Posted by joeykw18 on 7/1/2017 8:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/1/2017 8:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 7/1/2017 8:09:00 PM (view original):
lets round up and assume 50% on each. So, the chance of losing all three was about 12.5% - maybe more like 15% given the actual percentages. Thats a pain.

One lesson is that one needs to find a guy or two where there wont be a battle at all - or accept multiple walkons, etc

Yes. And his odds of winning all 3 were somewhere around 9-10%. People do sometimes win 3 3-way battles in a row. And we don't hear about it when they do.

Strategy is more important in this environment. Strategy doesn't stop at the decision of a single recruit, strategy involves how many players you go after, how hard, how you prioritize, how high you reach... it goes on. And you can't just effect the outcome you want, you have to play in relation to the strategies everyone else is using.

3 way battles are killers and I 99% avoid them as my recruiting strategy is very conservative, however in 2 of these cases UNC and Illinois jumped in at the starting of the signing period. Coincidentally the recruit signed with both of those schools.

Yea I just lost my top recruiting target in a 3way when UConn got in on the last day and won when they were only High and had an 18% chance. Definitely frustrating but it is what it is. I'd be in favor of having only VH teams be in the running though.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/1/2017 8:09:00 PM (view original):
Old Man Yells At Cloud

LMFAO

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 7/1/2017 9:36:00 PM (view original):
How much AP did you have on them? Using a large amount of AP on the recruits not only increases your odds but often eliminates one or more coaches from challenging for the recruit leaving you in more 1:1 matchups for the player.

The old strategy in 2.0 was to put in just enough to win and you were guaranteed the recruit at 50.0001%. If you try that in 3.0 you get three way battles all the time. At least that is what I have experienced.

I'm aware of how 3.0 works, just saying it's a crap system. Only 'Very High' should be included in the dice roll.

To answer your question on AP that I gave each recruit:

The Mercer signee got 754 AP or an average of 50 per cycle.
The UNC signee got 728 AP or an average of 58
And finally the worst of them all the recruit Illinois signed 1,251 AP or a whopping average of 74 per cycle (the first cycle is the only one I didn't max at 80).

All 3 got 20 HVs and the campus visit, so yes I am bitter about all of it as a whole. I always try to minimize or eliminate the chance involved and try to push all other schools to 'moderate' in a conservative approach.

Just feel this game would be greatly improved if only the 'Very Highs' were included in the dice roll. Even if all of the 'very high' school had an equal chance regardless of effort might be a better system if you still wanted some randomness.

Mercer coach here. This was the only battle I won (went 1 for 4 this season). And I feel kind of sh!tty about it.

Fwiw, I was all in on that guy (CV, start, 20 HVs, 25 minutes promised). Also had > 1200 APs. Despite a 500 AP advantage I still couldn't overcome the A- to A+ prestige advantage (preferences were about the same, I believe) and you still had a significantly higher chance of signing the kid than me. I'm saying all of this because for those that think 50 AP = 1 HV this should be a convincing enough case that those numbers aren't even close.

The only purpose of the considering list is to tell you if you're in signing range - if you have amassed enough effort credit relative to the credit other teams have for the recruit to consider signing with you. The odds you see after the fact are stretched to favor the leader, so the discrepancy of effort credit is a bit closer than the odds show. If you're thinking that the considering list is showing you who he favors, or where he's leaning, you're using it for something it's not designed to do. There is no more word on the street explicitly telling you where you stand. You don't know where you stand until the recruit chooses. Its best to think of the considering list, and the post-battle odds, as objective 3rd party observers making estimations.

When people talk about limiting the "roll" to very high, I think what they really mean is further constricting the signing range. Right now, the threshold is something around 60%. If you get to roughly 60% of the effort credit that the leader has, you'll be a low "high" on the considering list, and you'll have a shot (the final signing odds will be around or below 20%). The range right now is about 2 full letter grades of prestige. That is to say, if a C+ team puts in exactly the same amount of effort as an A+ team, they'll be right on the cusp of signing range. Depending on preference matches and AP usage, they might be barely hanging on, or just out of range. That feels about right to me. Any more narrow, and I think you're constricting competitiveness too much. C+ to A+ is roughly the difference between the elite in a conference, and a toward-the-bottom rebuild in that same conference. I think it's good for the game if teams in the same conference are generally in the ballpark for any given recruit.

But if the problem you're having really isn't with range, but just in how the considering list is configured, the problem with just calling everyone in signing range "very high" is that now you'd have no idea where you stand. Your final odds could be at 20, or they could be at 80. Most players would rather have that little bit of a signpost. Get to high, you have a shot. Get to very high, you have a better shot. Get everyone else out of range, and he's yours. I honestly don't really care much how the considering list is configured - I'll adapt either way - as long as the range stays where it is.

WIS could eliminate some of the frustration by NOT posting the percentages. Having a 75% VH losing to a 25% H is causing the frustration because you see how big of a % lead you had. If a VH loses to a H and there were not percentages, that would at least damper some of the outrage seen in the forums.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/1/2017 11:31:00 PM (view original):
WIS could eliminate some of the frustration by NOT posting the percentages. Having a 75% VH losing to a 25% H is causing the frustration because you see how big of a % lead you had. If a VH loses to a H and there were not percentages, that would at least damper some of the outrage seen in the forums.

I agree, I think that was a mistake. But a lot of people wanted to see them, and here we are.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/1/2017 11:31:00 PM (view original):
WIS could eliminate some of the frustration by NOT posting the percentages. Having a 75% VH losing to a 25% H is causing the frustration because you see how big of a % lead you had. If a VH loses to a H and there were not percentages, that would at least damper some of the outrage seen in the forums.

No...it would only create clueless outrage because you have no idea how Duke ever lost to a Mercer

Posted by mullycj on 7/2/2017 7:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/1/2017 11:31:00 PM (view original):
WIS could eliminate some of the frustration by NOT posting the percentages. Having a 75% VH losing to a 25% H is causing the frustration because you see how big of a % lead you had. If a VH loses to a H and there were not percentages, that would at least damper some of the outrage seen in the forums.

No...it would only create clueless outrage because you have no idea how Duke ever lost to a Mercer

Fwiw, Mercer's prestige is A- to Duke's A+.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/1/2017 11:31:00 PM (view original):
WIS could eliminate some of the frustration by NOT posting the percentages. Having a 75% VH losing to a 25% H is causing the frustration because you see how big of a % lead you had. If a VH loses to a H and there were not percentages, that would at least damper some of the outrage seen in the forums.

I said that right after it was implemented. Out of all the things they could have worked on to improve the game they chose that. No idea..

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/1/2017 11:31:00 PM (view original):
WIS could eliminate some of the frustration by NOT posting the percentages. Having a 75% VH losing to a 25% H is causing the frustration because you see how big of a % lead you had. If a VH loses to a H and there were not percentages, that would at least damper some of the outrage seen in the forums.

I actually like it because it helps to understand the game. I view HD as a strategy game and with the preferences/prestige there are enough variables to not fully understand how it works.

I think it's worth a shot for WIS to limit recruits to only signing with schools that are listed as 'Very High'. This will eliminate some of the luck and add to the skill of recruiting while at the same time still retaining some of that luck. I'd even think it would be ok if all 'Very High' schools had an equal chance at signing the recruit regardless of effort.

I don't understand. This thread wouldn't exist if you hadn't lost those battles. Oh wait, no, I understand.

While we're at it, why can't we make baseline prestige for the MAC in Knight A+? It'd make my recruiting experience easier, too.

Posted by Benis on 7/2/2017 11:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/1/2017 11:31:00 PM (view original):
WIS could eliminate some of the frustration by NOT posting the percentages. Having a 75% VH losing to a 25% H is causing the frustration because you see how big of a % lead you had. If a VH loses to a H and there were not percentages, that would at least damper some of the outrage seen in the forums.

I said that right after it was implemented. Out of all the things they could have worked on to improve the game they chose that. No idea..

As did I but, if not this, those prone to complain would complain about something else.

Posted by mbriese on 7/2/2017 12:58:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand. This thread wouldn't exist if you hadn't lost those battles. Oh wait, no, I understand.

While we're at it, why can't we make baseline prestige for the MAC in Knight A+? It'd make my recruiting experience easier, too.

I have long felt this way. It has nothing to do with making it easier, it has to do with adding more strategy to the game and reducing the amount of luck.

In fact I have had far more on-the-court success with the 3.0 recruiting vs 2.0, but 2.0 was a lot more fun.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/1/2017 11:31:00 PM (view original):
WIS could eliminate some of the frustration by NOT posting the percentages. Having a 75% VH losing to a 25% H is causing the frustration because you see how big of a % lead you had. If a VH loses to a H and there were not percentages, that would at least damper some of the outrage seen in the forums.

I agree with this - I'd rather not know. You'd still have the issue with a high beating a very high though.