Posted by Benis on 4/22/2018 6:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grecianfox on 4/21/2018 10:10:00 PM (view original):
I think they should go the other way and limit home visits to between 5 and 10 to encourage more battles and allow for enough money for fallback options to lessen the impact of losing battles.

Max 5 home visits! This sounds incredibly boring and removes so much strategy from recruiting.

I'd basically just pick ten guys and send my 5 HVs and then sit back and wait for the dice roll. No back and forth action going on there. Snoozefest.

The existing design is an undisputable marketplace failure. What bores you might be good for the game.

Posted by johnsensing on 4/22/2018 12:09:00 PM (view original):
As others have said, no, WIS doesn't care. This is the game we're stuck with. This problem could be dealt with by making two relatively simple changes: (1) make it so you don't have a chance to win the recruit unless you're at very high (i.e., at over 40% chance); and (b) make preferences more meaningful.

You currently don’t have a chance to win the recruit unless you have amassed ~60% of the effort credit of the leader, which works itself out to ~37 in a 63-37 battle in true effort credit. The reason the odds look longer is because they’re stretched *to favor the effort credit leader*. I know you understand this, JS, but not everyone does. They could eliminate the “stretching”, and we’d have essentially the system you’re calling for - but there would be more upsets, not fewer.

As to B, I think preferences are very meaningful, especially distance and success. Battling someone at a disadvantage in preferences requires a lot more attention/effort.

Posted by rednu on 4/22/2018 3:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 4/22/2018 12:36:00 AM (view original):
Sorry if you felt I was speaking specifically about you. I wasn't, it seems like there have been dozens of these threads. No need to be defensive. But I also see nothing in this thread that gives any example of anything preventing us from recruiting intelligently.

And what would your definition of "recruiting intelligently" be?

It's going to be different for everyone -- well, everyone capable of intelligent recruiting. But that's beside my point, which was that there is no impediment in the game to intelligent recruiting. All the whining that there is something mystical in the game preventing intelligent recruiting is just more hot air.

Posted by zagsrulez on 4/22/2018 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 4/22/2018 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 4/21/2018 10:22:00 PM (view original):
Wow y’all just suck at recruiting. I have yet to have a problem with 3.0 recruiting process after I learned the ins and outs

Well come back to us when you can get past the Sweet 16. Thanks.

Remember when thecheater17 almost won a NT with roided out 99 WE players?

Remember when you kept touching young boys after being asked not to?

Posted by l80r20 on 4/22/2018 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 4/22/2018 3:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 4/22/2018 12:36:00 AM (view original):
Sorry if you felt I was speaking specifically about you. I wasn't, it seems like there have been dozens of these threads. No need to be defensive. But I also see nothing in this thread that gives any example of anything preventing us from recruiting intelligently.

And what would your definition of "recruiting intelligently" be?

It's going to be different for everyone -- well, everyone capable of intelligent recruiting. But that's beside my point, which was that there is no impediment in the game to intelligent recruiting. All the whining that there is something mystical in the game preventing intelligent recruiting is just more hot air.

Attempt #2 -- what is your definition of "intelligent recruiting"?

Same question, same answer. And why are you trying to divert from my point, which I thought I clearly restated?

Posted by kcsundevil on 4/22/2018 1:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/22/2018 6:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grecianfox on 4/21/2018 10:10:00 PM (view original):
I think they should go the other way and limit home visits to between 5 and 10 to encourage more battles and allow for enough money for fallback options to lessen the impact of losing battles.

Max 5 home visits! This sounds incredibly boring and removes so much strategy from recruiting.

I'd basically just pick ten guys and send my 5 HVs and then sit back and wait for the dice roll. No back and forth action going on there. Snoozefest.

The existing design is an undisputable marketplace failure. What bores you might be good for the game.

Oh I totally agree with you there.

But is it an indisputable marketplace failure because of the limit on HVs? No way it's even in the top 10 reasons.

the fact that thecheater17 was not banned for blantant and disrespectful abuse to the current game should be more than enough proof that WIS doesn’t care at all either.

But then again you can’t help but feel bad for the poor lonely fella who resorts to clicking the same buttons repetitively for 10+ hours. What would his life become without HD? thecheater17 would be on suicide watch at his local hospital ER.

"The existing design is an undisputable [sic] marketplace failure."

Do you have a citation in support of what appears to be your statement of mere anti-intuitive opinion?

Posted by joeykw18 on 4/21/2018 8:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/21/2018 8:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that math is hard. But one thing that should be a simple concept to understand is that neither 61% or 76% is the same as 100%. You're not always going to win battles you are favored to win.

Deal with it and stop crying.

50.1% used to sign with you 100% of the time. Lots of people like the slight change, but it may have gone a little to far.

...math can be hard, but one thing I know is a 49.3% career win-percentage is not very good.

Ooooooooof. Take it easy on Tec, Joey, he's still a newbie but yet he understands the game very well

Posted by tecwrg on 4/21/2018 8:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that math is hard. But one thing that should be a simple concept to understand is that neither 61% or 76% is the same as 100%. You're not always going to win battles you are favored to win.

Deal with it and stop crying.

If you went through the bad luck Pallas has gone through at Purdue you'd be in a little hole crying yourself to death. Oh and funny story I've won 8-9 battles in a row as Pallas has lost 6 in a row its so fun and I don't even need half the rolls I win.

Posted by l80r20 on 4/22/2018 2:37:00 PM (view original):
"The existing design is an undisputable [sic] marketplace failure."

Do you have a citation in support of what appears to be your statement of mere anti-intuitive opinion?

Why don't you pick up a team? Show us noobs how it's done.

Posted by cubcub113 on 4/22/2018 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/21/2018 8:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that math is hard. But one thing that should be a simple concept to understand is that neither 61% or 76% is the same as 100%. You're not always going to win battles you are favored to win.

Deal with it and stop crying.

If you went through the bad luck Pallas has gone through at Purdue you'd be in a little hole crying yourself to death. Oh and funny story I've won 8-9 battles in a row as Pallas has lost 6 in a row its so fun and I don't even need half the rolls I win.

Alternatively, perhaps tecwrg understands how statistics, probability, and sample sizes work, and therefore adjusts his expectations appropriately prior to any given battle, in which case crying is unnecessary and actually counterproductive to enjoyment and success.

It might be a good idea to allow more HV and CV, but at a higher cost. For example, the first 10 HV costs $300 each. 11-15 cost $500 each. 16-20 cost $800 each. Anything over 20 costs $1000 per visit.

This might put a little more strategy as coaches will have to decide just how much effort they want to put in as it will cripple the rest of their recruiting targets. This also might help to deter from the "super class" strategy as it will only allow for the recruiting of 1-2 players despite having the resources for 5-6 scholarships. And even those 1-2 players will most likely not be 100%.

I don't know, just an idea. Maybe some of the more experienced coaches could discuss the potential drawbacks of such a system.

I'll gladly trade my recent losing these "coin flips" for anyone else's streak.

At LSU in Allen I've lost all 9 guys I've been 50%-74% on. When factoring in favored percentages there's about a 13,000 to 1 chance of that happening.
The only recruits I've signed were of the 100% variety.

Makes me think I'd win more battles by getting to 30-35% on 6 recruits, rather than 65% on only 4.
But I've also lost every recruit when I've been the underdog, so maybe that isn't the route to go.