Posted by shoe3 on 4/24/2018 10:42:00 AM (view original):
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.

There is a way bigger market than what WIS has right now. The game is not efficient, D3 is impossible to new users. Some have D1 teams and they need one more season to even be able to start to compete than before. So it would take 10-15 seasons before they could even catch on A+ teams in their division... Cap the recruits. No need to have D1 caliber players in D3, it makes it hell for anybody coming to play. And make them get their first players ASAP... If they sign up and are already in second session, or not in any session at all, they lost one season. How can a player understand he has to wait until the final day of the second session to finally get his D1 players... What's fun in that? D3 is dead.

D2 is less of a problem because we have all the second session to profit but... we do wait until the end of the season, hoping no D1 start putting energy on the recruits we like and built efforts on. Cap D2, make some D1 drop down at a certain point.

Posted by mullycj on 4/24/2018 11:15:00 AM (view original):

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.

Box scores are actual outcomes, based on the formulas and probabilities under the hood. Recruiting odds aren’t outcomes. They’re odds. Showing them is not the same thing as showing a box score. The “box score” of recruiting is who the recruit chose, and arguably who was on his final considering list. No recruit I’ve ever heard of has ever broken down his “odds” of picking one school over another.

Posted by zorzii on 4/24/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 4/24/2018 10:42:00 AM (view original):
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.

There is a way bigger market than what WIS has right now. The game is not efficient, D3 is impossible to new users. Some have D1 teams and they need one more season to even be able to start to compete than before. So it would take 10-15 seasons before they could even catch on A+ teams in their division... Cap the recruits. No need to have D1 caliber players in D3, it makes it hell for anybody coming to play. And make them get their first players ASAP... If they sign up and are already in second session, or not in any session at all, they lost one season. How can a player understand he has to wait until the final day of the second session to finally get his D1 players... What's fun in that? D3 is dead.

D2 is less of a problem because we have all the second session to profit but... we do wait until the end of the season, hoping no D1 start putting energy on the recruits we like and built efforts on. Cap D2, make some D1 drop down at a certain point.

“Cap the recruits. No.”

Fixed it for you.

Posted by mullycj on 4/24/2018 11:03:00 AM (view original):
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.

Nice catch!

Out of curiosity, what's the top argument against capping the divisions? I'm not for bringing back the pull-down system that requires you to be a seasoned vet to understand basic recruiting trends, but D1/D2 players dropping down after going the first half of S1 could replace that.

D2 teams will never have to compete against D1 teams, D3 teams will never have to compete against D2 teams, so what's the point in not capping recruiting?

Posted by kcsundevil on 4/24/2018 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 4/24/2018 11:03:00 AM (view original):
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.

Nice catch!

How about just pointing out that both those names post like they're a pompous know-it all butthole.

Posted by mbriese on 4/24/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Out of curiosity, what's the top argument against capping the divisions? I'm not for bringing back the pull-down system that requires you to be a seasoned vet to understand basic recruiting trends, but D1/D2 players dropping down after going the first half of S1 could replace that.

D2 teams will never have to compete against D1 teams, D3 teams will never have to compete against D2 teams, so what's the point in not capping recruiting?

None. But when you play theOnly at D3, and he has a 700 overall team... or near it, how can you stick around? U don't even understand the game... You lose, lose, lose, not being able to get players in the first season, then quit. If you move up, the ONly is there again at 700 overall D2... you lose lose... nowhere to go, and quit.

Posted by mbriese on 4/24/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Out of curiosity, what's the top argument against capping the divisions? I'm not for bringing back the pull-down system that requires you to be a seasoned vet to understand basic recruiting trends, but D1/D2 players dropping down after going the first half of S1 could replace that.

D2 teams will never have to compete against D1 teams, D3 teams will never have to compete against D2 teams, so what's the point in not capping recruiting?

Maintaining competitiveness at every level. It’s not just about UCLA having to compete against Arizona State, it’s about Arizona State having to worry about UC-Santa Barbara jumping on one of the guys they thought they had in the bag, about UCSB having to worry about Grand Canyon reaching up for a low D1 projected player with a lot of green. In a commodity game, there should never be sure things. Every choice should come with risk, either risk of reaching too high, risk of losing out on something better, risk of getting a “bad beat”; to go along with the reward of landing a big fish against the odds, which can make your program.

Besides reducing competitiveness among experienced players, it also enhances prestige and experience advantages with a limited pool, nullifying the intent of making the game less intimidating for new players. If they know how to scout, new players *can* put together a competitive D3 team without battling. Capping forces them to try to compete with A+ teams and coaches with exponentially more experience.

One instance where I would support capping D3 is if WIS ever takes my suggestion, and makes D3 a free sandbox, with no cost, and no rewards. Then it should definitely have its own separate pool, and not cross into the pay pool.

Sidenote, there is a HD Suggestions Forum, and more people should use it.

Posted by zorzii on 4/24/2018 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 4/24/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Out of curiosity, what's the top argument against capping the divisions? I'm not for bringing back the pull-down system that requires you to be a seasoned vet to understand basic recruiting trends, but D1/D2 players dropping down after going the first half of S1 could replace that.

D2 teams will never have to compete against D1 teams, D3 teams will never have to compete against D2 teams, so what's the point in not capping recruiting?

None. But when you play theOnly at D3, and he has a 700 overall team... or near it, how can you stick around? U don't even understand the game... You lose, lose, lose, not being able to get players in the first season, then quit. If you move up, the ONly is there again at 700 overall D2... you lose lose... nowhere to go, and quit.

Shortsighted. If you watch what the experienced team does, you quickly realize that you have access to exactly the same caliber of player. If you cap, then you are actually forced to compete with those teams *for the same players*, because now there are *far* fewer recruits. Guys who have parked in D3 and win titles year after year are always going to be frustrating to new players. Always have been, always will be, for as long as WIS incentivizes their parking.

As I’ve said in other places, while caps are unambiguously a terrible idea, I think you could make a case that D1 projected players should have some risk of going juco instead of dropping to lower levels. Maybe start at 85% chance of showing up on campus at an A+ D2, dropping down to a 73% chance for an A+ D3, down to 66% for a C prestige D3.

If you're worried about diminishing player pools, increase the player pool size. If I'm a new user and a parked D1 monster is scooping up all of the top recruits, at least I am able to see that yes, that player showed up in my default DIII search, but chose the other team due to prestige and preferences. There is no guide presented to new users on the world office screen saying "by the way, recruit exclusively D1 players if you want a chance at national titles, you won't actually be able to get them until the final session though" - it's absolutely unintuitive. It's easy for those of us who know how it all works to go "well they can figure it out, there are forums, blah blah blah!" but that's not the type of user experience that is going to retain users.

If you hate the idea of capping and don't want to increase the amount of user-managed teams, I understand. If you love the idea of capping and DO want to increase the amount of user-managed teams, I also understand. Saying that we shouldn't change this product that discourages new users every step of the way and also wanting to increase the user-base is cognitive dissonance.

Also, I've already seen the "burden of proof" response before - there is no way for us to prove that this is reducing user retention because we don't have access to their back-end analytics. A big part of what I do for a living is website and platform UX, so I'm just coming at this from a logical perspective.

Posted by zorzii on 4/24/2018 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 4/24/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Out of curiosity, what's the top argument against capping the divisions? I'm not for bringing back the pull-down system that requires you to be a seasoned vet to understand basic recruiting trends, but D1/D2 players dropping down after going the first half of S1 could replace that.

D2 teams will never have to compete against D1 teams, D3 teams will never have to compete against D2 teams, so what's the point in not capping recruiting?

None. But when you play theOnly at D3, and he has a 700 overall team... or near it, how can you stick around? U don't even understand the game... You lose, lose, lose, not being able to get players in the first season, then quit. If you move up, the ONly is there again at 700 overall D2... you lose lose... nowhere to go, and quit.

Yeah EFF that guy. His D2 team just destroyed my D1 team by 30 pts in exhibition.

Posted by mbriese on 4/24/2018 12:49:00 PM (view original):
If you're worried about diminishing player pools, increase the player pool size. If I'm a new user and a parked D1 monster is scooping up all of the top recruits, at least I am able to see that yes, that player showed up in my default DIII search, but chose the other team due to prestige and preferences. There is no guide presented to new users on the world office screen saying "by the way, recruit exclusively D1 players if you want a chance at national titles, you won't actually be able to get them until the final session though" - it's absolutely unintuitive. It's easy for those of us who know how it all works to go "well they can figure it out, there are forums, blah blah blah!" but that's not the type of user experience that is going to retain users.

If you hate the idea of capping and don't want to increase the amount of user-managed teams, I understand. If you love the idea of capping and DO want to increase the amount of user-managed teams, I also understand. Saying that we shouldn't change this product that discourages new users every step of the way and also wanting to increase the user-base is cognitive dissonance.

Also, I've already seen the "burden of proof" response before - there is no way for us to prove that this is reducing user retention because we don't have access to their back-end analytics. A big part of what I do for a living is website and platform UX, so I'm just coming at this from a logical perspective.

But we all see a decreasing number of teams. And I specifically stopped playing D3 because of recruiting. The way it is, I find it pointless. No competing ever, hoping, crossing fingers, nobody gets to your players, waiting forever to open the scholly, offering start minutes to build efforts than waiting forever, even forgetting about your players until last day of recruiting. If you got jumped during first session, do you think you renew. I dropped a D2 team that wasn't going to get any A, B, C plans, imagine D3. You won't take a leap of faith. You will play D1 where you at least control something unless you lose three 75 % odds recruits... then **** renewing. But if you are a new owner, you need to live through 20 seasons to get to D1... and endure the same bad recruiting beat.

Posted by mbriese on 4/24/2018 12:49:00 PM (view original):
If you're worried about diminishing player pools, increase the player pool size. If I'm a new user and a parked D1 monster is scooping up all of the top recruits, at least I am able to see that yes, that player showed up in my default DIII search, but chose the other team due to prestige and preferences. There is no guide presented to new users on the world office screen saying "by the way, recruit exclusively D1 players if you want a chance at national titles, you won't actually be able to get them until the final session though" - it's absolutely unintuitive. It's easy for those of us who know how it all works to go "well they can figure it out, there are forums, blah blah blah!" but that's not the type of user experience that is going to retain users.

If you hate the idea of capping and don't want to increase the amount of user-managed teams, I understand. If you love the idea of capping and DO want to increase the amount of user-managed teams, I also understand. Saying that we shouldn't change this product that discourages new users every step of the way and also wanting to increase the user-base is cognitive dissonance.

Also, I've already seen the "burden of proof" response before - there is no way for us to prove that this is reducing user retention because we don't have access to their back-end analytics. A big part of what I do for a living is website and platform UX, so I'm just coming at this from a logical perspective.

You absolutely don’t need to recruit exclusively D1 players to win D3 titles. It’s not only unintuitive, it’s false. People don’t need forums to watch what the higher level teams are doing, and the most successful new players are always going to be the ones who watch and learn and figure out their own strategies.

If new user attraction and retention is the goal, actually address the steep investment of playing the division they want to play. I’ve yet to see an actual new user ever complain about being able to recruit higher level recruits that higher level teams pass over. People want caps, not because it’s more intuitive (it’s not, which is why there are no “caps” in real life), but because they don’t like the ambiguity of prioritization. They don’t like people below them reaching up to take their backups. They want determinism, not probability based recruiting. It all stems from the same preferences. To which I say, they are entitled to their preferences, but they are not entitled to a game that caters to them.

You're right, "exclusively" is hyperbole, but you do need some D1 players in order to win NTs in D3.

I don't care about people reaching to take my backups, and I actually like 3.0 recruiting as I said earlier in this thread. I'm arguing that recruiting in the lower levels (D3 especially, if we're talking user retention) is too complex from a UX perspective for new users to grasp it without investing multiple seasons in the process before they can actually understand the game.

You haven't seen a new user complain about things like that because new users don't complain; they just leave. The internet became short-attention-span-theatre a long time ago, and users who actually follow through and purchase their first D3 season need to either be 1. Spoon-fed directions from the getgo (much like P2P iOS app games), 2. Given a simpler user experience at the beginner level (like in Gridiron Dynasty), or both.