Just thinking out loud here ...

Continuing the scenario above, but shifting the factors to 1/4 and 1/8 instead of 1/2 and 1/4.

Battle starts at the minimum to get into very high before the scale slides, and that minimum is 1000. All 4 guys start out in very high and they all put in 1000 effort. There is 4000 total and everyone has a 25% chance.

one guy bumps effort to 2000. 90% to get into Very high (so someone else bumps to 1800), 75% is high (so another guy bumps to 1500), 50% is medium (aso the 4th guy stands at 1000) .. so we would have (the the 2000 effort):

2000+1800+1500(1/4)+1000(1/8) = 4300 effort now.

46.5%, 41.9%, 8.7%, 2.9%

Someone goes the 1800 guy moves up to 4000 .. everyone else stays where they are. That means we have 4000, 2000, 1500, and 1000 effort. the 2000 effort is medium (it is 50%), the 1500 effort falls to low, and the 1000 falls to very low .. they no longer are involved in the calculation .. only the medium and very high guy. So:

4000+2000(1/4) = 4500 total
88.9%, 11.1%

4000+2000(1/8)

ok, did my own math. If a team is alone at the minimum for Very High, which we are calling 5000.

9 other teams come in at the minimum for Moderate, which is 2500 points, but they only get 25% credit for Moderate level points. So that's

5000 + 9(625) = 10625

5000/10625 = 47%
625 /10625 = 5.88% each.

Now, you don't know when a kid's "signing trigger" will go off, meaning you don't want to offer scholarships to your backups in case you fill your roster without getting your primary target.

The players can make a decision at any time in the signing period, so you may want to hold off offering scholarships to backup options.

So you have to wait on your backups, while you might be only 47% on your primary or whatever. You lose the coin flip, but in the meantime your backup decided it was signing time, and another school on his list did offer a scholarship, so he is gone too. You spent on the backup to be in position if you needed him, of course, but that effort is now wasted just like other effort is now...

Yeah, it'll be a good idea to have backup options in place.

Unless someone else jumps on your backup options, too, and of course if this is early recruiting and you are an A+, you are going to do this and not know how many openings you will end up with, what positions you need to focus on, how much budget you will ultimately have, etc.

Also, 47% is less than half. Back of the envelope probability has me guesstimate that if you were in a situation like this one with 3 recruits you could still have a 1 in 8 shot of signing none of them...is that correct?

Posted by guyo26 on 3/5/2016 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 3/5/2016 9:46:00 AM (view original):

Simple example, but it sounds like there's going to be more variables that I see as multipliers to cash. I think we all understand cash, WOTS, and what multipliers are in effect today, but it sounds to me like those are changing in this, and changing in a way that spending 1000 vs 980 (strictly budget) isn't as clear as leading

But why is that better? Especially since these other preferences things will be hidden? If we don't know that a kid really wants to start vs wanting high prestige, then who benefits from the random event is random and unknown. If we do know, then the higher prestige team offers the start if need be, but probably they can just spend a tiny bit more budget instead and overcome that minor advantage, and if its a known desire, they will know to spend more to compensate...and since prestige and distance are the same, it won't cost very much to gain the equivalent of one of these preferences, I wouldn't think...

That's the thing, and I could be totally wrong here, what's important and what really shifts signing chances is changing I think. Clearly prestige, and possibly distance (although he seems wishy washy in some ways about distance) still are at play, but I think other things are as well, and they might be as important/more important.

I could be reading way too much into it, but that's how I see it in my head. Of course it all still comes down to math (stupid math), but I think we're all going to have to learn a whole new set of formulas and metrics and such.

You know how there's the stuff in the help about ... what was it ... psychological traits? I see it as things like that being added (back) in

ok, and not to beat a dead horse, but how does any of that improve the game? I agree it changes it, but why?

other than the not having to do all recruiting in 2 days thing I have yet to see anything about how any of this concretely improves the game. maybe some of it will; it seems just as likely to backfire, and no one is sure. I expect most of the stuff we are discussing will remain veiled so we will have to compare notes and whatnot until we determine the new system, then everyone will have the new values and things will be the same, except for all the forced randomness...

yeah, didn't say improve, but it's a change lol.

I posted in the other thread, what we think is important clearly isn't the same as what they think is important. He has a vision for the game, and in his mind/world, this is the first thing to change to get there.

If it sucks we'll leave.

Posted by dacj501 on 3/5/2016 9:41:00 AM (view original):
That is very interesting in many ways. I have doubts that is what the system is currently designed like, but I suppose it's possible.

I like just about all of the aspects of that as regards most of my concerns - the one new concern it raises is that in this case recruiting becomes even more of a "math-game" since once we determine the built-in ratios as long as we can see all of the schools interested (we can see up to 10) and we know what level each is, math geeks ought to be able to determine a table like yours and see how to manipulate the categories.

Also, since prestige and distance are the same, more or less, the A+ team at close range will still need to spend a lot less of his overall budget to get to the VH category, and can probably relatively easily price everyone else out of VH with this method - I don't know if that's a net gain or loss, and I still don't know if any of these changes ultimately really change anything, other than the volatility of where they might sign.

Good discussion though, and the game designer in me digs the logic of it...I still don't know if I prefer it over most effort wins, in a vaccuum...

What is the math like with 1 elite VH and 9 also-rans at Moderate?

That math would not be too good for the VH .. BUT, he can drive up the minimal required amount to be Medium by putting in effort. not everyone would want to keep going up to have a medium.

That 4000 guy in the other example goes to 6000 effort ... and 9 guys get to medium .. at 3000 effort:

6000 + 9(3000)/8 = 9375 total effort

64% for 1 VH, each of the other 9 would have 4% chance.

I would not want to be Medium as a course of strategy .. I would want to be on of 2 or 3 at VH (where it is close to 50//50 or 33/33/33).

And obviously the math can be adjusted to make Medium lower or higher based on desired outcome.

But the point is, if you FORCE people to pay for the best talent, they can still get the best 1 or 2 guys . but not the best 4 or 5 guys every cycle.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/4/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I think the jumping of cliffs holding flaming pitchforks needs to slow its roll.

Agreed. There are those who post who like to make a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions based on a final product that hasn't been released and which they have not seen. Here's one example of a myth derived from yesterday's chat that is completely unsubstantiated and has many up in arms:

"Player information and potential that currently is revealed by number with color-coded potential will become more vague letter grades. This is a change to reveal less information."¹

For anyone who got this as a take away from yesterday's chat please provide an accurate source. If we go back and look at what seble stated in his initial roll out of proposed scouting changes he said:

- Various levels of information revealed to a team for each player based on scouting progress:?

Level 1 –Three letter graded ratings (A to F)

• Offense – aggregate of Low Post, Perimeter, FT shooting, Ball Handling, and Passing.
• Defense – aggregate of Rebounding, Defense, and Shot Blocking.
• Physical – aggregate of Athleticism, Speed, Stamina, and Durability.

Level 2 – Basic letter grade for each current rating from A to F
Level 3 – More specific letter grade for current ratings (++, +, nothing, - , --) and low/medium/high for potential, indication of highest IQ for offense and defense (e.g. Motion/Press are his best systems)
Level 4 – Exact number for current ratings and very low/low/medium/high/very high for potential, letter grade for best offense/defense IQ

Camps ... Two types of camps:

• A handful of pre-set regional camps located around the country.

All players in camp become visible with Level 1 information.

• Hold camp at your school.

Level 2 information revealed = Level 2 – Basic letter grade for each current rating from A to F


So yesterday someone asked:

With the private camps and discovering talent... Will it be 100% random? Or will I bring in like 50 recruits who are my prestige level and 50 random recruits (good or bad)?

seble answered:

It's random based on geography. For public camps, you'll see an overall grade to give you an idea of the talent level.

Someone then followed with:

With a camp, we are going to uncover letter grades for players instead of starting ratings. Certain categories can be linear between D1 and D3; an elite shooter is an elite shooter. But I consider a mediocre D1 athletic guard to have ATH/SP ratings of, say, 70-75, or a C letter grade. If a D3 guard gets a C letter grade in ATH/SP, are his starting ratings also 70-75 or are they scaled back for D3, so maybe 45-50? (darnoc29099 - Hall of Famer - 11:55 AM)

seble then answered:

Letter grades are on the same scale for all divisions, so a C for a DIII player is the same as a C for a DI player.


So in the end all of these questions and answers were specifically related to "Camps". Nowhere is there a discussion from seble as to a change from his original proposal or to some imagined elimination of the highly specific and accurate number grading that currently exists.


¹ sorry dac didn't pick your quote to single you out, this has been mentioned a few times and yours was just the first one I found.

but even if the design uses this floating threshold system of yours, its also way too possible to get 0 of the best guys, especially if those guys sign before EEs and you dont even know you need one.

Posted by possumfiend on 3/5/2016 10:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/4/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I think the jumping of cliffs holding flaming pitchforks needs to slow its roll.

Agreed. There are those who post who like to make a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions based on a final product that hasn't been released and which they have not seen. Here's one example of a myth derived from yesterday's chat that is completely unsubstantiated and has many up in arms:

"Player information and potential that currently is revealed by number with color-coded potential will become more vague letter grades. This is a change to reveal less information."¹

For anyone who got this as a take away from yesterday's chat please provide an accurate source. If we go back and look at what seble stated in his initial roll out of proposed scouting changes he said:

- Various levels of information revealed to a team for each player based on scouting progress:?

Level 1 –Three letter graded ratings (A to F)

• Offense – aggregate of Low Post, Perimeter, FT shooting, Ball Handling, and Passing.
• Defense – aggregate of Rebounding, Defense, and Shot Blocking.
• Physical – aggregate of Athleticism, Speed, Stamina, and Durability.

Level 2 – Basic letter grade for each current rating from A to F
Level 3 – More specific letter grade for current ratings (++, +, nothing, - , --) and low/medium/high for potential, indication of highest IQ for offense and defense (e.g. Motion/Press are his best systems)
Level 4 – Exact number for current ratings and very low/low/medium/high/very high for potential, letter grade for best offense/defense IQ

Camps ... Two types of camps:

• A handful of pre-set regional camps located around the country.

All players in camp become visible with Level 1 information.

• Hold camp at your school.

Level 2 information revealed = Level 2 – Basic letter grade for each current rating from A to F


So yesterday someone asked:

With the private camps and discovering talent... Will it be 100% random? Or will I bring in like 50 recruits who are my prestige level and 50 random recruits (good or bad)?

seble answered:

It's random based on geography. For public camps, you'll see an overall grade to give you an idea of the talent level.

Someone then followed with:

With a camp, we are going to uncover letter grades for players instead of starting ratings. Certain categories can be linear between D1 and D3; an elite shooter is an elite shooter. But I consider a mediocre D1 athletic guard to have ATH/SP ratings of, say, 70-75, or a C letter grade. If a D3 guard gets a C letter grade in ATH/SP, are his starting ratings also 70-75 or are they scaled back for D3, so maybe 45-50? (darnoc29099 - Hall of Famer - 11:55 AM)

seble then answered:

Letter grades are on the same scale for all divisions, so a C for a DIII player is the same as a C for a DI player.


So in the end all of these questions and answers were specifically related to "Camps". Nowhere is there a discussion from seble as to a change from his original proposal or to some imagined elimination of the highly specific and accurate number grading that currently exists.


¹ sorry dac didn't pick your quote to single you out, this has been mentioned a few times and yours was just the first one I found.

Right .. it is just a slight obfuscation of the numbers while recruiting. Then you can do things to unobfuscate (ie, firm up) the numbers (visits, etc.)

The most "valuable" guys are now going to be highest rated with a tendency to sign early I think.

Waiting out a 5 star that won't sign until the very end is going to be very hard to do. Especially if, and I think this is true, you won't get additional budget for EE's.

The first reference is to seble's original posting in the Changes to Scouting thread ... the two questions are from the developers chat from yesterday ...

Posted by hughesjr on 3/5/2016 10:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 3/5/2016 10:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/4/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I think the jumping of cliffs holding flaming pitchforks needs to slow its roll.

Agreed. There are those who post who like to make a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions based on a final product that hasn't been released and which they have not seen. Here's one example of a myth derived from yesterday's chat that is completely unsubstantiated and has many up in arms:

"Player information and potential that currently is revealed by number with color-coded potential will become more vague letter grades. This is a change to reveal less information."¹

For anyone who got this as a take away from yesterday's chat please provide an accurate source. If we go back and look at what seble stated in his initial roll out of proposed scouting changes he said:

- Various levels of information revealed to a team for each player based on scouting progress:?

Level 1 –Three letter graded ratings (A to F)

• Offense – aggregate of Low Post, Perimeter, FT shooting, Ball Handling, and Passing.
• Defense – aggregate of Rebounding, Defense, and Shot Blocking.
• Physical – aggregate of Athleticism, Speed, Stamina, and Durability.

Level 2 – Basic letter grade for each current rating from A to F
Level 3 – More specific letter grade for current ratings (++, +, nothing, - , --) and low/medium/high for potential, indication of highest IQ for offense and defense (e.g. Motion/Press are his best systems)
Level 4 – Exact number for current ratings and very low/low/medium/high/very high for potential, letter grade for best offense/defense IQ

Camps ... Two types of camps:

• A handful of pre-set regional camps located around the country.

All players in camp become visible with Level 1 information.

• Hold camp at your school.

Level 2 information revealed = Level 2 – Basic letter grade for each current rating from A to F


So yesterday someone asked:

With the private camps and discovering talent... Will it be 100% random? Or will I bring in like 50 recruits who are my prestige level and 50 random recruits (good or bad)?

seble answered:

It's random based on geography. For public camps, you'll see an overall grade to give you an idea of the talent level.

Someone then followed with:

With a camp, we are going to uncover letter grades for players instead of starting ratings. Certain categories can be linear between D1 and D3; an elite shooter is an elite shooter. But I consider a mediocre D1 athletic guard to have ATH/SP ratings of, say, 70-75, or a C letter grade. If a D3 guard gets a C letter grade in ATH/SP, are his starting ratings also 70-75 or are they scaled back for D3, so maybe 45-50? (darnoc29099 - Hall of Famer - 11:55 AM)

seble then answered:

Letter grades are on the same scale for all divisions, so a C for a DIII player is the same as a C for a DI player.


So in the end all of these questions and answers were specifically related to "Camps". Nowhere is there a discussion from seble as to a change from his original proposal or to some imagined elimination of the highly specific and accurate number grading that currently exists.


¹ sorry dac didn't pick your quote to single you out, this has been mentioned a few times and yours was just the first one I found.

Right .. it is just a slight obfuscation of the numbers while recruiting. Then you can do things to unobfuscate (ie, firm up) the numbers (visits, etc.)

I misinterpreted the response in the dev chat perhaps. Unless I am mistaken on my other points as well however I will stand by my original conclusion regardless of this error.

Posted by guyo26 on 3/5/2016 10:19:00 AM (view original):
The most "valuable" guys are now going to be highest rated with a tendency to sign early I think.

Waiting out a 5 star that won't sign until the very end is going to be very hard to do. Especially if, and I think this is true, you won't get additional budget for EE's.

but we will not know this tendency, right? or is that learnable? I spent all damn night pouring over the chat to figure this **** out - and I should have looked at the original post too I guess - so do I have any idea what the hell I am talking about or not anymore?

I don't even know dac :/ If it's unlearnable that really sucks. But if it's learnable, then it can be planned around. Both ways, for you and for the people that see you on his list. Meaning people can pick off your backups while you wait for him to S or get off the pot

As for me, my primary concern is the "unknown" factor! As of this morning I play in all Worlds which has moments of stress when I am recruiting in multiple Worlds....the new system would be far worse for me. So for me, I am dropping back to just my favorite Worlds/teams till everything shakes out.

I am not jumping off a cliff (yet), but I really hope the "Beta" test is long enough to give us all an idea of what we are signing up for. Playing for years I have only started reaching the Big Six level over the past six months. I really hate to think my hobby will come to a roaring stop, but concern is causing me to scale back my inverstment until I am more sure of a future.

My concern is tempered by the thought that at least selbe is trying something, anything to spark the product. Yes, I am in the group that feels recruiting was of lesser importance in the list of improvements. But to remain constant, without change, is to wither and die. Let's all step back off the cliff and actually wait for the changes before we convince ourselves they will not work.

I'm looking forward to the Beta test.

I am not looking forward to a five-week closure of HD to implement what comes out of the Beta test, but it could be very worth it. Eliminating the 2am and 5am recruiting cycles alone will be a big victory for the coaching community.

If they are going to close the gym for that long, I hope they make some other significant changes at the same time too, so we only have to do this once.