Not that I don't trust the game but.......I DONT TRUST the game. I will post the stats of the DI results.
After only a few cycles in battles between VH and H

106 DI Players as of 5PM 10/15
Very High win vs. moderate/low/none : 76
Very High win vs. another very high : 17
Very High win vs. High : 7
Very High lose vs. High : 6

Its early. But if this trend DOES hold up with a larger sample size...something is fcked up with the move from BETA.
Those are some CRAZY RNG results if it is working as intended........

I will continue to update...

The difference between H and VH is minimal. Seble said he set it up to show you who has been putting more effort in recently so you would be aware if Snipping was going on. He said not to worry and that if you are H/VH, you have a chance to sign the recruit. With 2 teams in, its basically a coin flip, depending on the effort it could be 55% to 45%. People just need to quit looking H/VH as anything but an indicator of who has been putting more effort in recently. I have found it is not reflective of total effort and preferences also affect a recruits decision.

It's really become a key recruiting strategy to keep your rivals at Moderate or worse, if possible.
That's the only guarantee that you'll get your guy.

I think the signing odds (not effort credit discrepancy) can range in 2-way H/VH battles anywhere from ~15% to 40%. Not every battle is equal. And I would expect battles at high D1 especially to trend toward the more narrow range, because you're more likely talking about teams that are closer to even in effort credit (if not prestige).

Posted by kubasnack on 10/14/2016 9:25:00 AM (view original):
The difference between H and VH is minimal. Seble said he set it up to show you who has been putting more effort in recently so you would be aware if Snipping was going on. He said not to worry and that if you are H/VH, you have a chance to sign the recruit. With 2 teams in, its basically a coin flip, depending on the effort it could be 55% to 45%. People just need to quit looking H/VH as anything but an indicator of who has been putting more effort in recently. I have found it is not reflective of total effort and preferences also affect a recruits decision.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. Can you help clarify a few things?

"People just need to quit looking H/VH as anything but an indicator of who has been putting more effort in recently."

Are you sure about this? This doesn't really make sense to me. So you're saying that if I put 20 HVs and 500 APs early in the 1st session, I'd be VH. But then if another team late in the 2nd session put in 10HVs and 200 APs that they'd now be VH and I'd be H because their effort was more recent?

"I have found it is not reflective of total effort "

Can you share some examples of what you've seen and why you don't think it's reflective of total effort?

"preferences also affect a recruits decision."

Preferences impact how much more valuable each recruiting action is but how would it impact the decision? If total effort is equal between two schools but one school has better preferences then it's more likely they will pick that school vs the others despite effort being equal? So preferences are a 'tie breaker' of sorts?

I'm not trying to a jerk, you may be right on a few of these things, this just seems very contradictory to what I've heard from Seble in beta.

"The difference between H and VH is minimal. Seble said he set it up to show you who has been putting more effort in recently..."

+1 that the difference between VH and H can be very small.

However, I don't think recent efforts are weighted for their recency, as you seem to imply. An effort is modified by preferences, division and prestige when it is made, not by recency. That is how "preferences also affect a recruits decision." I have seen no indication nor anyone's suggestion that they are a tie-breaker.

Benis, your not being a jerk.
I don't have access to the postings from the BETA, but on several occasions, I remember reading examples and comments from Seble about the H/VH. I also had 2 separate examples in BETA, one where I was listed VH and lost and one the opposite. They reflected late actions. From what I have understood and seen in my battles, the VH/H adjusts based on recent actions. At the end, the decision came down to total actions. In one of my cases, I maxed out on a recruit with several very good/good preferences. Another team pumped in actions after I was the only VH team. I ended up high because all I could do is apply attention points but in the end one the battle as I expected I would. I asked Seble about it and his response appeared to me to say that the difference between H/VH at the end had to do with recent actions. Maybe that wasn't the case but my experience has been it is. Preferences seem to really make a difference in getting the recruit. I did some experimenting in BETA and recruits regularly chose me with less actions because of preference. I also saw examples in the forum of the opposite, where coaches pumped a lot of money into bad matched recruits and they signed with lesser teams. Maybe the dev team can answer this for sure but my recruiting experience reflects these observations.

Pete

"From what I have understood and seen in my battles, the VH/H adjusts based on recent actions. At the end, the decision came down to total actions. ... Preferences seem to really make a difference in getting the recruit. I did some experimenting in BETA and recruits regularly chose me with less actions because of preference. I also saw examples in the forum of the opposite, where coaches pumped a lot of money into bad matched recruits and they signed with lesser teams."

I agree with all of that. I just don't think there is any weighting of recruiting actions for "recency," as you seem to imply.

I posted this before .. but if the Max Effort of the Leader equates to 1000 Effort Points. The the cutoff for VH iis 40 percent effort .. or (1000/.6)-1000 = 667 effort points. The cut off for High is around 35% effort or 538 points.

This means in real terms that someone who is high is could be only 1 or 2 points below 667 or at worse they are only 129 effort points below getting into the very high category. 129 points is not a lot when you are dealing with 1538 points. What this means is High and Very High are numerically close in effort points.

in the worst case probability, the VH Team would have 64.99% and ONE High team would have 35.01% for getting the player. In the same probability calculation with the lowest points to be considered Very High (667 points), it would be 60% to the leader and 40% to the VH team.

What that means is .. there is not a lot of difference in probability between a High and a Very High.

Just like, the difference between an A- (assume 90% to 93%) and an A (assume 94% to 97%) could be has high as 7 points or as low as 1 point .. Not all Highs or Very Highs are equal.

The only thing a High means in relation to a Very High is .. 2 Very High teams could be as close as 50/50 to as far away as 60/40. If you have one VH and one H .. the odds are 60/40 to 64.99/35.01.

That is ALL High is telling you.

@Benis: I don't think recent or early points matter. I am pretty sure all points are equal. if you put in a corrected 10 points of effort, it is worth 10 points on day 1 or the last day.

But all effort (APs, HV, CV) are corrected by (multiplied by) a factor for 2 things.

One is prestige .. I don't know the exact factor .. but if 100% (an A+) is 1 and 85% (a B) is 0.85, that is one way to do it.

The other factor is a combined factor for Preferences. No idea what percentage this could be.

Once the effort is corrected for both of these factors it is added to the Effort Point pool. But that value does not mean more if it happened earlier or later (from what i read).

Posted by kubasnack on 10/14/2016 9:25:00 AM (view original):
The difference between H and VH is minimal. Seble said he set it up to show you who has been putting more effort in recently so you would be aware if Snipping was going on. He said not to worry and that if you are H/VH, you have a chance to sign the recruit. With 2 teams in, its basically a coin flip, depending on the effort it could be 55% to 45%. People just need to quit looking H/VH as anything but an indicator of who has been putting more effort in recently. I have found it is not reflective of total effort and preferences also affect a recruits decision.

You are so misinformed.

The odds of a H signing to a school are less than 35% (in fact, the average would be in the 25-35% range). Go back into BETA and reread the threads on chances of signing to understand the mechanics of both the original % and the lead team bonus.

Hughes...two points:

1. "wants to play" preference is dramatically impacted by when you promise minutes. As I recall a later promise will not apply back to earlier effort as a multiplier. Seble made some "same cycle" change so that the minutes promise would run before other actions applied in the same cycle.
2. I suspect that the AP multiplier...if it exists at all...may not be the same code as the HV/CV multiplier. That is, I take WIS at their word when the comment is that "prestige effects have not been changed [paraphrase]". However, AP did not exist in the original coding and I seriously wonder whether it is handled the same way. Even if it is, the evidence seems to be indicating that prestige as a factor is less than preferences.

Shoe - NO High would have a 40% chance of signing after the lead bonus is applied.

From Seble in BETA :
To put some numbers on it:

There have been 188 signings this season where more than one team was at or above High and had an offer out.

88% signed with a Very High team. 69% signed with the leading team.

Hughes, wouldn't that be 66.7% effort and 53.8% effort? I guess I need a little more explanation and I missing something. Also- how did you come to these conclusions? I was under the assumptions that the cutoffs for VH and H much closer.

Posted by mullycj on 10/14/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kubasnack on 10/14/2016 9:25:00 AM (view original):
The difference between H and VH is minimal. Seble said he set it up to show you who has been putting more effort in recently so you would be aware if Snipping was going on. He said not to worry and that if you are H/VH, you have a chance to sign the recruit. With 2 teams in, its basically a coin flip, depending on the effort it could be 55% to 45%. People just need to quit looking H/VH as anything but an indicator of who has been putting more effort in recently. I have found it is not reflective of total effort and preferences also affect a recruits decision.

You are so misinformed.

The odds of a H signing to a school are less than 35% (in fact, the average would be in the 25-35% range). Go back into BETA and reread the threads on chances of signing to understand the mechanics of both the original % and the lead team bonus.

Thats not true .. unless they are in a battle with more than two teams.

If they are below 35% of the effort of the max team, they have 0% chance to sign.

If there are 3 or more teams .. then the percentages change. Because if you have 3 teams, each of their points add to the total. But in that case, all the team still have to be within 35% of the team with the MAX effort as well. That would put a High at close to 25% chance to sign.

If there were 3 Highs and 1 VH though, the chance for each of the highs would be closer to 15% though