Also, as her high to high is a range- the bottom of very high and the top of high are. It neccesarily that far apart.

Posted by crzyballplay on 10/1/2016 8:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 9:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/30/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 8:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/30/2016 7:46:00 PM (view original):
It is NOT a coin flip .. I wish you guys would stop saying that.

A coin flip is 50% / 50% with nothing modifying the possibility.

The person with the most effort gets the highest shot of getting a recruit .. other people who are Very High also have a good chance. People with High have a lower chance. If it boils down to 60% for Team A and 30 % for Team B and 10% for Team C .. based on effort, that is not a freaking coin flip. Any more than a 95 PER / 95 SPD / 95 BH guy might have a 70% chance of hitting a 3 pt shoot while a Center with 3 PER might have a 5% chance is a coin flip. Sometimes the Center hits a 3 point shot ... sometimes the 10% team wins. But most of the time they don't.

We get it .. some of you don't like that. Some of us do. Because, probability works and I like probability. That is why I play the game in the first place.

According to the Dev Chat ... 3% of battle signings went to High teams ... that means 97% when to Very High teams. How the ^&^&% is that a coin flip?

The 3% stat was an eye-roller for me.

There are two possibilities there:
1) The 3% number is not accurate.
2) The 3% number is accurate, in which case it's such a remote possibility for a high to win that they shouldn't even be bothering allowing it. It'll always feel like a bug.

Anecdotally from other worlds and glancing through Tarks top 100 signings it is more like 50/50 or 60/40.....definitely not 97/3.

Lower prestige does mean high instead of very high. What they said was a very high team signed 97 and high signed 3.

Right. In a given sample of 100 signings, 3 recruits signed with a high when there was a very high battling. 97 recruits signed with very high, or did not have a very high in the mix. Perhaps only 15 of those signings resulted from a battle featuring a high taking a recruit from one or more very highs.

I just lost in Tark as Very high to High you can add that to the totals.
B+ Very HIgh Iowa
vs
A+ High Kansas


i also won in the beta as HIgh vs Very high about the same scenario i dont have any numbers to back it up but id say based on experience its higher than 3 out of 100 chance..

One thing to keep in mind is whether the other team made it to 'Very High' or not as well on the turn in question. I am not saying that is what happened in this or other cases .. but if someone dumps in a bunch of effort during a cycle, when that effort gets processed it could move them up.

I am unsure how that would look in the interface to the other team. Does a signed recruit show other team's level of interest after signing?

Posted by hughesjr on 10/1/2016 8:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by crzyballplay on 10/1/2016 8:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 9:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/30/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 8:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/30/2016 7:46:00 PM (view original):
It is NOT a coin flip .. I wish you guys would stop saying that.

A coin flip is 50% / 50% with nothing modifying the possibility.

The person with the most effort gets the highest shot of getting a recruit .. other people who are Very High also have a good chance. People with High have a lower chance. If it boils down to 60% for Team A and 30 % for Team B and 10% for Team C .. based on effort, that is not a freaking coin flip. Any more than a 95 PER / 95 SPD / 95 BH guy might have a 70% chance of hitting a 3 pt shoot while a Center with 3 PER might have a 5% chance is a coin flip. Sometimes the Center hits a 3 point shot ... sometimes the 10% team wins. But most of the time they don't.

We get it .. some of you don't like that. Some of us do. Because, probability works and I like probability. That is why I play the game in the first place.

According to the Dev Chat ... 3% of battle signings went to High teams ... that means 97% when to Very High teams. How the ^&^&% is that a coin flip?

The 3% stat was an eye-roller for me.

There are two possibilities there:
1) The 3% number is not accurate.
2) The 3% number is accurate, in which case it's such a remote possibility for a high to win that they shouldn't even be bothering allowing it. It'll always feel like a bug.

Anecdotally from other worlds and glancing through Tarks top 100 signings it is more like 50/50 or 60/40.....definitely not 97/3.

Lower prestige does mean high instead of very high. What they said was a very high team signed 97 and high signed 3.

Right. In a given sample of 100 signings, 3 recruits signed with a high when there was a very high battling. 97 recruits signed with very high, or did not have a very high in the mix. Perhaps only 15 of those signings resulted from a battle featuring a high taking a recruit from one or more very highs.

I just lost in Tark as Very high to High you can add that to the totals.
B+ Very HIgh Iowa
vs
A+ High Kansas


i also won in the beta as HIgh vs Very high about the same scenario i dont have any numbers to back it up but id say based on experience its higher than 3 out of 100 chance..

One thing to keep in mind is whether the other team made it to 'Very High' or not as well on the turn in question. I am not saying that is what happened in this or other cases .. but if someone dumps in a bunch of effort during a cycle, when that effort gets processed it could move them up.

I am unsure how that would look in the interface to the other team. Does a signed recruit show other team's level of interest after signing?

Yeah it does.

BTW, I was helping someone with recruiting in Knight and he won a battle as a High vs VH. There were actually 2 Highs vs 1 VH.

I find this 3% Highs winning vs VH a little suspect.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/30/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Two D1 teams ... one grade apart in prestige ... "We both maxed out CV/HVs -- I spent 784 APs, vandydave spent 1200" so a 53% advantage to vandydave. You didn't say who was putting effort in earlier (it matters). From this, where is the problem that vandydave got the recruit? Was a one grade difference in prestige that significant in HD2.0 that you would expect it to overcome such a recruiting advantage to the other team?

+1 to possumfiend's post.

The issue is that attention points on appearance are a glorified simplistic version of 2.0 phone calls. And now they are the single biggest factor in signing a recruit as compared to other factors which most coaches would agree should be much more significant. Factors other than the coin flip of course.

This is 2.0 thinking, though. In reality, attention points are very significant. Because everyone will have the ability to (and we should assume they will) max out on visits for elite recruits, it makes sense that (along with preferences) probabilities in these battles are going to be predominantly impacted by attention points; they are the prime way of establishing how high of a priority this recruit is for you.

So we are back to 1.0 logic where a 6-0-6-0 scholar stagger is required to compete?

Posted by lakevin on 10/1/2016 8:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 9/30/2016 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/30/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Two D1 teams ... one grade apart in prestige ... "We both maxed out CV/HVs -- I spent 784 APs, vandydave spent 1200" so a 53% advantage to vandydave. You didn't say who was putting effort in earlier (it matters). From this, where is the problem that vandydave got the recruit? Was a one grade difference in prestige that significant in HD2.0 that you would expect it to overcome such a recruiting advantage to the other team?

+1 to possumfiend's post.

The issue is that attention points on appearance are a glorified simplistic version of 2.0 phone calls. And now they are the single biggest factor in signing a recruit as compared to other factors which most coaches would agree should be much more significant. Factors other than the coin flip of course.

This is 2.0 thinking, though. In reality, attention points are very significant. Because everyone will have the ability to (and we should assume they will) max out on visits for elite recruits, it makes sense that (along with preferences) probabilities in these battles are going to be predominantly impacted by attention points; they are the prime way of establishing how high of a priority this recruit is for you.

So we are back to 1.0 logic where a 6-0-6-0 scholar stagger is required to compete?

That is still very much a 2.0 method as well. Lots of people use the 6-0-6-0 method in 2.0 actually.

Posted by Benis on 10/1/2016 8:37:00 AM (view original):
BTW, I was helping someone with recruiting in Knight and he won a battle as a High vs VH. There were actually 2 Highs vs 1 VH.

I find this 3% Highs winning vs VH a little suspect.

When they battle, it's likely something like 20-30%. What WIS said in dev chat was basically that most signings don't include a battle of a high going up against one or more very highs.

Capping of HVs and CVs plays out worse in practice than it did in theory...who ever thought this was a good idea?

Posted by hughesjr on 10/1/2016 8:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by crzyballplay on 10/1/2016 8:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 9:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/30/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 8:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 9/30/2016 7:46:00 PM (view original):
It is NOT a coin flip .. I wish you guys would stop saying that.

A coin flip is 50% / 50% with nothing modifying the possibility.

The person with the most effort gets the highest shot of getting a recruit .. other people who are Very High also have a good chance. People with High have a lower chance. If it boils down to 60% for Team A and 30 % for Team B and 10% for Team C .. based on effort, that is not a freaking coin flip. Any more than a 95 PER / 95 SPD / 95 BH guy might have a 70% chance of hitting a 3 pt shoot while a Center with 3 PER might have a 5% chance is a coin flip. Sometimes the Center hits a 3 point shot ... sometimes the 10% team wins. But most of the time they don't.

We get it .. some of you don't like that. Some of us do. Because, probability works and I like probability. That is why I play the game in the first place.

According to the Dev Chat ... 3% of battle signings went to High teams ... that means 97% when to Very High teams. How the ^&^&% is that a coin flip?

The 3% stat was an eye-roller for me.

There are two possibilities there:
1) The 3% number is not accurate.
2) The 3% number is accurate, in which case it's such a remote possibility for a high to win that they shouldn't even be bothering allowing it. It'll always feel like a bug.

Anecdotally from other worlds and glancing through Tarks top 100 signings it is more like 50/50 or 60/40.....definitely not 97/3.

Lower prestige does mean high instead of very high. What they said was a very high team signed 97 and high signed 3.

Right. In a given sample of 100 signings, 3 recruits signed with a high when there was a very high battling. 97 recruits signed with very high, or did not have a very high in the mix. Perhaps only 15 of those signings resulted from a battle featuring a high taking a recruit from one or more very highs.

I just lost in Tark as Very high to High you can add that to the totals.
B+ Very HIgh Iowa
vs
A+ High Kansas


i also won in the beta as HIgh vs Very high about the same scenario i dont have any numbers to back it up but id say based on experience its higher than 3 out of 100 chance..

One thing to keep in mind is whether the other team made it to 'Very High' or not as well on the turn in question. I am not saying that is what happened in this or other cases .. but if someone dumps in a bunch of effort during a cycle, when that effort gets processed it could move them up.

I am unsure how that would look in the interface to the other team. Does a signed recruit show other team's level of interest after signing?

ya it still shows very high to high on his signings page..
H. Morey Sf 40th ranked overall

i had max visits and campus visit by 3rd cycle with minutes then 4th i offered start, he came in a few cycles later and never came closer than high