80r20 aren't the same person. Just delightful.

You think THIS is bad....wait till you see him play with himself.....

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/27/2017 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 9/27/2017 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Welcome back, Spud. I notice no one disagreed with you. Welcome back pkoopman, too.

My absolute favorite thing about the forums -- and probably one of my top 3 or 4 favorite things about this game in general right now -- is spud's dedication to keeping up the fiction that he and l80r20 aren't the same person. Just delightful.

You think THIS is bad....wait till you see him play with himself.....

It usually ends quickly at least.

I don't like the idea of getting rid of "High" as an option - I like seeing where I stand in a battle. However, I don't think it's a terrible idea to make it necessary to be in the "Very High" range to actually get a chance to win. It won't stop people like zorzii from complaining though; the world is out to get them!

Has anyone done any research on what the preference advantage or disadvantages were in these battles. I've been quietly monitoring these threads and its something that never is mentioned. I've only bowed out of and lost 1 battle in the last 4-5 seasons and the main thing I look to achieve is obvious preferences advantages on recruits i am willing and able to go all in on.

From what I've read and I could be wrong but the battle %'s are just the effort put in, so a 55 to 45 battle just means team 2 put in 45% of the effort credit in the battle. Which I do know that preferences effect the weight of the effort. However my question is, do preference effect the final battle decision? Say if a team has 3VH and a H and is sitting at 40% and the other team is 2VH and 2H does the team with 40% beat the 60% due to the better preferences?

My only backing is I won a battle where I was down 5% to an A- school when I was C+ and I made sure if I was battling I was superior on preferences. I had wants to play, near home, and offense on my side. 3 Very highs to an unknown amount with him, I am certain he was not in the same boat for Near home or the offense preference.

TLDR : Does preferences effect the final decision regardless of the battle percents?