I believe it is true that there is a benefit to promising minutes to a player who cares about playing time - BEFORE campus and home visits. The promise - to some degree - enhances the value of that later effort. People sometimes refer to this as a considering credit, but I dont think it is really like the old considering credit where being ahead sort of accrued additional value each cycle.

Do we know whether the benefit of a promise of minutes followed by effort - is a one shot deal or does it continue to accrue/grow over the following cycles?

I would think if you promise minutes to a player that has the "wants to play preference", that will help with all additional recruiting effort as he will have one additional Very Good preference for you.
However, if you don't put any additional effort after the promise was made, I think that advantage is mostly nonexistent.

HD v2 was different in that a visit made on day one seemed to have more value than a visit on day three.

A different version of the question considering credit issue in 3.0 -

A player has a preference for playing time.

In the third cycle of a recruiting period, team A promises minutes. In the fourth cycle, team A does a campus visit and 20 home visits.

Team B makes little effort until the 8th cycle. It then promises minutes. In cycle 9, Team B does a campus visit and 20 home visits.

The two teams are identical on AP used and on other preferences etc. Is team A ahead in cycle ten because it acted earlier?

You would think Team A should be ahead because of acting earlier, but from my experience you get no credit for cycles on a player. Teams acting later can come in late, run you down, and you basically can do nothing about it, as you are already all in.

My understanding is that for players who want playing time, the promise of minutes affects all effort - AP and visits - moving forward from the time the promise is made. It’s not “considering credit” in the way it used to exist, but it’s somewhat comparable, in that there is a benefit to making promises early for such a player, *if you intend to keep AP consistent*. If you just drop AP when promises are made, the promise just has that stand alone effect.

To mamxet’s question, what really matters, in terms of cumulative modifying credit for the PT preference, is the amount of effort extended after the promise is made. If post-promise effort ends up being identical for both teams, then it doesn’t matter who offered first.

so an early promise and early post promise effort is no better than late promise and late post promise effort.....except that there is more time for AP to get that benefit??

Posted by mamxet on 7/30/2019 7:55:00 PM (view original):
so an early promise and early post promise effort is no better than late promise and late post promise effort.....except that there is more time for AP to get that benefit??

That’s my understanding.

For example:

Team A
Cycle 1 - 60 AP
C2 - 10 AP, scholarship
C3 - 5, start + 20 minutes
C4 - 5, CV, 20 HVs
C5 - 5
C6 - 5
C7 - 5
C8 - 5
C9 - 5
C10 - 5
C11 - 5
C12 - 5

Team B
Cycle 1 - 10 AP
C2 - 10
C3 - 10
C4 - 10
C5 - 10
C6 - 10
C7 - 10 + scholarship
C8 - 10 + start and 20 minutes
C9 - 10 + CV and 20 HVs
C10 - 10
C11 - 10
C12 - 10

If the prestige and preferences are identical, these two teams should have the same amount of effort credit, according to my understanding.

i agree with oldwarrior and shoe, and i think i read that is how it worked in that guide chapel put together. but it logically seems like it almost has to work that way. i can't imagine putting a promise on, then having the game go back through to up the effort on all this random stuff you did previously. and then have to go take that off if you remove the promise. seems like the benefit of preferences and prestige would be applied in real time - you do a HV, its worth 10 points, you have preferences so its 12, you have prestige so its 15 - 15 gets added to your total, and that is the end of it. something like that at least. otherwise it would get too complicated, i just cant imagine it being done another way from a software development standpoint.

Posted by mamxet on 7/30/2019 7:55:00 PM (view original):
so an early promise and early post promise effort is no better than late promise and late post promise effort.....except that there is more time for AP to get that benefit??

Correct.

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/31/2019 1:15:00 PM (view original):
i agree with oldwarrior and shoe, and i think i read that is how it worked in that guide chapel put together. but it logically seems like it almost has to work that way. i can't imagine putting a promise on, then having the game go back through to up the effort on all this random stuff you did previously. and then have to go take that off if you remove the promise. seems like the benefit of preferences and prestige would be applied in real time - you do a HV, its worth 10 points, you have preferences so its 12, you have prestige so its 15 - 15 gets added to your total, and that is the end of it. something like that at least. otherwise it would get too complicated, i just cant imagine it being done another way from a software development standpoint.

I've always looked at it similar to this. But I've viewed AP in a different manner too. For a simple demonstration, I'll say that a standard AP is worth 1. For every very good preference add a ".2". For a wants to play promise, add another .2 for receiving an additional very good. (Very bads would work the same just backwards, a -.2).

So if you have 3 very goods and no very bads, your AP would be worth 1.6 each. Where as your opponent, say he has 2 very goods so his AP are worth 1.4 each. With stockpiled effort, that's where the separation would come in and show the weighted value of how preferences become important.

And the reason it's best to offer promises early, is because getting that additional very good preference, would give you a +.2 on every AP you offer. And if you do it late, the extra .2 is not added to your early AP that you accumulated with that recruit before the promise was offered.

Again, my .2 is just an example. So if some of you think that's way too high or way too low of value, that's fine. I don't really have an idea of the value. This was just a random number i made up.

Preferences are multipliers (not added bonuses). Each cycle, all recruiting effort is converted into recruiting credit (a calculated number) which is added to your effort total. Subtracting from that total when promises are withdrawn can be easily computed (since you know what the multiplier was prior and how much effort in each cycle). Seble then applies a large penalty for withdrawing of minutes (unless you offer more in that same cycle) or for start to the point when reaching for a higher recruit it makes it near impossible to overcome.

One flaw in shoe's example is each cycle, your preference may NOT be identical in some cases. Strong Defense for example will change game to game so 60 AP in once cycle vs. 10 over 6 might yield different totals. Many coaches make the mistake thinking all preference grades are identical (i.e all VG are not created equal... everyone has a preference number where Seble is just showing a "grade" when you score in particular ranges).

Posted by buddhagamer on 8/1/2019 1:21:00 AM (view original):
Preferences are multipliers (not added bonuses). Each cycle, all recruiting effort is converted into recruiting credit (a calculated number) which is added to your effort total. Subtracting from that total when promises are withdrawn can be easily computed (since you know what the multiplier was prior and how much effort in each cycle). Seble then applies a large penalty for withdrawing of minutes (unless you offer more in that same cycle) or for start to the point when reaching for a higher recruit it makes it near impossible to overcome.

One flaw in shoe's example is each cycle, your preference may NOT be identical in some cases. Strong Defense for example will change game to game so 60 AP in once cycle vs. 10 over 6 might yield different totals. Many coaches make the mistake thinking all preference grades are identical (i.e all VG are not created equal... everyone has a preference number where Seble is just showing a "grade" when you score in particular ranges).

Bingo. Also, a neutral preference might actually apply a slight benefit or hurt without you knowing it.

Posted by buddhagamer on 8/1/2019 1:21:00 AM (view original):
Preferences are multipliers (not added bonuses). Each cycle, all recruiting effort is converted into recruiting credit (a calculated number) which is added to your effort total. Subtracting from that total when promises are withdrawn can be easily computed (since you know what the multiplier was prior and how much effort in each cycle). Seble then applies a large penalty for withdrawing of minutes (unless you offer more in that same cycle) or for start to the point when reaching for a higher recruit it makes it near impossible to overcome.

One flaw in shoe's example is each cycle, your preference may NOT be identical in some cases. Strong Defense for example will change game to game so 60 AP in once cycle vs. 10 over 6 might yield different totals. Many coaches make the mistake thinking all preference grades are identical (i.e all VG are not created equal... everyone has a preference number where Seble is just showing a "grade" when you score in particular ranges).

“If the prestige and preferences are identical” - this is the caveat. Even moreso than preference modifiers, prestige is likely never actually “identical” between two teams. That isn’t what is being asked, though. The question is about whether there is any kind of “considering credit,” cumulating by cycle, apart from effort and attention. Is there an inherent benefit to being first? That answer is no. The only way you get a benefit that looks kind of like considering credit is making early promises, and then maintaining consistent attention for players who want to play.

Posted by buddhagamer on 8/1/2019 1:21:00 AM (view original):
Preferences are multipliers (not added bonuses). Each cycle, all recruiting effort is converted into recruiting credit (a calculated number) which is added to your effort total. Subtracting from that total when promises are withdrawn can be easily computed (since you know what the multiplier was prior and how much effort in each cycle). Seble then applies a large penalty for withdrawing of minutes (unless you offer more in that same cycle) or for start to the point when reaching for a higher recruit it makes it near impossible to overcome.

One flaw in shoe's example is each cycle, your preference may NOT be identical in some cases. Strong Defense for example will change game to game so 60 AP in once cycle vs. 10 over 6 might yield different totals. Many coaches make the mistake thinking all preference grades are identical (i.e all VG are not created equal... everyone has a preference number where Seble is just showing a "grade" when you score in particular ranges).

the first part of what you are saying, i think you are just over simplifying it a bit (or maybe a lot) in your head, about the implementation cost. sure, if you have the effort per cycle, and the multiplier per cycle that was in place at that time, you can compute cycle by cycle and back that out when minutes promises change. however, that involves tracking historical state in ways that are otherwise not needed, and also forces you to think about the order of operations in ways that are not otherwise needed (do you apply the promises bonus first or last, etc). there are edge cases and complications all over the place with the current recruiting scheme, particularly around the ability to withdraw things. there have always been bugs and issues with withdrawing actions, whether those are automatic or manual withdrawals, in HD recruiting, and there are in today's game, too.

long story short, the above is not simple, it is not clean, and building that kind of logic is inherently bug-prone. my guess is part of the reason seble applies such a penalty for backing out promises, is to ensure there is no way there is a net-positive loop possible where you continuously apply and withdraw promises - and without a superficial additional penalty, its very likely there would be a bug in seble's logic and tracking somewhere, that would allow such a positive loop to exist. i can already guarantee you there is at least 1 positive loop present in recruiting today, not all that different from how in 2.0 i discovered you could exploit withdrawl logic to get free evaluation visits - just only the informational part of it, not the credit part of it - which all in all, was the only reason people did evals at all. of course i reported that, and will do the same in 3.0 when i get a bit further. or how in 2.0 everyone knew you could pull promises by redshirting but could immediately wipe that out by withdrawing the redshirt. it wasn't a positive effort cycle or anything, but it got around the intended design because there was no check on the automated withdrawl of promises caused by redshirting, no check in place to insure you wouldn't just back out the redshirt and sort of glitch your way out of promises.

i really had zero intention of looking for those glitches that early, i've only been back 2 months, and i only look for stuff like that to report it and reduce the odds coaching i'm competing against are using those exploits against me. but i stumbled by pure accident into a free effort scenario already, so its sort of moved up my time table.

this is just one of those things, where it seems simple if you haven't had to develop anything like it before, and aren't intimately aware of how bug-prone this kind of stuff can be. with a software dev background, i know better - which is why i know to look for those withdrawl and order of operations type exploits in recruiting, and have ultimately found multiple which IMO sort of proves my point. also, seble was well aware of these issues and worked pretty damn hard to avoid them in 3.0, which kind of just goes to show, its not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be.

I'm actually a long-time software developer in the Energy Management industry (been at it for 30+ years). I'm just reporting how it was explained to us by Seble himself during the 3.0 BETA during the back and forth. He indicated that all actions are processed and converted each cycle (which is why order matters a lot when offering start/minutes prior to HVs/CVs for recruits with WTP preference). When I told him that due to that mechanism a coach could exploit an offer of start/minutes, get the huge preference increase on anything they offered, then do a redshirt to remove the promises, he added the penalty portion (all of that was back in BETA).

If you want to confirm that is indeed how it works, just send in a ticket and likely Seble will confirm or not.