Posted by bagger288 on 9/27/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone done any research on what the preference advantage or disadvantages were in these battles. I've been quietly monitoring these threads and its something that never is mentioned. I've only bowed out of and lost 1 battle in the last 4-5 seasons and the main thing I look to achieve is obvious preferences advantages on recruits i am willing and able to go all in on.

From what I've read and I could be wrong but the battle %'s are just the effort put in, so a 55 to 45 battle just means team 2 put in 45% of the effort credit in the battle. Which I do know that preferences effect the weight of the effort. However my question is, do preference effect the final battle decision? Say if a team has 3VH and a H and is sitting at 40% and the other team is 2VH and 2H does the team with 40% beat the 60% due to the better preferences?

My only backing is I won a battle where I was down 5% to an A- school when I was C+ and I made sure if I was battling I was superior on preferences. I had wants to play, near home, and offense on my side. 3 Very highs to an unknown amount with him, I am certain he was not in the same boat for Near home or the offense preference.

TLDR : Does preferences effect the final decision regardless of the battle percents?

TLDR: No.

Posted by mbriese on 9/27/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):
I don't like the idea of getting rid of "High" as an option - I like seeing where I stand in a battle. However, I don't think it's a terrible idea to make it necessary to be in the "Very High" range to actually get a chance to win. It won't stop people like zorzii from complaining though; the world is out to get them!

I am not complaining on odds so near but come on , a guy barely hangin' in the discussion wins at 15%?

Posted by bagger288 on 9/27/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone done any research on what the preference advantage or disadvantages were in these battles. I've been quietly monitoring these threads and its something that never is mentioned. I've only bowed out of and lost 1 battle in the last 4-5 seasons and the main thing I look to achieve is obvious preferences advantages on recruits i am willing and able to go all in on.

From what I've read and I could be wrong but the battle %'s are just the effort put in, so a 55 to 45 battle just means team 2 put in 45% of the effort credit in the battle. Which I do know that preferences effect the weight of the effort. However my question is, do preference effect the final battle decision? Say if a team has 3VH and a H and is sitting at 40% and the other team is 2VH and 2H does the team with 40% beat the 60% due to the better preferences?

My only backing is I won a battle where I was down 5% to an A- school when I was C+ and I made sure if I was battling I was superior on preferences. I had wants to play, near home, and offense on my side. 3 Very highs to an unknown amount with him, I am certain he was not in the same boat for Near home or the offense preference.

TLDR : Does preferences effect the final decision regardless of the battle percents?

Dang! If it's that way...

I would be OK if they removed the percentages only if they made it so recruits only signed with schools that were VH. That way you have no clue if you were trailing or leading and the recruit just decided one way or another (can't feel that you got totally screwed in that case). I think the only reason they added the percentages was for coaches to get a feel for how much effort was needed to get to the various levels but if they just stated something like "80% of the leading school" is the range for VH, I wouldn't know anything unless I compared effort with the other coach (and that's assuming we could even figure out what impact preferences were).

Posted by Benis on 9/27/2017 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bagger288 on 9/27/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone done any research on what the preference advantage or disadvantages were in these battles. I've been quietly monitoring these threads and its something that never is mentioned. I've only bowed out of and lost 1 battle in the last 4-5 seasons and the main thing I look to achieve is obvious preferences advantages on recruits i am willing and able to go all in on.

From what I've read and I could be wrong but the battle %'s are just the effort put in, so a 55 to 45 battle just means team 2 put in 45% of the effort credit in the battle. Which I do know that preferences effect the weight of the effort. However my question is, do preference effect the final battle decision? Say if a team has 3VH and a H and is sitting at 40% and the other team is 2VH and 2H does the team with 40% beat the 60% due to the better preferences?

My only backing is I won a battle where I was down 5% to an A- school when I was C+ and I made sure if I was battling I was superior on preferences. I had wants to play, near home, and offense on my side. 3 Very highs to an unknown amount with him, I am certain he was not in the same boat for Near home or the offense preference.

TLDR : Does preferences effect the final decision regardless of the battle percents?

TLDR: No.

I see what you wrote but do you have backing to support your response? I have seen no proof either way

Posted by johnsensing on 9/27/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
"The only thing that should definitely change is removing the percentages after the fact. At this point, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how the system works, and how to put yourself in the best position to compete for recruits. Showing the percentages only serves to sow resentment. "

Yeah...because I don't want to have any idea if my recruiting strategy is the correct one or if I'm getting screwed <sarc> . That idea accomplishes nothing and hinders players ability to learn from each battle.

I suppose you also think its a good idea to not show a post game box score either because players would get upset about "how" they lost.

I just don't think it's a good idea to go back to where "correct strategy" means don't battle anyone who has more scholarships, or better prestige. The parameters are about 2 full grade levels right now, that's where it should stay.

I am not arguing that.

I am arguing your statement in two separate threads that hiding the final signing %s will somehow keep people from getting upset about losing battles.

Recruiting is probabilistic now. It's not deterministic. So being in the mindset of "I was ahead, I got screwed" is not the proper mindset. That's playing the game that used to exist. There's no "ahead" or behind. There is in signing range, and not in signing range. Like real life, the kid will consider you, or he won't. But you can't effect the result you want. The ultimate decision, past trying to put yourself in the best position for the most number of the best recruits, is not within your control.

So publishing the odds (which, as you know, have already been stretched to favor the leader, which was the right call to address this concern in the first place) is not accomplishing anything for you, except further conditioning you to harbor mistaken perceptions about the game.

I think this argument is based solely on semantics. "I was ahead, I got screwed," and "I had a 73% chance of winning and lost, I got screwed" are pretty much the same thing. I don't really understand why taking that post-battle informational point away helps the game -- why is less information better than more?

I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to go back to a deterministic model (to use your term) -- the people that felt that way quit a year ago. I don't see complaining about a 55/45 battle loss. Instead, I think there's a lot of frustration about "outlier" recruiting results that really puts a bad taste in people's mouths. No one's explained to me why it's a good idea to infuriate the user base, or why it's a bad idea to up the threshold to where you have a chance to win to 40% or so.

We went over this in conference chat a while back, if I recall. I think the issue most at play here is that those odds are stretched to already favor the leader. So those 75-25 battles involve teams that are, in reality, a lot closer in terms of effort credit than the odds show. 75-25 odds indicate something probably close to a 61-39 battle in terms of effort credit, which is, if I'm understanding you, about where you'd want the parameters set anyway. In that case, maybe what you really want is to stop stretching the odds. But we need to understand that doing that will result in more upsets, not fewer. A team that barely makes the cusp to get in signing range at ~60% of the effort credit leader - or 37 in a 63-37 battle - currently only has ~20% chance of getting the recruit. Unstretching the odds boosts his chances to ~37%.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/27/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
"The only thing that should definitely change is removing the percentages after the fact. At this point, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how the system works, and how to put yourself in the best position to compete for recruits. Showing the percentages only serves to sow resentment. "

Yeah...because I don't want to have any idea if my recruiting strategy is the correct one or if I'm getting screwed <sarc> . That idea accomplishes nothing and hinders players ability to learn from each battle.

I suppose you also think its a good idea to not show a post game box score either because players would get upset about "how" they lost.

I just don't think it's a good idea to go back to where "correct strategy" means don't battle anyone who has more scholarships, or better prestige. The parameters are about 2 full grade levels right now, that's where it should stay.

I am not arguing that.

I am arguing your statement in two separate threads that hiding the final signing %s will somehow keep people from getting upset about losing battles.

Recruiting is probabilistic now. It's not deterministic. So being in the mindset of "I was ahead, I got screwed" is not the proper mindset. That's playing the game that used to exist. There's no "ahead" or behind. There is in signing range, and not in signing range. Like real life, the kid will consider you, or he won't. But you can't effect the result you want. The ultimate decision, past trying to put yourself in the best position for the most number of the best recruits, is not within your control.

So publishing the odds (which, as you know, have already been stretched to favor the leader, which was the right call to address this concern in the first place) is not accomplishing anything for you, except further conditioning you to harbor mistaken perceptions about the game.

I think this argument is based solely on semantics. "I was ahead, I got screwed," and "I had a 73% chance of winning and lost, I got screwed" are pretty much the same thing. I don't really understand why taking that post-battle informational point away helps the game -- why is less information better than more?

I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to go back to a deterministic model (to use your term) -- the people that felt that way quit a year ago. I don't see complaining about a 55/45 battle loss. Instead, I think there's a lot of frustration about "outlier" recruiting results that really puts a bad taste in people's mouths. No one's explained to me why it's a good idea to infuriate the user base, or why it's a bad idea to up the threshold to where you have a chance to win to 40% or so.

We went over this in conference chat a while back, if I recall. I think the issue most at play here is that those odds are stretched to already favor the leader. So those 75-25 battles involve teams that are, in reality, a lot closer in terms of effort credit than the odds show. 75-25 odds indicate something probably close to a 61-39 battle in terms of effort credit, which is, if I'm understanding you, about where you'd want the parameters set anyway. In that case, maybe what you really want is to stop stretching the odds. But we need to understand that doing that will result in more upsets, not fewer. A team that barely makes the cusp to get in signing range at ~60% of the effort credit leader - or 37 in a 63-37 battle - currently only has ~20% chance of getting the recruit. Unstretching the odds boosts his chances to ~37%.

This is why I asked my question because the % that it shows at the end of battles is effort credit not the actual battle odds. Where I may have been down 45-55 in effort credit I actually was ahead in odds due to having amazing preferences?

Posted by bagger288 on 9/27/2017 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 9/27/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/27/2017 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/27/2017 1:03:00 PM (view original):
"The only thing that should definitely change is removing the percentages after the fact. At this point, I think we all have a pretty good idea of how the system works, and how to put yourself in the best position to compete for recruits. Showing the percentages only serves to sow resentment. "

Yeah...because I don't want to have any idea if my recruiting strategy is the correct one or if I'm getting screwed <sarc> . That idea accomplishes nothing and hinders players ability to learn from each battle.

I suppose you also think its a good idea to not show a post game box score either because players would get upset about "how" they lost.

I just don't think it's a good idea to go back to where "correct strategy" means don't battle anyone who has more scholarships, or better prestige. The parameters are about 2 full grade levels right now, that's where it should stay.

I am not arguing that.

I am arguing your statement in two separate threads that hiding the final signing %s will somehow keep people from getting upset about losing battles.

Recruiting is probabilistic now. It's not deterministic. So being in the mindset of "I was ahead, I got screwed" is not the proper mindset. That's playing the game that used to exist. There's no "ahead" or behind. There is in signing range, and not in signing range. Like real life, the kid will consider you, or he won't. But you can't effect the result you want. The ultimate decision, past trying to put yourself in the best position for the most number of the best recruits, is not within your control.

So publishing the odds (which, as you know, have already been stretched to favor the leader, which was the right call to address this concern in the first place) is not accomplishing anything for you, except further conditioning you to harbor mistaken perceptions about the game.

I think this argument is based solely on semantics. "I was ahead, I got screwed," and "I had a 73% chance of winning and lost, I got screwed" are pretty much the same thing. I don't really understand why taking that post-battle informational point away helps the game -- why is less information better than more?

I don't think anyone is arguing that we need to go back to a deterministic model (to use your term) -- the people that felt that way quit a year ago. I don't see complaining about a 55/45 battle loss. Instead, I think there's a lot of frustration about "outlier" recruiting results that really puts a bad taste in people's mouths. No one's explained to me why it's a good idea to infuriate the user base, or why it's a bad idea to up the threshold to where you have a chance to win to 40% or so.

We went over this in conference chat a while back, if I recall. I think the issue most at play here is that those odds are stretched to already favor the leader. So those 75-25 battles involve teams that are, in reality, a lot closer in terms of effort credit than the odds show. 75-25 odds indicate something probably close to a 61-39 battle in terms of effort credit, which is, if I'm understanding you, about where you'd want the parameters set anyway. In that case, maybe what you really want is to stop stretching the odds. But we need to understand that doing that will result in more upsets, not fewer. A team that barely makes the cusp to get in signing range at ~60% of the effort credit leader - or 37 in a 63-37 battle - currently only has ~20% chance of getting the recruit. Unstretching the odds boosts his chances to ~37%.

This is why I asked my question because the % that it shows at the end of battles is effort credit not the actual battle odds. Where I may have been down 45-55 in effort credit I actually was ahead in odds due to having amazing preferences?

No, that isn't how it works. The preferences are figured in to the effort credit - better preference matches mean you get more credit. The odds are then stretched to favor the leader. You can't be losing in effort credit and end up with better odds.

I've been reading a lot of these off and on with a friend. Wondering if we need a warning email sent to people saying "Warning. There is a team ahead of you for this recruit. Proceed with caution and consider other options. If you continue on this course of action you are responsible for the results good or bad".

Posted by Rishado on 9/27/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):
I've been reading a lot of these off and on with a friend. Wondering if we need a warning email sent to people saying "Warning. There is a team ahead of you for this recruit. Proceed with caution and consider other options. If you continue on this course of action you are responsible for the results good or bad".

You're joking, but that is similar to what used to happen in 2.0. You'd get emails if you fell behind/went ahead on a recruit.

Posted by Rishado on 9/27/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):
I've been reading a lot of these off and on with a friend. Wondering if we need a warning email sent to people saying "Warning. There is a team ahead of you for this recruit. Proceed with caution and consider other options. If you continue on this course of action you are responsible for the results good or bad".

Yes, and if you lose the battle then in the follow-up email with a link to the forums, encouraging you to complain about dice rolls and reminisce on 2.0.

zorzi doesn't understand percentages. 15% means, if everything averages out, they win 15 out of 100.

Posted by bagger288 on 9/27/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/27/2017 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bagger288 on 9/27/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone done any research on what the preference advantage or disadvantages were in these battles. I've been quietly monitoring these threads and its something that never is mentioned. I've only bowed out of and lost 1 battle in the last 4-5 seasons and the main thing I look to achieve is obvious preferences advantages on recruits i am willing and able to go all in on.

From what I've read and I could be wrong but the battle %'s are just the effort put in, so a 55 to 45 battle just means team 2 put in 45% of the effort credit in the battle. Which I do know that preferences effect the weight of the effort. However my question is, do preference effect the final battle decision? Say if a team has 3VH and a H and is sitting at 40% and the other team is 2VH and 2H does the team with 40% beat the 60% due to the better preferences?

My only backing is I won a battle where I was down 5% to an A- school when I was C+ and I made sure if I was battling I was superior on preferences. I had wants to play, near home, and offense on my side. 3 Very highs to an unknown amount with him, I am certain he was not in the same boat for Near home or the offense preference.

TLDR : Does preferences effect the final decision regardless of the battle percents?

TLDR: No.

I see what you wrote but do you have backing to support your response? I have seen no proof either way

They're the final signing odds, not effort. It accounts for everything.

I know because Seble explained how it worked in Beta and gave us some analysis of battles that occurred.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/27/2017 5:30:00 PM (view original):
zorzi doesn't understand percentages. 15% means, if everything averages out, they win 15 out of 100.

zorzi doesn't understand that if he had given the guy just a little bit more of a push, the guy would have fallen out of consideration. There is a world of difference between 15% and 0%.

Posted by Benis on 9/27/2017 6:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bagger288 on 9/27/2017 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 9/27/2017 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bagger288 on 9/27/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone done any research on what the preference advantage or disadvantages were in these battles. I've been quietly monitoring these threads and its something that never is mentioned. I've only bowed out of and lost 1 battle in the last 4-5 seasons and the main thing I look to achieve is obvious preferences advantages on recruits i am willing and able to go all in on.

From what I've read and I could be wrong but the battle %'s are just the effort put in, so a 55 to 45 battle just means team 2 put in 45% of the effort credit in the battle. Which I do know that preferences effect the weight of the effort. However my question is, do preference effect the final battle decision? Say if a team has 3VH and a H and is sitting at 40% and the other team is 2VH and 2H does the team with 40% beat the 60% due to the better preferences?

My only backing is I won a battle where I was down 5% to an A- school when I was C+ and I made sure if I was battling I was superior on preferences. I had wants to play, near home, and offense on my side. 3 Very highs to an unknown amount with him, I am certain he was not in the same boat for Near home or the offense preference.

TLDR : Does preferences effect the final decision regardless of the battle percents?

TLDR: No.

I see what you wrote but do you have backing to support your response? I have seen no proof either way

They're the final signing odds, not effort. It accounts for everything.

I know because Seble explained how it worked in Beta and gave us some analysis of battles that occurred.

I can verify this