Posted by gomiami1972 on 12/22/2016 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/22/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 12/22/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Not for nothing, but if someone can (and is willing to invest the time to) reverse engineer a formula with 8-11 variables that all have unknown weight and range I think they are probably going to win regardless.....

I am pretty good at math, statistics, and probability and that is pretty far beyond what I can do. I have a feel for relative value but nothing more than that.

Someone will be willing to invest the time. Guaranteed.

My thoughts exactly. It is beyond my abilities but it wont be beyond everyone's...somebody will crack the formula and dominate. Why release this information at all? KCsundevil's initial reaction is, IMHO, correct.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 12/22/2016 11:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 12/22/2016 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/22/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 12/22/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Not for nothing, but if someone can (and is willing to invest the time to) reverse engineer a formula with 8-11 variables that all have unknown weight and range I think they are probably going to win regardless.....

I am pretty good at math, statistics, and probability and that is pretty far beyond what I can do. I have a feel for relative value but nothing more than that.

Someone will be willing to invest the time. Guaranteed.

My thoughts exactly. It is beyond my abilities but it wont be beyond everyone's...somebody will crack the formula and dominate. Why release this information at all? KCsundevil's initial reaction is, IMHO, correct.

I think you guys are over reacting a bit. Even if someone figures out the EXACT formula, what good is it going to do them? It can get to 57% instead of 52%?

Plus, it isn't like people knew the exact value of starts, minutes, letters and stuff before. Hell, there wasn't even a consensus on the ratio of value between HV:CV.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/22/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 10:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/21/2016 9:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/21/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

Cards face up will be HVs (assume 20 for true battles), CV, pref matches (can be reasonably guessed), your promises, and prestige.

Hidden cards will be APs invested, opponent promises, aaaaand.... maybe RS, which could come face up later.

One half-full conference working together on this will figure out the formula in three cycles.

So what would you find out exactly? I'm not sure I'm understanding how you could 'game' the system by doing this. Not saying you said you could game it but that's what I'm taking away.

Same principle as card-counting. New system is all about odds; revealing the percentages will give those who learn to card-count a competitive edge.

But hey, this is happening, so let's just sit back and see what happens.

I get your point, and don't necessarily disagree. My preference is that people just suck it up and accept that they can't completely control the outcome, and sometimes you don't get what you want.

At the same time, the actual value of seeing the odds - even if we can assume a group of users could reverse engineer it - is not nearly the value of knowing how it all worked in the previous version, where 51 always beat 49. And I think what mully is saying above - though I would never speak for him! - is that with preferences involved, the actual calculus should really be different for each player. So we can probably get some pretty close eyeball level estimations hashed out, my guess is that people who have been playing since beta already have a pretty good idea of the relative stand-alone value of prestige, promises, and visits.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/23/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):
"When you let people peek behind the curtain, some people see more than others."

LOL, that's so true. Some people would still see nothing but coin flips and dice rolls.

Posted by elmossle on 12/30/2016 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/22/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 10:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/21/2016 9:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/21/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

Cards face up will be HVs (assume 20 for true battles), CV, pref matches (can be reasonably guessed), your promises, and prestige.

Hidden cards will be APs invested, opponent promises, aaaaand.... maybe RS, which could come face up later.

One half-full conference working together on this will figure out the formula in three cycles.

So what would you find out exactly? I'm not sure I'm understanding how you could 'game' the system by doing this. Not saying you said you could game it but that's what I'm taking away.

Same principle as card-counting. New system is all about odds; revealing the percentages will give those who learn to card-count a competitive edge.

But hey, this is happening, so let's just sit back and see what happens.

I get your point, and don't necessarily disagree. My preference is that people just suck it up and accept that they can't completely control the outcome, and sometimes you don't get what you want.

At the same time, the actual value of seeing the odds - even if we can assume a group of users could reverse engineer it - is not nearly the value of knowing how it all worked in the previous version, where 51 always beat 49. And I think what mully is saying above - though I would never speak for him! - is that with preferences involved, the actual calculus should really be different for each player. So we can probably get some pretty close eyeball level estimations hashed out, my guess is that people who have been playing since beta already have a pretty good idea of the relative stand-alone value of prestige, promises, and visits.

Keep in mind, even if you have the best "odds" or percentage to sign someone, doesn't mean you will. The odds could be stacked against you and you might still sign the player even though you thought you had no chance. Another words, you can think you have the math figured out on what and how much to spend on someone from an AP and cash perspective, but you are likely to get different results each time.

Posted by elmossle on 12/30/2016 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/22/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 10:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/21/2016 9:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/21/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

Cards face up will be HVs (assume 20 for true battles), CV, pref matches (can be reasonably guessed), your promises, and prestige.

Hidden cards will be APs invested, opponent promises, aaaaand.... maybe RS, which could come face up later.

One half-full conference working together on this will figure out the formula in three cycles.

So what would you find out exactly? I'm not sure I'm understanding how you could 'game' the system by doing this. Not saying you said you could game it but that's what I'm taking away.

Same principle as card-counting. New system is all about odds; revealing the percentages will give those who learn to card-count a competitive edge.

But hey, this is happening, so let's just sit back and see what happens.

I get your point, and don't necessarily disagree. My preference is that people just suck it up and accept that they can't completely control the outcome, and sometimes you don't get what you want.

At the same time, the actual value of seeing the odds - even if we can assume a group of users could reverse engineer it - is not nearly the value of knowing how it all worked in the previous version, where 51 always beat 49. And I think what mully is saying above - though I would never speak for him! - is that with preferences involved, the actual calculus should really be different for each player. So we can probably get some pretty close eyeball level estimations hashed out, my guess is that people who have been playing since beta already have a pretty good idea of the relative stand-alone value of prestige, promises, and visits.

Keep in mind, even if you have the best "odds" or percentage to sign someone, doesn't mean you will. The odds could be stacked against you and you might still sign the player even though you thought you had no chance. Another words, you can think you have the math figured out on what and how much to spend on someone from an AP and cash perspective, but you are likely to get different results each time.

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 10:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/21/2016 9:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/21/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

Cards face up will be HVs (assume 20 for true battles), CV, pref matches (can be reasonably guessed), your promises, and prestige.

Hidden cards will be APs invested, opponent promises, aaaaand.... maybe RS, which could come face up later.

One half-full conference working together on this will figure out the formula in three cycles.

So what would you find out exactly? I'm not sure I'm understanding how you could 'game' the system by doing this. Not saying you said you could game it but that's what I'm taking away.

Same principle as card-counting. New system is all about odds; revealing the percentages will give those who learn to card-count a competitive edge.

But hey, this is happening, so let's just sit back and see what happens.