It is certainly frustrating to lose battles when you are in the lead. I have been on both sides of the fence. But it is like everything based on odds...stick with it and it will come around. A coach in my conference a few seasons back was threatening to leave the game b/c he "never won a coin flip even when he was 66% likely to win". Since then he has rattled off 4 straight recruiting wins over me when I was ahead every time. What really hurts is that every one of them was for a point guard. But I know the worm will turn eventually. I think most of the complaining comes from selective memory.

Face the facts, the algorithm is skewed too far to the underdog, which now hurts with guards who now are coveted because of the crappy WIS high school recruit algorithm where guards appear to be few and far between

Posted by l80r20 on 4/22/2018 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Same question, same answer. And why are you trying to divert from my point, which I thought I clearly restated?

You can't make a point when you're throwing around terms for which you provide no concrete definition. Saying the current system doesn't prevent anyone from "intelligent recruiting" is meaningless when you make no effort to define what those two words mean to you and ignore requests to offer up the definition you have when put on the spot to do so.

Yeah, you gave the same answer to the question, but that answer is a resounding silence. Attempt #3?

Answer #3 [and final] ... do you see any impediment in the game to intelligent recruiting under ANY definition you care to employ? I don't, and that's the sole point I was making. And I think making it three times is enough.

I still have yet to understand people getting super upset over losing something because of probability. It would be like betting on black four times in a row, losing three and being upset that you didn't win twice, since those are the odds.

I've lost way more battles than I should have based on the odds, but that's just the nature of the game. Some of us have worse luck than others.

Especially among long time users, the big problem is the previous version trained people to think deterministically, as though the odds are the outcome. People are still in the mindset of “I was ahead, that meant he favored me. The outcome doesn’t make sense.” That’s just not how it works anymore. I think the model could be re-worked to help people manage expectations a little better in that regard. It could be made more clear that the considering list *is not* an indication of how much the recruit likes your program, but is rather an indication of how much interest *you* are showing the recruit. It represents effort credit, not admiration. That’s why I say it’s better to think about the considering list as a 3rd party evaluation of how they think the recruiting battle is going for a given player. Nothing in the game is meant to tell us unambiguously what is in the recruit’s head.

So when a 5-Star shocks the world by picking New Mexico State over Washington and Washington St, it’s a huge upset in recruiting, not because the recruit really actually liked the PAC-10 schools so much better, and chose Las Cruces for no apparent reason, but rather because the recruit’s decision surprised observers.

My beef with the system is I thought it discouraged schools from "jumping in" and poaching recruits. Well 2 seasons in a row I had someone jump in after I maxed out HVs and CV, and promised minutes and a start, and was pumping 35-40 APs into the recruit each cycle. All of a sudden after about 6 cycles pass someone that I guess was on the "Very Low" consideration list (I say guess because you can only see 10 teams which is a whole other issue) jumped up to High....not even moderate, he skipped that stage....how the hell did he do that in one cycle?

I won one and lost one, so I guess it evened out, but its very frustrating.

Posted by Benis on 4/22/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

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.

Is it all about the HVs? Of course not. But 3.0's recruiting changes collectively would definitely be in the top 10 reasons the game is failing.

Posted by kcsundevil on 4/23/2018 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/22/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

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.

Is it all about the HVs? Of course not. But 3.0's recruiting changes collectively would definitely be in the top 10 reasons the game is failing.

Recruiting has killed D3 and D2 for sure, so it's in the top 3... D1 is at about 15% less owners. But it's mainly because D3 is tougher than before therefore new owners don't stick around.

Posted by BergPride on 4/23/2018 9:25:00 AM (view original):
I still have yet to understand people getting super upset over losing something because of probability. It would be like betting on black four times in a row, losing three and being upset that you didn't win twice, since those are the odds.

I've lost way more battles than I should have based on the odds, but that's just the nature of the game. Some of us have worse luck than others.

+1

Posted by zorzii on 4/23/2018 12:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 4/23/2018 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/22/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

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.

Is it all about the HVs? Of course not. But 3.0's recruiting changes collectively would definitely be in the top 10 reasons the game is failing.

Recruiting has killed D3 and D2 for sure, so it's in the top 3... D1 is at about 15% less owners. But it's mainly because D3 is tougher than before therefore new owners don't stick around.

+1

Posted by l80r20 on 4/23/2018 1:20:00 AM (view original):
Answer #3 [and final] ... do you see any impediment in the game to intelligent recruiting under ANY definition you care to employ? I don't, and that's the sole point I was making. And I think making it three times is enough.

I actually like 3.0 recruiting, and your explanation still sucks. It's like saying "sure the air is polluted, but does that stop you from breathing it?" - theoretically, an incredibly intelligent recruiter can recruit intelligently and still lose out on all of their targets.

Your next response is one of two things - 1. "Well clearly he didn't recruit intelligently, he should settle for players underneath that top tier that doesn't require battling!", which is a terrible response to people trying to be competitive in a B6 conference. Sometimes you don't get the guys you're targeting, or the back-up plan, or the back-up plan to your back-up plan. This probability-based model (which, again, I prefer) lends itself to scenarios like that.

The other potential response is some variation of "Suck it up, that's how it goes, it happens to everyone, quit being a baby" etc. etc. etc....which is also a terrible response because what are the forums for if we can't come here to vent about things happening with our teams that are [somewhat] outside of our control.

Either way, hiding behind some broad "intelligent recruiting is possible!" defense is a lame attempt at trying to sound smart. Nobody thinks you're smarter because of it; come up with new material. Maybe try the MikeT approach - ignore facts/other peoples responses and pick out one specific thing and argue it to death.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/23/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Especially among long time users, the big problem is the previous version trained people to think deterministically, as though the odds are the outcome. People are still in the mindset of “I was ahead, that meant he favored me. The outcome doesn’t make sense.” That’s just not how it works anymore. I think the model could be re-worked to help people manage expectations a little better in that regard. It could be made more clear that the considering list *is not* an indication of how much the recruit likes your program, but is rather an indication of how much interest *you* are showing the recruit. It represents effort credit, not admiration. That’s why I say it’s better to think about the considering list as a 3rd party evaluation of how they think the recruiting battle is going for a given player. Nothing in the game is meant to tell us unambiguously what is in the recruit’s head.

So when a 5-Star shocks the world by picking New Mexico State over Washington and Washington St, it’s a huge upset in recruiting, not because the recruit really actually liked the PAC-10 schools so much better, and chose Las Cruces for no apparent reason, but rather because the recruit’s decision surprised observers.

I'm a long time user, and I disagree strongly -- the big problem is that the new version has too many "outlier" results in recruiting, which makes for poor gameplay and user dissatisfaction. The 26% beating the 74% is bad for the game -- it infuriates people, and for what? It's not as if the winner played any better, or figured out an angle -- in my experience, a lot of times these sort of losses are actually going contrary to the recruit's stated preferences. That sort of result can (and should, in my view) be improved upon. I've suggested what I believe are easy fixes -- that would improve gameplay/strategy -- elsewhere in this thread.

It's a sliding scale. 2.0 was 100% deterministic, which was too much for some people (although it's pretty obvious at this point that the market liked 2.0 better) -- we've swung too far to a probabilistic model. Seble should go back and split the difference.

Posted by johnsensing on 4/23/2018 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/23/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Especially among long time users, the big problem is the previous version trained people to think deterministically, as though the odds are the outcome. People are still in the mindset of “I was ahead, that meant he favored me. The outcome doesn’t make sense.” That’s just not how it works anymore. I think the model could be re-worked to help people manage expectations a little better in that regard. It could be made more clear that the considering list *is not* an indication of how much the recruit likes your program, but is rather an indication of how much interest *you* are showing the recruit. It represents effort credit, not admiration. That’s why I say it’s better to think about the considering list as a 3rd party evaluation of how they think the recruiting battle is going for a given player. Nothing in the game is meant to tell us unambiguously what is in the recruit’s head.

So when a 5-Star shocks the world by picking New Mexico State over Washington and Washington St, it’s a huge upset in recruiting, not because the recruit really actually liked the PAC-10 schools so much better, and chose Las Cruces for no apparent reason, but rather because the recruit’s decision surprised observers.

I'm a long time user, and I disagree strongly -- the big problem is that the new version has too many "outlier" results in recruiting, which makes for poor gameplay and user dissatisfaction. The 26% beating the 74% is bad for the game -- it infuriates people, and for what? It's not as if the winner played any better, or figured out an angle -- in my experience, a lot of times these sort of losses are actually going contrary to the recruit's stated preferences. That sort of result can (and should, in my view) be improved upon. I've suggested what I believe are easy fixes -- that would improve gameplay/strategy -- elsewhere in this thread.

It's a sliding scale. 2.0 was 100% deterministic, which was too much for some people (although it's pretty obvious at this point that the market liked 2.0 better) -- we've swung too far to a probabilistic model. Seble should go back and split the difference.

A 26 beating a 74 only looks like a bad beat because of the stretching. The underdog’s effort credit in that case is ~40-60, which you find acceptable. “Splitting the difference” like stretching those odds to favor the effort credit leader (and then stupidly showing the odds) is precisely the cause of the misunderstandings and dissatisfaction. The range of teams that can compete for a recruit with the same effort is ~2 prestige grades, which is perfect, IMO. Whatever is done to change the presentation of those battles, the range should definitely not be narrowed.

No more “splitting the difference”, thanks. I’d much rather see them strengthen the game by fixing the dumb little bugs like the considering list and the champions page, and then do what they said they were going to do and fix hiring, which easily is the number 1 biggest obstacle to new player attraction and retention. The game simply has way too steep a cost, in terms of time and money, to play at the level most people want to play when they go searching for a college basketball game.