Posted by l80r20 on 4/24/2018 3:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/23/2018 8:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 4/23/2018 12:32:00 AM (view original):

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?

You're trying to get a non troll answer from Spud. Many have tried before and all have failed.

LOL, you sure aren't the brightest bulb in the circuit, are you?

1) You of all people should realize Spud isn't around any more; you seem to be the most obsessed with him and miss him the most.

2) I haven't seen him post lately and I'm not so sure he even has a team. I can post because I have a GD team, but can you even post without a team?

3) As is almost always the case, your post added exactly nothing to the conversation. I suspect even the other dim bulbs around here are going to notice the caliber of your usual contribution pretty soon, if they haven't already.

4) Sorry if "intelligent recruiting" goes right over your head. Take comfort in the fact that you aren't alone in that regard.

Hey Spud, remember when this happened?

Posted by shoe3 on 4/23/2018 7:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

shoe, you've played this semantic game before -- you're missing my main point. Stretching or no stretching, the "range" at which the user who has put in less effort has a chance to win the recruit should be narrowed -- the current broader range is bad for gameplay and user satisfaction. That is my argument. I get that you disagree, but the market is speaking here, and the market doesn't like the current game. Of course, part of that is because WIS doesn't care to fix basic things -- one thing we do agree on is that it is disgraceful that the "dumb little bugs" still exist.

And for those people who are arguing that odds should not be posted following a battle, I don't understand your position -- why would you want the game to be more of a black box? Isn't the idea to use strategy as much as possible? How can I engage in "intelligent recruiting" (to use spud's phrase) if I don't have any way to tell how close I was to winning battles? Of course, if you narrow the range so that a user only has a chance to win the recruit at VH (as I am advocating), there probably isn't a need to post the post-signing odds, since both users are at least close on the recruit...

JS- for us, yes its good to see the odds. Its definitely better to have more information.

However it was foolish for WIS to post the odds because they should have known it was going to **** off a lot of people (duh) by showing them just how flawed the new game was. I'm sure they lost quite a few people after they saw they lost to a team with 16% chance to win. It was just a bad business move during a time when there was still a lot of bad mojo regarding the changes. It was the final push that a lot of users probably needed to quit.

Posted by johnsensing on 4/24/2018 6:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/23/2018 7:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

shoe, you've played this semantic game before -- you're missing my main point. Stretching or no stretching, the "range" at which the user who has put in less effort has a chance to win the recruit should be narrowed -- the current broader range is bad for gameplay and user satisfaction. That is my argument. I get that you disagree, but the market is speaking here, and the market doesn't like the current game. Of course, part of that is because WIS doesn't care to fix basic things -- one thing we do agree on is that it is disgraceful that the "dumb little bugs" still exist.

And for those people who are arguing that odds should not be posted following a battle, I don't understand your position -- why would you want the game to be more of a black box? Isn't the idea to use strategy as much as possible? How can I engage in "intelligent recruiting" (to use spud's phrase) if I don't have any way to tell how close I was to winning battles? Of course, if you narrow the range so that a user only has a chance to win the recruit at VH (as I am advocating), there probably isn't a need to post the post-signing odds, since both users are at least close on the recruit...

It’s not semantics, JS, and no I didn’t miss your main point. You even acknowledge it by specifically pointing out our key disagreement. I don’t want the range of teams that can compete for the same recruit with identical effort narrowed from the current ~2 prestige grades, give or take based on how preferences shake out. 2 prestige grades is the difference between the top teams in a conference, and the lower-middle tier teams in the same conference. If the first place team in a conference doesn’t have to worry about the 8th or 9th place teams in the conference reaching up and possibly competing for an elite commodity, the game is flawed. It is neither realistic, nor does it make for a good competitive multiplayer game when UCLA doesn’t have to worry about Arizona State possibly competing for a 4-Star from Phoenix.

Seble already “split the difference”. The odds don’t go all the way to 0, people can’t get into signing range unless they get up close to 40% in effort credit. The ~40% threshold you call for is already where the game would be, had seble not tried to “split the difference” and stretched odds to favor effort credit leaders. Narrowing that range makes the game less competitive. The game wants battling for elite commodities, and it wants users who want to play a game where they have to compete and battle for top commodities.

The market “speaks” every time a product updates, especially when it fixes a major flaw that a lot of longtime users benefitted from, as HD did by making recruiting probabilistic instead of deterministic. Some people don’t like the change, and leave. The market would “speak” again if seble went chasing after all those people who have already left, and we’d lose another chunk of the base. Making recruiting less competitive would be a terrible way to increase user attraction and retention. It’s literally the opposite of what should happen. The way to convince new users to try it, and then to stick with it, is to stop alienating them at the point of entry by forcing a steep investment of both time and money into teams they have no reason to care about, in order to play the game the vast majority would like to play (D1).

“And for those people who are arguing that odds should not be posted following a battle, I don't understand your position -- why would you want the game to be more of a black box? Isn't the idea to use strategy as much as possible? How can I engage in "intelligent recruiting" (to use spud's phrase) if I don't have any way to tell how close I was to winning battles? Of course, if you narrow the range so that a user only has a chance to win the recruit at VH (as I am advocating), there probably isn't a need to post the post-signing odds, since both users are at least close on the recruit...”

Because unless people follow the forums, they have no way to know that the 26 in a 74-26 battle actually has gotten a lot more than 26% of the effort credit, so they think the upset is a lot bigger than it actually is. It promotes a misunderstanding of the game, something Benis can do all by himself, without an assist from HD.

Before we had the published odds, we had a way to tell how close we were in battles. We could tell if we were in signing range, or not. We could tell if others were also in range. Get to high, you have a chance; get to very high, you have a better chance. That’s sufficient for a simulation. Real life coaches don’t have unambiguous access to the decisions a recruit makes, neither should game players in a simulation. The more concrete and absolute it is, the less incentive there is for any team to battle or reach up. And then we’re eventually back to winner’s ball.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/24/2018 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 4/24/2018 6:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/23/2018 7:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

shoe, you've played this semantic game before -- you're missing my main point. Stretching or no stretching, the "range" at which the user who has put in less effort has a chance to win the recruit should be narrowed -- the current broader range is bad for gameplay and user satisfaction. That is my argument. I get that you disagree, but the market is speaking here, and the market doesn't like the current game. Of course, part of that is because WIS doesn't care to fix basic things -- one thing we do agree on is that it is disgraceful that the "dumb little bugs" still exist.

And for those people who are arguing that odds should not be posted following a battle, I don't understand your position -- why would you want the game to be more of a black box? Isn't the idea to use strategy as much as possible? How can I engage in "intelligent recruiting" (to use spud's phrase) if I don't have any way to tell how close I was to winning battles? Of course, if you narrow the range so that a user only has a chance to win the recruit at VH (as I am advocating), there probably isn't a need to post the post-signing odds, since both users are at least close on the recruit...

It’s not semantics, JS, and no I didn’t miss your main point. You even acknowledge it by specifically pointing out our key disagreement. I don’t want the range of teams that can compete for the same recruit with identical effort narrowed from the current ~2 prestige grades, give or take based on how preferences shake out. 2 prestige grades is the difference between the top teams in a conference, and the lower-middle tier teams in the same conference. If the first place team in a conference doesn’t have to worry about the 8th or 9th place teams in the conference reaching up and possibly competing for an elite commodity, the game is flawed. It is neither realistic, nor does it make for a good competitive multiplayer game when UCLA doesn’t have to worry about Arizona State possibly competing for a 4-Star from Phoenix.

Seble already “split the difference”. The odds don’t go all the way to 0, people can’t get into signing range unless they get up close to 40% in effort credit. The ~40% threshold you call for is already where the game would be, had seble not tried to “split the difference” and stretched odds to favor effort credit leaders. Narrowing that range makes the game less competitive. The game wants battling for elite commodities, and it wants users who want to play a game where they have to compete and battle for top commodities.

The market “speaks” every time a product updates, especially when it fixes a major flaw that a lot of longtime users benefitted from, as HD did by making recruiting probabilistic instead of deterministic. Some people don’t like the change, and leave. The market would “speak” again if seble went chasing after all those people who have already left, and we’d lose another chunk of the base. Making recruiting less competitive would be a terrible way to increase user attraction and retention. It’s literally the opposite of what should happen. The way to convince new users to try it, and then to stick with it, is to stop alienating them at the point of entry by forcing a steep investment of both time and money into teams they have no reason to care about, in order to play the game the vast majority would like to play (D1).

You've put an awful lot of words in my mouth here -- too bad you're misstating my position.

It is semantics. In multiple threads, you've responded to my posts stating that the range should be narrowed with "but stretching." And I'm not arguing that the range of teams that can compete for a recruit should be narrowed -- I've also argued repeatedly that preferences should be given more weight, which, if done properly, will give back to lower-prestige teams what my range-narrowing proposal admittedly takes from them. If I'm an A+ and the recruit is "wants rebuild," I should have a much more significant handicap -- right now I don't. I'm not arguing to make recruiting less competitive -- I'm arguing that the current system is poorly designed, unrealistic, and leads to bad outcomes (for the game as a whole and for specific users). I think my suggestions would make recruiting more competitive (or at least equally as competitive as 3.0 is now). So yes, I don't necessarily think A+ UCLA should have to worry about B- Arizona State, if it has preference advantages.

I'd quibble with 3.0 being a "fix" to a "major flaw" -- if the game had x users before the "flaw" was fixed, and it now has 2/3x users, was there really a flaw at all? Stated another way, I think the market has decided that the cure was worse than the disease, notwithstanding the apologia for 3.0 from the likes of you and spud.

I also think letting newbies start at DI is a bad idea given the complexity of the game, but at this point, it's all rearranging deck chairs. If WIS would let me cash in my credits on amazon gift cards, I'm likely gone in 3 months or so. The game just isn't as fun as it used to be, and WIS seems to have no appetite to try to improve it.

Posted by l80r20 on 4/24/2018 2:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/23/2018 9:58:00 PM (view original):
“As many of us tried to warn seble, publishing those misleading odds after a recruit signs was a bad idea, and it still is.”

I could be mistaken, but I think the odds started getting published while seble was gone. I know we didn’t have them coming out of beta.

You're right. A lot of [edited] ganged up and loudly insisted in the forums that it be done, and WIS acquiesced. Seeing how it has worked out probably has one good outcome, though. I suspect WIS will be a lot less likely to acquiesce to a loud few asking for a dumb change. (They'll still be just as loud, of course.)

Classic Spud talk. You haven't had a good idea since the dinosaurs went extinct. Do us all a favor and join MikeTroll wherever he may be.

Post signing odds = information.

Only an idiot argues for less information.
For those who cry about it ..... "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth".

What you don't recognize Shoe is real life coaches probably have a BETTER idea of where these kids want to go based on countless emails and PERSONAL conversations. So saying HD coaches have too much information is pretty funny.

For JS:

If what you claim is actually true - that you are “not arguing that the range of teams that can compete for a recruit should be narrowed”, then stretching matters, and yeah, I’m going to keep pointing it out. If you don’t want the range narrowed, but you have a problem with the “bad beat” of a 74 losing to a 26 roughly 1/4 times, then you should be arguing to eliminate the stretching. Stop favoring the leader in those battles, and then the odds don’t get longer than ~63-37 for the underdog. The underdog will win more often on the margins, but at least the upset won’t look as bad.

The “market” stuff is just silliness, as always. Everyone knew there would be attrition when WIS moves the cheese away from guys who had spent a long time building their stockpiles. That’s how it goes. I don’t know what the target market is they’re going for, and neither do you. The only thing that is within our scope to argue is regarding the game we would like to play. I want to play a competitive, multi-player simulation of college basketball that feels like recruiting and coaching a real life team would feel, without all the tedium, and in a compressed time. I want to play against coaches who are competitive, and who value the game enough to pay for it and play it, even when they can’t dominate.

(I assume you are still arguing with JS?)

Posted by mullycj on 4/24/2018 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Post signing odds = information.

Only an idiot argues for less information.
For those who cry about it ..... "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth".

What you don't recognize Shoe is real life coaches probably have a BETTER idea of where these kids want to go based on countless emails and PERSONAL conversations. So saying HD coaches have too much information is pretty funny.

Funny that only two posters (lol I mean IDs) in this forum use that phrase.

Get a life Coachspud.
"What if we stick to things as they are and not how some people wish they would have been". I am fully aware that seble hasn’t changed the game according to some people’s wishes for some time. From what I see of those people’s arguments, I am on Seble’s side on that. So, poncho, before you resort to some stale old ad hominem attacks, how about sticking to the conversation. You seem to be able to do that. Thanks.

l80r20
As for your ad hominem attacks in the rest of your post, all I can say is, "Are you benis?" He isn't an especially bright bulb, either.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/23/2018 7:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

I think they need to revamp D3 and D2, people use to love battling in these divisions, now it's empty.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/24/2018 10:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 4/24/2018 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Post signing odds = information.

Only an idiot argues for less information.
For those who cry about it ..... "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth".

What you don't recognize Shoe is real life coaches probably have a BETTER idea of where these kids want to go based on countless emails and PERSONAL conversations. So saying HD coaches have too much information is pretty funny.

There is a lot of “information” it is better for the game to keep hidden from the players. Do you think instead of a play by play, we should be presented with the formula for how each possession works out in a game? No? What about potential, do you think it was a good idea for WIS to reveal the potential behind every recruit, so coaches could project and determine exactly where they would end up, and when? No? Neither do I, and I don’t think either of us are idiots.

Coaches have lots of personal correspondence, sure (this is tedium that I’m glad the simulation edits out). But they don’t have the full range of correspondence the kid has with every other coach. They don’t know exactly, absolutely where their odds lie with a given recruit. They couldn’t possibly. People aren’t robots.

HD isn't providing users with the details of the effect of each recruiting action on the signing %. THAT would be equivalent to your comparison to the formula on how each possession works out.

An argument you posted that I agree with is that users don't understand that a 74-26% advantage wasn't really a 74-26% advantage. The fact that WIS increased the leader's chance of signing by ~10% to help avoid the eventual upset is lost by users. Those who know that and are intelligent enough to know that given enough iterations, the coin flips will swing one day can live with results. No one likes to lose as a favorite and posting on these boards to rant helps blow off steam, but that's the current version we are stuck with.

Would you also argue about not posting box scores? Seems like that is granular information that could only make users more mad about an upset loss.

“I've also argued repeatedly that preferences should be given more weight, which, if done properly, will give back to lower-prestige teams what my range-narrowing proposal admittedly takes from them.”

I missed this in my first response, my apologies.

My new response is simply that this is not the competitiveness I’m talking about. Simply giving lower prestige teams “other guys” is not equivalent to a system that encourages people to battle for elite commodities. For better or worse, (worse, I think, but that’s a different thread) recruiting in HD is a commodity game. Giving lower prestige teams “their own guys” is not encouraging competition for commodities, which is the only rational way to make a commodity game work. A commodity game where high value commodities are simply slotted or assigned - akin to the winner’s ball of the previous version - ends up stagnant at the top. That’s not the way to attract and retain new users.