Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by calman877 on 1/30/2018 10:30:00 AM (view original):
In a H vs VH battle with differing prestiges there can be four different outcomes: higher prestige is VH and wins, higher prestige is VH and loses, higher prestige is H and wins, higher prestige is H and loses. The case you're talking about here is where the higher prestige is H and wins. I looked through the top 100 right now in Wooden and even though it's a small dataset I think it shows that you're looking at this incorrectly. Out of 14 instances, the case you're talking about happened one time, where the higher prestige team won the recruit while only being at high. It's actually more likely that allowing H to beat VH is helping lower prestige teams beat out higher prestige teams, as shown by the five times the H team won despite being lower prestige. Granted, this is a tiny dataset and I don't know the exact percentages of each battle, but I think it's possible that H beating VH helps lower prestige teams rather than hurting them.
higher prestige is VH and wins: 2
higher prestige is VH and loses: 5
higher prestige is H and wins: 1
higher prestige is H and loses: 6

	Higher Prestige
Winner		VH	H	Total
	VH	2	5	7
	H	6	1	7
	Total	8	6	14

H wins too often. that's my point and you just showed it.

That's a different argument then, I could agree with that.

This analysis doesn’t mean much, because you have no idea how much effort either team put in, and you don’t see the final odds, unless you were in on the battle. Prioritization matters. The higher prestige team may have only done 5 visits, and made no promises. The lower prestige team may have 12 visits and promised a start. Unless you know how much effort the teams put in, and know the final odds with the RNG roll, you can’t make an intelligent claim about what “should have” happened.

You're right that it's missing lots of important information, but that's information that you'll literally never have unless you're in those battles yourself as you mentioned. This sample is too small to be statistically significant, but if you got a big enough sample (50-100), I think you could make an intelligent claim about the odds that high beats very high. From that, you could draw your own conclusions on if it's too often or not.

High beats very high roughly in line with the posted odds. 40 beats 60 ~40% of the time. The only people with access to that data would be developers/admin. If it varies significantly from that probability line, it’s broken. But that wouldn’t be a gameplay issue,that would be a coding problem, or a glitchy random number generator. That was something they said they’d be watching coming out of beta, and I have no reason to believe anything is actually broken.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 11:24:00 AM (view original):
“But why not dim luck a bit... I feel there is too much involved now compared to the last system.”

We basically choose how much “luck” we want to rely on. If you’re going after only high value, high volatility commodities, you are necessarily relying on some “luck” (its probability, but I’m not going to beat that dead horse again). You’ll have to win battles for most of those players, and you’ll have to plan for them to possibly leave early. If your team is only those players, you will likely be playing with 8 or 9 players a lot of years. But it wasn’t luck - it was the strategy you chose.

When you blow $100 on slots at the casino, your bad day wasn’t “luck”. It was a choice. You could have played blackjack or poker, if you wanted more strategy.

it's false. You can't avoid battles in D1... you can't avoid to run out of resources to recruit in D1, you can't avoid to drop battles. You can't avoid EES being volatile. So it's luck. You can choose to target players that won't become EES. Ok. You can botch your practice numbers to avoid players to become EES, ok. But as for recruiting, if you are in the Southeast or the Northeast, it's battle everywhere. So you get a strategy out, you play your cards right but you will end up getting rolls... It's inevitable. Can we drop the luck factor in those and validate efforts instead?

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 11:24:00 AM (view original):
“But why not dim luck a bit... I feel there is too much involved now compared to the last system.”

We basically choose how much “luck” we want to rely on. If you’re going after only high value, high volatility commodities, you are necessarily relying on some “luck” (its probability, but I’m not going to beat that dead horse again). You’ll have to win battles for most of those players, and you’ll have to plan for them to possibly leave early. If your team is only those players, you will likely be playing with 8 or 9 players a lot of years. But it wasn’t luck - it was the strategy you chose.

When you blow $100 on slots at the casino, your bad day wasn’t “luck”. It was a choice. You could have played blackjack or poker, if you wanted more strategy.

it's false. You can't avoid battles in D1... you can't avoid to run out of resources to recruit in D1, you can't avoid to drop battles. You can't avoid EES being volatile. So it's luck. You can choose to target players that won't become EES. Ok. You can botch your practice numbers to avoid players to become EES, ok. But as for recruiting, if you are in the Southeast or the Northeast, it's battle everywhere. So you get a strategy out, you play your cards right but you will end up getting rolls... It's inevitable. Can we drop the luck factor in those and validate efforts instead?

It is validating your effort. You put yourself in position, through strategy and effort, to get the best clas you can for your team. If you have to battle to get certain commodities, then you plan for contingencies, should those battles not work out for you. Or you don’t, you gamble, and you try again next year if you lose.

If youre asking to lessen the risk for the team-building strategy you’d like to use, while retaining the reward, the answer is no. We can’t do that.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 1/30/2018 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

I was against posting the numeric results when it first started, and I'm still against it. I'm not sure how much good it does even for the "more information!" crowd.

I thought it was a dumb move as well. No clue why they did it.

Of ALL the things that they could have done post launch of 3.0, that is what they did? Could have fixed Champs page or considering list but chose to do that. Wow.

Hey, look, we agree on something.

All four of us agree, which means there must be a superblue blood moon coming up, or something.

Now where’s mully to tell us all to go f ourselves?

Go F yourselves!
%s are good for everyone except the millennials that cant stand to lose anything they thought they were entitled to!!!

Happy?

Posted by mullycj on 1/30/2018 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 1/30/2018 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 1/30/2018 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Right now, the range to compete for a recruit is about 2 full prestige grades. If preferences, effort, promises are all equal, a team ~2 full prestige grades down is on the cusp of being in signing range.

If the argument is to narrow that range, the answer is no. I’ll never support that. That would make the game less competitive. Bad idea.

If the argument is to mask the underlying considering odds by making everyone in signing range appear as VH, whatever. I don’t care. Go for it. I doubt people would actually feel less offended by losing, especially if you continue to show the odds, but try it if you want, as long as the window stays roughly the same.

If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.

Or we could just remove the final post-battle signing odds so people quit getting so upset about battles they “should have won”.

I was against posting the numeric results when it first started, and I'm still against it. I'm not sure how much good it does even for the "more information!" crowd.

I thought it was a dumb move as well. No clue why they did it.

Of ALL the things that they could have done post launch of 3.0, that is what they did? Could have fixed Champs page or considering list but chose to do that. Wow.

Hey, look, we agree on something.

All four of us agree, which means there must be a superblue blood moon coming up, or something.

Now where’s mully to tell us all to go f ourselves?

Go F yourselves!
%s are good for everyone except the millennials that cant stand to lose anything they thought they were entitled to!!!

Happy?

Very. :)

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm fine with the VH vs H distinction. It gives you a better idea of where you stand.

The change should be that in a 2 team battle, there shouldn't be a 75 vs 25% chance. It would be better if it were capped at 40%.

Agree completely with this -- the longshot win is the major problem right now. I would add that to help lower prestige teams in that circumstance, they should give certain preferences more power -- i.e., if the player "wants rebuild," A prestige teams should have next to no shot; if the guy "wants to play" and you're not offering a start, you should lose.

john makes sense

Posted by johnsensing on 1/30/2018 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm fine with the VH vs H distinction. It gives you a better idea of where you stand.

The change should be that in a 2 team battle, there shouldn't be a 75 vs 25% chance. It would be better if it were capped at 40%.

Agree completely with this -- the longshot win is the major problem right now. I would add that to help lower prestige teams in that circumstance, they should give certain preferences more power -- i.e., if the player "wants rebuild," A prestige teams should have next to no shot; if the guy "wants to play" and you're not offering a start, you should lose.

As I said above - “If the argument is to keep the window roughly where it’s at, but eliminate the leading credit bump that currently gives the effort credit leader an extra advantage in the final odds, I’m cool with that, too. Eliminate that bump, and you basically have what Benis is calling for, a team that’s 60-40 down in effort credit is on the low end of signing range - but instead of final odds appearing as 75-25, as they would now, they would actually be 60-40. But we should keep in mind, that will mean more upsets, not fewer.”

Fine with me, as long as the range of teams that can compete for a recruit stays about where it is. Functionally narrow that range, and I’m not on board.

Posted by johnsensing on 1/30/2018 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm fine with the VH vs H distinction. It gives you a better idea of where you stand.

The change should be that in a 2 team battle, there shouldn't be a 75 vs 25% chance. It would be better if it were capped at 40%.

Agree completely with this -- the longshot win is the major problem right now. I would add that to help lower prestige teams in that circumstance, they should give certain preferences more power -- i.e., if the player "wants rebuild," A prestige teams should have next to no shot; if the guy "wants to play" and you're not offering a start, you should lose.

THIS has been my favorite suggested change to recruiting for a while - prioritizing preferences.

I'm not interested in the "remove H vs. VH battles" discussion though. I'd understand the concern if all of a sudden a ton of B6 teams were pulling up lame and there was a run of lucky lower D1 teams winning NTs that resulted from a bunch of RNG decisions, but that's not the case. I'd be interested to see someone argue this point that doesn't stand to benefit from it, but just thinks it makes logical sense.

Posted by mbriese on 1/30/2018 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 1/30/2018 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm fine with the VH vs H distinction. It gives you a better idea of where you stand.

The change should be that in a 2 team battle, there shouldn't be a 75 vs 25% chance. It would be better if it were capped at 40%.

Agree completely with this -- the longshot win is the major problem right now. I would add that to help lower prestige teams in that circumstance, they should give certain preferences more power -- i.e., if the player "wants rebuild," A prestige teams should have next to no shot; if the guy "wants to play" and you're not offering a start, you should lose.

THIS has been my favorite suggested change to recruiting for a while - prioritizing preferences.

I'm not interested in the "remove H vs. VH battles" discussion though. I'd understand the concern if all of a sudden a ton of B6 teams were pulling up lame and there was a run of lucky lower D1 teams winning NTs that resulted from a bunch of RNG decisions, but that's not the case. I'd be interested to see someone argue this point that doesn't stand to benefit from it, but just thinks it makes logical sense.

Your point about preferences makes a lot of sense. Right now you could take over a **** D prestige team at D1 but only show up as Neutral for Wants Success.

Also mentioned before is the impact of promises and consequences of not meeting them.

Posted by mbriese on 1/30/2018 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 1/30/2018 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm fine with the VH vs H distinction. It gives you a better idea of where you stand.

The change should be that in a 2 team battle, there shouldn't be a 75 vs 25% chance. It would be better if it were capped at 40%.

Agree completely with this -- the longshot win is the major problem right now. I would add that to help lower prestige teams in that circumstance, they should give certain preferences more power -- i.e., if the player "wants rebuild," A prestige teams should have next to no shot; if the guy "wants to play" and you're not offering a start, you should lose.

THIS has been my favorite suggested change to recruiting for a while - prioritizing preferences.

I'm not interested in the "remove H vs. VH battles" discussion though. I'd understand the concern if all of a sudden a ton of B6 teams were pulling up lame and there was a run of lucky lower D1 teams winning NTs that resulted from a bunch of RNG decisions, but that's not the case. I'd be interested to see someone argue this point that doesn't stand to benefit from it, but just thinks it makes logical sense.

Anyone who comments on this topic has "skin in the game". Otherwise, you wouldn't bother.

Mike... of course

Mike = Master of the Obvious

mbriese apparently didn't see the obvious.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 1/30/2018 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 1/30/2018 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm fine with the VH vs H distinction. It gives you a better idea of where you stand.

The change should be that in a 2 team battle, there shouldn't be a 75 vs 25% chance. It would be better if it were capped at 40%.

Agree completely with this -- the longshot win is the major problem right now. I would add that to help lower prestige teams in that circumstance, they should give certain preferences more power -- i.e., if the player "wants rebuild," A prestige teams should have next to no shot; if the guy "wants to play" and you're not offering a start, you should lose.

THIS has been my favorite suggested change to recruiting for a while - prioritizing preferences.

I'm not interested in the "remove H vs. VH battles" discussion though. I'd understand the concern if all of a sudden a ton of B6 teams were pulling up lame and there was a run of lucky lower D1 teams winning NTs that resulted from a bunch of RNG decisions, but that's not the case. I'd be interested to see someone argue this point that doesn't stand to benefit from it, but just thinks it makes logical sense.

Anyone who comments on this topic has "skin in the game". Otherwise, you wouldn't bother.

I didn't say "skin in the game", I said they stand to benefit from it. People that have B6 teams that are tired of losing occasional VH vs. H battles are saying it's time to get rid of VH vs. H battles. I would be interested in seeing someone who coaches non-B6 teams share this opinion based on the merit of its logic. Use context clues, Mike.