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.

This is very well thought out and actually made me look at it in a different light. Especially the part where you lay out how the indicators are showing how much each program likes the recruit rather than the recruit likes us...Very interesting take indeed!! Nice job!!!

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.

I see your point and do think that the team disparity plays a part in discouraging new users, but when I recollect how bad I was when I started (Seasons 8-15 in Smith, 2 winning seasons, one PIT berth) I don't know that it is that much harder. There are also significantly fewer users now than there were 10, 30, 50, 80 seasons ago in world time, so it is easier in some regards to get better talent as a new user. The same problem applies in that if you don't know the recruiting tricks, don't have the time to sit on the site every recruiting cycle, and don't read the forums or ask for help, you are just going to get owned. I stopped playing for nearly 30 seasons because of that (despite active conference chat and human player interaction), it was just too much money to play and get killed without getting better.

But the next time I came back I read the forums first, asked for help, and shared notes with other users and within a season I could pull down recruits, not waste money, learn better strategies and then I started winning a lot. It is a lot easier to stay invested when you A) have reason to keep playing and are getting something in return, and B) when you feel a sense of community. More than anything else I think a declining community is more to blame than any one individual factor. WIS keeps milking those of us who stick around and there just isn't enough new blood, and it has been that way for years. D3 had a waitlist when I first started, 30 seasons later it was half to two-thirds full. It's been in decline longer than just v. 3.0. All the forums are mostly dead, this one is barely on life support compared to what it used to be, and there are not a lot of avenues to get social interaction in this game anymore unless you know what to look for in a conference, which most new players probably do not. It's not much fun to spend 10 bucks and sit in an empty conference full of Commissioner notes getting your butt kicked.

Anyways, rant over. Recruiting is an issue (considering list is horrible and I have lost so many recruits to that glitch), but I personally feel it's far from the biggest problem.

**Edit Note: Have only ever played D2/D3**

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.

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'd like to thank OP for posting this topic and getting people talking again.

Man it was boring around here. People only posting about what was going on with their team, asking for help with their lineup, tips about what offense and defense to run, etc etc

BORINGGGG

Posted by Benis on 4/23/2018 8:23:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to thank OP for posting this topic and getting people talking again.

Man it was boring around here. People only posting about what was going on with their team, asking for help with their lineup, tips about what offense and defense to run, etc etc

BORINGGGG

Agreed. Hopefully the talking comes to something, anything.

Posted by pallas on 4/23/2018 8:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 4/23/2018 8:23:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to thank OP for posting this topic and getting people talking again.

Man it was boring around here. People only posting about what was going on with their team, asking for help with their lineup, tips about what offense and defense to run, etc etc

BORINGGGG

Agreed. Hopefully the talking comes to something, anything.

Well... I wouldn't go THAT far.

Posted by Benis on 4/23/2018 8:23:00 PM (view original):
I'd like to thank OP for posting this topic and getting people talking again.

Man it was boring around here. People only posting about what was going on with their team, asking for help with their lineup, tips about what offense and defense to run, etc etc

BORINGGGG

Agreed!

Great conversation guys even if we don’t all agree with each other, it has been great dialogue...

“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.

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 correct, I'm incorrect. This was a change made shortly after seble "left".

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=496587&threadID=11087913#l_11087913

Main point stands that this was always a bad idea.

Posted by kcsundevil on 4/23/2018 10:04:00 PM (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 correct, I'm incorrect. This was a change made shortly after seble "left".

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=496587&threadID=11087913#l_11087913

Main point stands that this was always a bad idea.

I don't disagree with this. It would sting a lot less if I didn't know I was 76% chance to win, whatever that means.

But then you know we'd have people complaining about the lack of transparency and being left "in the dark."

I disagree with all of your assessments that not seeing the odds would have been better. At least in the current state, people see the odds and know the system is flawed. Without seeing the odds, people are going to say WTF happened? I put X resources into player and there is no way he could have beat me. That would just be more frustrating, because you're now frustrated in the dark.

Also, 3.0 killed DIII and DII is a shell of what it was. Yes you can get better players, but ultimately there is less competition so the really good programs are piling up recruits now that there is less competition. Everyone else might be getting better recruits, but a handful of them, while the top team is getting a roster full of significantly better recruits making it that much harder to compete with them.

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.)

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.

Posted by mbriese on 4/23/2018 2:19:00 PM (view original):

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.

Wowwwww. All that sturm und drang and yet you didn't point to a single impediment in the game to intelligent recruiting. Thank you for your support of the point I made.

As to your issues related to the game, yes, an intelligent recruiter could theoretically lose out on every target for a season. For example, he may only have one or two openings and backup-option-players would not improve his roster, so he might shoot for the moon on one or two guys. He may also welcome one or two walk-ons, knowing how to handle that the following season. So yes, missing out on a player doesn't rule out intelligent recruiting.

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 kevbo65 on 4/23/2018 7:37:00 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.

This is very well thought out and actually made me look at it in a different light. Especially the part where you lay out how the indicators are showing how much each program likes the recruit rather than the recruit likes us...Very interesting take indeed!! Nice job!!!

It is refreshing to see two guys actually thinking around here. Good for you both.