This is a good update, but EE improvements are likely most important for retaining veteran users and should be a high priority. Many are ready to leave specifically because of that flaw. But yes, this is a very good idea to be able to look at this info after the fact.

Posted by bbunch on 12/22/2016 12:31:00 PM (view original):
This is a good update, but EE improvements are likely most important for retaining veteran users and should be a high priority. Many are ready to leave specifically because of that flaw. But yes, this is a very good idea to be able to look at this info after the fact.

Yeah, and it's even with only one EE... Allow resources for EE, first cycle. We want to keep the veterans. They challenge all of us.

Posted by mbriese on 12/22/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/22/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
I was helping someone recruit and under my watch he lost a battle to a team that was High. There were THREE Very Highs in the battle too. I would love to see the odds on that one. But honestly I don't really know how it would help. That team would be listed at like 8% and people would be even more upset. Or not. I don't know.

As time goes on we're all going to have those happen, though. It'll actually give me more peace of mind for to know that I lost a battle to a team that had an 8% chance over a 30% or 40% chance because it's guaranteed to happen at some point to everyone. With probability being such a large part of recruiting, the law of averages is bound to catch up with everyone eventually.

Perhaps but I look at it like when something weird happens in the game sim. Like a guy with a 1 PER who hasn't made a 3 all season makes the game winning 3 pointer at the buzzer.

Or when I lose because my 85% FT shooter misses 2 FTs that could have tied the game.

Stuff like that. It makes it almost even worse to know the probabilities because they're staring you in the face.

Not for nothing, but if someone can (and is willing to invest the time to) reverse engineer a formula with 8-11 variables that all have unknown weight and range I think they are probably going to win regardless.....

I am pretty good at math, statistics, and probability and that is pretty far beyond what I can do. I have a feel for relative value but nothing more than that.

Posted by mbriese on 12/22/2016 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/22/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 12/22/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
"Card-counting" is a really fun term for probabilistic variables, but inaccurate in this case (kind of like "coin flip"). This will give everyone who battles a better idea of the value of their recruiting efforts, as well as how prestige and preferences affect your odds. It's only card-counting if all things always remain the same - you'll never know exactly what your odds are to sign a player beforehand regardless of how much data you put together. Here are two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Team A has A+ prestige, Team B has C+ prestige. Team A gives 20 HVs, a CV, and 15 APs per cycle. Team B gives 20 HVs, a CV, and 30 APs per cycle as well as a promised start and minutes (in this particular scenario, the player prefers to play early). In the end Team A [hypothetically] has a 42% chance to sign the player, Team B has a 58% chance (everyone else is Moderate, or low, but also completely fictional).

Scenario 2: Exact same scenario as the first, only Team B doesn't promise the start until the 2nd to last cycle before the recruit is signed. To my understanding, a promised start operates as a kind of multiplier to APs, so with the exact same effort Team A could [hypothetically] have a 51% chance of signing, with Team B having a 49% chance.

Now imagine much more complicated scenarios where more than two teams are involved. There's too much you won't know before the recruit signs to "count cards". Get more creative with your complaining, or just be honest and say "I don't like 3.0 as much as 2.0, and I'm trying to find new ways to express that".

I respect you, but you rather clearly don't understand how card counting works, so I stopped reading after the first sentence.

Believe it or not, I do! It's much simpler than what I do every day at my job, where I analyze complex data sets all day. My first sentence was just pointing out that he was using the term "card counting" to describe something that is in no way card counting. But hey, thanks for respecting me!

Your pugnaciousness only makes me respect you more.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 12/22/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Not for nothing, but if someone can (and is willing to invest the time to) reverse engineer a formula with 8-11 variables that all have unknown weight and range I think they are probably going to win regardless.....

I am pretty good at math, statistics, and probability and that is pretty far beyond what I can do. I have a feel for relative value but nothing more than that.

We'll see.

I had to google "pugnacious". I don't think I'm very argumentative at all in most threads, but when someone says "I respect you, but" and then says something very disrespectful, it's like saying "no offense, but" and saying something that's clearly meant to be offensive. The points I made in that post were valid, and there's nothing you (as a 2.0 naysayer) can contribute but "heh, dude prolly can't even count cards, TL;DR".

Posted by Trentonjoe on 12/22/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Not for nothing, but if someone can (and is willing to invest the time to) reverse engineer a formula with 8-11 variables that all have unknown weight and range I think they are probably going to win regardless.....

I am pretty good at math, statistics, and probability and that is pretty far beyond what I can do. I have a feel for relative value but nothing more than that.

Someone will be willing to invest the time. Guaranteed.

Posted by mbriese on 12/22/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I had to google "pugnacious". I don't think I'm very argumentative at all in most threads, but when someone says "I respect you, but" and then says something very disrespectful, it's like saying "no offense, but" and saying something that's clearly meant to be offensive. The points I made in that post were valid, and there's nothing you (as a 2.0 naysayer) can contribute but "heh, dude prolly can't even count cards, TL;DR".

With all due respect.........

Posted by mbriese on 12/22/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I had to google "pugnacious". I don't think I'm very argumentative at all in most threads, but when someone says "I respect you, but" and then says something very disrespectful, it's like saying "no offense, but" and saying something that's clearly meant to be offensive. The points I made in that post were valid, and there's nothing you (as a 2.0 naysayer) can contribute but "heh, dude prolly can't even count cards, TL;DR".

Now you're just making up an imaginary tone to my posts. You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch.

Why would you be offended? I'm wrong about things about a hundred times a day. That's 100 opportunities to learn new things.

I think card counting misses the point because it relates to dependent events - where the cards that have been used have an effect on the cards that will be played in the near future

Here, the events - the results of probabilistic recruiting of different players - are independent (except to the extent that two recruits in the same world compete for resources and attention.

But, there is some potential for someone who is told the odds to figure out more about prestige, effort and preferences interact. Whether knowing the algebra in greater detail will have a meaningful competitive effect is hard for me to assess. I've often thought that some folks care more than I do about some data - like exactly how much growth potential a player has. It matters, but whether it is - say - plus 22 or plus 24 rarely would affect my behavior

the planned data seems to me mostly to play a valuable educational tool - helping folks see the contours of battles

Posted by fd343ny on 12/22/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):
I think card counting misses the point because it relates to dependent events - where the cards that have been used have an effect on the cards that will be played in the near future

Here, the events - the results of probabilistic recruiting of different players - are independent (except to the extent that two recruits in the same world compete for resources and attention.

But, there is some potential for someone who is told the odds to figure out more about prestige, effort and preferences interact. Whether knowing the algebra in greater detail will have a meaningful competitive effect is hard for me to assess. I've often thought that some folks care more than I do about some data - like exactly how much growth potential a player has. It matters, but whether it is - say - plus 22 or plus 24 rarely would affect my behavior

the planned data seems to me mostly to play a valuable educational tool - helping folks see the contours of battles

Sigh.

I'm not going to fall into an off-topic argument / ******* contest with you. Your response was rude, dismissive, woefully inaccurate, and didn't address the point at all. I'll admit, it's nice to see something different from the usual "I'm playing out my free seasons, I don't care, I must post that I don't care, do you guys realize how much I don't care yet?" posts, but you can still do better.

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/22/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/22/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):
I think card counting misses the point because it relates to dependent events - where the cards that have been used have an effect on the cards that will be played in the near future

Here, the events - the results of probabilistic recruiting of different players - are independent (except to the extent that two recruits in the same world compete for resources and attention.

But, there is some potential for someone who is told the odds to figure out more about prestige, effort and preferences interact. Whether knowing the algebra in greater detail will have a meaningful competitive effect is hard for me to assess. I've often thought that some folks care more than I do about some data - like exactly how much growth potential a player has. It matters, but whether it is - say - plus 22 or plus 24 rarely would affect my behavior

the planned data seems to me mostly to play a valuable educational tool - helping folks see the contours of battles

Sigh.

sorry

I think its a good thing for the game

Posted by mbriese on 12/22/2016 1:19:00 PM (view original):
I'm not going to fall into an off-topic argument / ******* contest with you. Your response was rude, dismissive, woefully inaccurate, and didn't address the point at all. I'll admit, it's nice to see something different from the usual "I'm playing out my free seasons, I don't care, I must post that I don't care, do you guys realize how much I don't care yet?" posts, but you can still do better.

You'd be surprised, I really can't do better.