Just wondering what the value of a ST is in comparison to CV's and HV's. I know some believe a HV has a 2:1 value against a CV, but where would ST's factor in to this? Would it be like 1/2 a HV?

I think it is something like that. I sometimes get recruits to consider me with two st before signing but never one.

i've signed a guy here and there with just a st and a scholly

So if it is half of HV, seems like you could send ST's instead of HV's.

IMO its less than half and HVs are the better value. YMMV.

I think it's less than half but around a half.

I believe it's much closer to 3:1  ST:HV.

Well ok. I thought I was on to something. It would be crazy if effort that couldn't be denied was 2:1 ST:HV though.

Posted by rednation58 on 3/19/2013 11:00:00 AM (view original):
Well ok. I thought I was on to something. It would be crazy if effort that couldn't be denied was 2:1 ST:HV though.

its well worth it to understand the value of every tool, they just changed internationals where letters were by a factor of 2 the best tool, and nobody used them. unfortunately, SVs are not the tool to use in any situation, by raw effort, but it is worth knowing how close it is, because you get info with it, and that IS worth something. i often (not as often as i should, but sometimes) send a few SVs to guys i plan to sign regardless, so i know how good they really are, so i am better equipped to plan out the rest of recruiting (how hard will i fight to defend my guys, do i poach or defend against getting poached, etc, etc)

the value of a SV is between 2.5:1 and 3:1 HVs

dang ... how did i miss that... no wonder some of these coaches had all international teams.

Posted by rednation58 on 3/19/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
dang ... how did i miss that... no wonder some of these coaches had all international teams.

i took a poll and 1 out of 50 respondents said they used letters - and the coach wasnt aware the advantage was nearly what it was. so im not sure it was as wide spread as one might think. i thought it would be - it used to be common knowledge that letters and calls were THE tool to use at distance, but then old admin made it so you couldnt send unlimited calls/letters anymore, but internationals never got changed. i guess most people just never tried to see if ALL players had been changed, or just most of them. actually, the calls/letters got major publicity (if you can call it that) when pulldowns were removed from the game - but it came out you could still use calls/letters to pull players down quite easily. it was discussed reasonably extensively at the time, how calls/letters had always been useful in pulldowns and recruiting at distance - over 1400 miles or whatever, they have always (at least 5 years) been the tool of choice. 

anyway, just goes to show, its always worth double checking what CS tells you. once you check enough of it, you realize that 80% of it is not completely right (usually there is a nugget of truth, hidden somewhere within), and the other 20%, is just plain misleading. 

Honestly if you can't go to the game admin for a straight up truthful answer, what can you do... Guess whoever figures out whatever first gets a leg up on the comp.

i guess in all fairness, a LOT more valuable info comes out of CS tickets than it used to. but there is definitely some degree of misinformation, but just like with the first admin, i think too often the admins answer questions with a specific audience in mind, with a certain degree of simplification for that audience, and without the customer base knowing the context, its very easy for mis communications to occur. even many of the CS posts i claim are inaccurate, are really more of  over simplifications, or misunderstanding the question/context - resulting in something that is basically incorrect, for more advanced players at least, but has a degree of truth behind it. 

so basically i just feel that anything from CS has to be read very carefully and assessed for applicability. i also think HD users can make the mistake of taking something too far, or a response to a simple ticket gets applied in a very different context, which just compounds the issues. its really easy when admin is quickly answering 1 person and then his statement gets quoted around and people pick it up, and the whole context and audience perspective is totally lost. so i dont really think its so much of anyone actively giving bad info or intentionally passing it around in improper contexts, its just really easy to happen especially when people aren't watching out for it.