Posted by kcsundevil on 10/11/2017 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/11/2017 5:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/11/2017 5:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/11/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 10/11/2017 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/11/2017 12:49:00 PM (view original):
Basically something like this would be better in my opinion

Top 25 on big board all leave - 100%
No player not on big board ever leaves early.

I think getting rid of those two ends of the spectrum would make a lot of sense. Just my 2 cents.

While we are at it why not just say the best team wins every game.

There needs to be some fixes to the game but in my opinion making absolutes is not the way to go.

I understand my #2 player on the draft board is almost surely going pro but I like the thrill and disappointment leading up to the day that players declare.

In real life usually 40 to 70 players a year leave early and declare for the pros.

I guess its a difference of opinion on what is thrilling or disappointing.

I like the "thrill" of going on deep run in the tourney because I feel like it was my success and I influenced how it played out. I know that probabilities were involved and maybe I did get lucky but it still feels like I made the right choices along the way.

And conversely the disappointment of losing works the same way. I could at least understand what I did wrong or what I could have done differently to improve my chances of winning.

When players declare I would never get the same type of experience. If a top guy stays, I'd think well that was super lucky. Or if a scrub leaves, I'd think well that was super unlucky. It wouldn't really produce much enjoyment for me either way.

Here's how I view the aspects of HD.

Recruiting and the simulation of games are like Poker.

Poker is probabilistic at it's core but during the game you can influence quite a bit what happens or doesn't happen. You can definitely get a bad beat on the River like you could get beat in HD on a lucky 3 pointer from a Center with 20 Per. It sucks but you were at least a part of helping determine the outcome even got to that point.

Poker is obviously highly competitive but someone who understand the game will win a lot more than they lose despite these probabilistic events. Same type of thing for HD. Good coaches will gameplan better, will build teams better, will recruit better. I find this type of competition fun and engaging.

On the other hand, I view this EE big board thing like Bingo.

Bingo takes no skill and the user doesn't influence how the game will play out. Balls will pop out and you'll mark the sheet until someone wins. You can purchase more sheets to increase your probability of winning but that's it.

I feel like they just hand out Bingo cards to teams with players on the big board and then whatever happens, happens. Even when you win, you're happy you won the prize but is there really an sense of satisfaction? It's possible to play poker and enjoy it without any monetary stakes and still have fun but without a prize, Bingo is unplayable.

I don't find this probabilistic aspect of the game fun or engaging. Bingo isn't a competitive game for a reason. Dullsville.

Bingo is a dumb analogy here. Coaches choose whether to pursue players with EE potential. It's nothing like being handed a bingo card with preassigned numbers

---

I know coaches choose to pursue EE players. That's the part of the recruiting that I'm talking about that I do like. I'm fine with players leaving early or users having to choose whether the player you recruit will leave early or will stay 4 seasons. I like that part.

I'm saying when it comes down to determining actually who DOES leave or stay is like Bingo.

Because two coaches could choose the same thing - sign 'EE type players'. It's at that point they're both handed the bingo cards.

Bingo is a dumb analogy.

I'll go back to my Ineligible guy. I chose to pursue him. I know there's a chance they may not attend school. Nonetheless, he was good, the best player I was recruiting, and I generally redshirt a player anyway. I dumped ton of resources into him. I won the "dice roll". He didn't show. I got ZERO production out of him.
Comparing that to EE, users choose to pursue the #3 C in the nation. There's a much higher chance he'll leave early than a Inel won't show. You get a season or two from him after dumping a ton of resources into recruiting him.

I'm failing to see the difference. We both took a shot. You got something, I got the finger.

I also know, had I came here to complain, I'd have received a "Thems the breaks" from benis instead of the sympathetic hug he gave zorzii.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/11/2017 6:45:00 PM (view original):
I also know, had I came here to complain, I'd have received a "Thems the breaks" from benis instead of the sympathetic hug he gave zorzii.

Well maybe Zorzii is just more huggable than you. Maybe he smells nicer and has a warmer embrace.

I imagine you as the Meatloaf character in Fight Club so, yeah, I wouldn't be very receptive should you come at me with open arms.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/11/2017 6:50:00 PM (view original):
I imagine you as the Meatloaf character in Fight Club so, yeah, I wouldn't be very receptive should you come at me with open arms.

Funny you say that. I'm reading the book Fight Club right now.

Oh! And fun fact I learned. Apparently the author of Fight Club apparently coined the Snowflake term that you like so much.

Your name is Robert Paulson.

I'm big Meatloaf fan. Actor, singer, food. Love it all.

Posted by zorzii on 10/11/2017 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/11/2017 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/11/2017 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/11/2017 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 10/11/2017 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/11/2017 5:27:00 AM (view original):
"Understanding that and using it to your advantage or passing it off as random and doing nothing can be the difference between success and mediocrity."

Can you explain a bit about how you can use this to your advantage?

I see it where A+ prestige coaches who have preferences going against their favor and in my favor will get into battles with me. In the end they have a 40% chance and I have a 60% chance, obviously each situation varies and the percentages varies with it. You give a gambler a 60% chance of winning and he will lose sometimes but over time he will eventually become a millionaire. You give a gambler a 40% chance and he will win sometimes but over time he will become broke. I know if I have a 60% chance I will lose sometimes, but over time I will have the advantage over someone who wins 40% of the time.

There will be examples of coaches losing more EE's than the norm and the percentages going against them, and there will times be times where the percentages go in thier favor. Same goes with winning recruits. Over time the percentages will hit their percentages. If you continue to not understand that the percentages over time will hit their percentages and pass it off as random then your unlikely to ever have the success you desire.

When I hear someone call it random that to me means they don't understand.

Good post. And if you recruits dudes who are #6 #8 and #14 at their position, gambling on them not leaving early, it's pathetic to criticize the casino if you lose that bet.

Yeah I'm basically saying the opposite.

I understand the percentages. I think percentages *should* be adjusted to remove huge swings.

Team A keeps #9, #12, #49 while Team B loses a guy not on board. Those aren't probabilities that should even be possible in my opinion. You could play 1,000 seasons as Team B and still never see that probability balance out.

Also, at least in the way recruiting works now, you can influence the probabilities quite a bit - go for better preferences, use promises, use x% of your budget, etc etc. I'm fine with the way that works (for the most part).

Don't know what your objection is in the Team A / Team B example. It's entirely plausible things could play out that way. That's how probability works, and it's exactly what the game is designed to make possible

A probabilistic model works perfect if the same person gets to the sane events at least over 100 times, but we all know it's as a whole so some experience median probalistic event, the majority, some are caught in the extremes.. low spectrum, high spectrum... and it's treated as a whole. It is where the game is flawed wherher it's in recruiting or in ees.

What you said is not flawed, that's how percentages work. Over time the percentages will work out for that 1 person.

It sounds like you would be better suited for a game of chess. As long as HD has prestige it will never be like a game of chess.

It is flawed if it causes people to want to quit the game. People don't like experiencing bad beats that they had no direct control over.

Same as losing a 75-25% recruit.

Does one ever have control over a bad beat? I don't think so because, if they did, it wouldn't be a "beat". Unless someone is just into losing.

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):
It is flawed if it causes people to want to quit the game. People don't like experiencing bad beats that they had no direct control over.

Same as losing a 75-25% recruit.

thats the incorrect definition of flawed. its not flawed if its working as intended. people quit playing chess because they dont like it. that doesnt mean its flawed.

FINE jeeesus.

replace "flawed" with poorly conceived

Posted by plague on 10/12/2017 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):
It is flawed if it causes people to want to quit the game. People don't like experiencing bad beats that they had no direct control over.

Same as losing a 75-25% recruit.

thats the incorrect definition of flawed. its not flawed if its working as intended. people quit playing chess because they dont like it. that doesnt mean its flawed.

Absolutely. It also doesn't mean it is poorly conceived. It just means they didn't like it.