Posted by mullycj on 10/14/2016 1:50:00 PM (view original):
But you can't keep leaving out the adjustment for the leader because that's what the ultimate calculation is based on. I've seen you do that on several posts and it gives readers a misrepresentation of whad the true singing odds are.
In a two team battles VH vs H, a 59-41% effort lead is REALLY a ~69% chance for the VH team to sign.

There is a factor for the leader at the end .. we don't KNOW how that is calculated. You say it is 10% someone else says it is 4%. Maybe it is an amount of points and not a set probability. No one knows.

If I had 3 or 4 concrete examples of this factor, I could likely get a close approximation.

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/14/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):
This is a serious question, not meant to derail the thread, but I keep hearing that HD 3.0 is going to bring in new users because it's easier to understand. I keep hearing that it takes the "formulas" away from the elites.

Can you guys go back and read this thread and tell me in what way is this easier for the average new guy to understand? We have gone from 10 > 7 (add in prestige and distance modifiers) to needing to know statistics just to understand what is happening. Instead of taking things away from the formula people, 3.0 lends itself to a formula (statistical) more than ever. The only difference is there's some randomness added now.

Nobody needs to understand the maths hughesjr and mully are wrangling over to enjoy and succeed at the game. If you get to high, you have a chance. If you get to very high, you have a better chance. Speculation over exactly how the probabilities are coded has no real bearing on gameplay for most.

Posted by hughesjr on 10/14/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/14/2016 1:50:00 PM (view original):
But you can't keep leaving out the adjustment for the leader because that's what the ultimate calculation is based on. I've seen you do that on several posts and it gives readers a misrepresentation of whad the true singing odds are.
In a two team battles VH vs H, a 59-41% effort lead is REALLY a ~69% chance for the VH team to sign.

There is a factor for the leader at the end .. we don't KNOW how that is calculated. You say it is 10% someone else says it is 4%. Maybe it is an amount of points and not a set probability. No one knows.

If I had 3 or 4 concrete examples of this factor, I could likely get a close approximation.

Seble gave us a few detailed breakdowns in BETA but then late in the process he indicated that he scaled it back.

Posted by buddhagamer on 10/14/2016 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/14/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 10/14/2016 1:50:00 PM (view original):
But you can't keep leaving out the adjustment for the leader because that's what the ultimate calculation is based on. I've seen you do that on several posts and it gives readers a misrepresentation of whad the true singing odds are.
In a two team battles VH vs H, a 59-41% effort lead is REALLY a ~69% chance for the VH team to sign.

There is a factor for the leader at the end .. we don't KNOW how that is calculated. You say it is 10% someone else says it is 4%. Maybe it is an amount of points and not a set probability. No one knows.

If I had 3 or 4 concrete examples of this factor, I could likely get a close approximation.

Seble gave us a few detailed breakdowns in BETA but then late in the process he indicated that he scaled it back.

That would lead me to believe he put it BACK to +5% effort for the leading team .. and -5% total effort for the other teams (split among the teams).

Posted by hughesjr on 10/14/2016 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by noleaniml on 10/14/2016 12:13:00 PM (view original):
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.

The cut offs are based on effort in relation to the Max Efforted team. They are designed to give the VH team a minimum of 40% and the 35% probability to sign.

Therefore the formula for the cutoff would be:

(Max/(1 - Probability))-Max
or

(1000/(1-0.40))-1000 = 667

So he put in 67% of the effort of the other team .. which gives him 667/1667 = 40% effort minimum for a Very High team (adn 60% for the leader).

Same calculation for High team (1000/(1-0.35))-1000 = 538. 538/1538 would be 35%

Those are just the minimal values to get into each category assuming 1000 as effort of the max team for a comparison. Those were defined as the cutoff points (40% prob for VH, 35% for H .. they could make them closer if they wanted 45% and 40%, for instance)

If you have more than one VH and more than 1 H .. then when you calculate probability, you need to add all their points together ..

So if there are 2 VH teams (1 at 1000 points, one between 667 and 1000 points) and 3 High teams (between 538 and 666 points) then you would do the calc like this. I'll assume 1000 and 850 for the VH's .. and 650, 600, 550 for the Highs. Again, these would be the final effort of each team that had all the correction factors for prestige and preference already applied).

So the probability calc would be:

1000+850+650+600+550= 3650 points (between 2 VH and 3 H)

And the Probabilities would be:

1000/3650 = 27.4%

850/3650 = 23.2%

650/3650 = 17.8%

600/3650 = 16.4

550/3650 = 15.1%

Then they decided to do something to make the leader more prominent .. not idea of that exact calc.

But those are the basic calcs there

In the above example, 182.5 would be 5% increased probability for the leader .. that would make this the probabilities:

1182.5	= 32.4%
804.375	= 22.0%
604.375	= 16.6%
554.375	= 15.2%
504.375	= 13.8%
3650

If he kept it at 10% (he said he scaled it back .. but here are the numbers), 365 would be the + and -:

1365	= 37.4%
758.75	= 20.8%
558.75	= 15.3%
508.75	= 13.9%
458.75	= 12.6%
3650

Not sure which is accurate. The top 2 teams are Very High, the bottom 3 teams are High

Posted by shoe3 on 10/14/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/14/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):
This is a serious question, not meant to derail the thread, but I keep hearing that HD 3.0 is going to bring in new users because it's easier to understand. I keep hearing that it takes the "formulas" away from the elites.

Can you guys go back and read this thread and tell me in what way is this easier for the average new guy to understand? We have gone from 10 > 7 (add in prestige and distance modifiers) to needing to know statistics just to understand what is happening. Instead of taking things away from the formula people, 3.0 lends itself to a formula (statistical) more than ever. The only difference is there's some randomness added now.

Nobody needs to understand the maths hughesjr and mully are wrangling over to enjoy and succeed at the game. If you get to high, you have a chance. If you get to very high, you have a better chance. Speculation over exactly how the probabilities are coded has no real bearing on gameplay for most.

Shoe - it MATTERS if the game is supposed to be programmed one way and the actual results are far from it. That is the whole purpose of this thread. To NOT just accept what WIS tells us is SUPPOSED to happen.

Its anal users like me who had to prove to Tarek that his player growth calculations after potential was released were out of whack.
You are right, many users don't care. But if I am told by Seble that VH guarantees me a 65% chance of signing a recruit I am going to be mad if, in reality, I could spend half as much, get to High, and still have a 45%-49% chance of signing.

Posted by mullycj on 10/14/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/14/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/14/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):
This is a serious question, not meant to derail the thread, but I keep hearing that HD 3.0 is going to bring in new users because it's easier to understand. I keep hearing that it takes the "formulas" away from the elites.

Can you guys go back and read this thread and tell me in what way is this easier for the average new guy to understand? We have gone from 10 > 7 (add in prestige and distance modifiers) to needing to know statistics just to understand what is happening. Instead of taking things away from the formula people, 3.0 lends itself to a formula (statistical) more than ever. The only difference is there's some randomness added now.

Nobody needs to understand the maths hughesjr and mully are wrangling over to enjoy and succeed at the game. If you get to high, you have a chance. If you get to very high, you have a better chance. Speculation over exactly how the probabilities are coded has no real bearing on gameplay for most.

Shoe - it MATTERS if the game is supposed to be programmed one way and the actual results are far from it. That is the whole purpose of this thread. To NOT just accept what WIS tells us is SUPPOSED to happen.

Its anal users like me who had to prove to Tarek that his player growth calculations after potential was released were out of whack.
You are right, many users don't care. But if I am told by Seble that VH guarantees me a 65% chance of signing a recruit I am going to be mad if, in reality, I could spend half as much, get to High, and still have a 45%-49% chance of signing.

The link from buddhagamer said seble scaled it back: LINK

So it is no longer 10%

If he kept it at 10% (he said he scaled it back .. but here are the numbers), 365 would be the + and -:

1365	37.4%
758.75	20.8%
558.75	15.3%
508.75	13.9%
458.75	12.6%
3650

So a High team would have anywhere from a 13%-37% chance of signing a recruit depending on how close to either Very High or Moderate they are?
The above is what I also was remembering from the BETA threads.
So even if I am being conservative, the high team should lose AT LEAST 66% of the time. Probably more like 75%.

Posted by mullycj on 10/14/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 10/14/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by poncho0091 on 10/14/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):
This is a serious question, not meant to derail the thread, but I keep hearing that HD 3.0 is going to bring in new users because it's easier to understand. I keep hearing that it takes the "formulas" away from the elites.

Can you guys go back and read this thread and tell me in what way is this easier for the average new guy to understand? We have gone from 10 > 7 (add in prestige and distance modifiers) to needing to know statistics just to understand what is happening. Instead of taking things away from the formula people, 3.0 lends itself to a formula (statistical) more than ever. The only difference is there's some randomness added now.

Nobody needs to understand the maths hughesjr and mully are wrangling over to enjoy and succeed at the game. If you get to high, you have a chance. If you get to very high, you have a better chance. Speculation over exactly how the probabilities are coded has no real bearing on gameplay for most.

Shoe - it MATTERS if the game is supposed to be programmed one way and the actual results are far from it. That is the whole purpose of this thread. To NOT just accept what WIS tells us is SUPPOSED to happen.

Its anal users like me who had to prove to Tarek that his player growth calculations after potential was released were out of whack.
You are right, many users don't care. But if I am told by Seble that VH guarantees me a 65% chance of signing a recruit I am going to be mad if, in reality, I could spend half as much, get to High, and still have a 45%-49% chance of signing.

I'm not saying you shouldn't care. I was responding to the idea that a new user would need to care and/or understand.

Posted by mullycj on 10/14/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):
If he kept it at 10% (he said he scaled it back .. but here are the numbers), 365 would be the + and -:

1365	37.4%
758.75	20.8%
558.75	15.3%
508.75	13.9%
458.75	12.6%
3650

So a High team would have anywhere from a 13%-37% chance of signing a recruit depending on how close to either Very High or Moderate they are?
The above is what I also was remembering from the BETA threads.
So even if I am being conservative, the high team should lose AT LEAST 66% of the time. Probably more like 75%.

For the record, I think that's right (high team having a range of 13-37% win percentage in a 2-way battle with VH). I approximated that earlier with 15-40%, but this looks a little more precise.

Posted by mullycj on 10/14/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):
If he kept it at 10% (he said he scaled it back .. but here are the numbers), 365 would be the + and -:

1365	37.4%
758.75	20.8%
558.75	15.3%
508.75	13.9%
458.75	12.6%
3650

So a High team would have anywhere from a 13%-37% chance of signing a recruit depending on how close to either Very High or Moderate they are?
The above is what I also was remembering from the BETA threads.
So even if I am being conservative, the high team should lose AT LEAST 66% of the time. Probably more like 75%.

Well, in this case the Two VH teams were 37.4% and 20.8% .. and the 3 highs were 15.3%, 13.9% and 12.6%

In that specific 5 team race. This was with a +10% lead factor.

With a +5% (instead of +10%) it would be:

1182.5	= 32.4% VH
804.375	= 22.0% VH
604.375	= 16.6% H
554.375	= 15.2% H
504.375	= 13.8% H
3650

Shoe - the only reason I think a new user would/should care is that if they don't understand why they are losing battles they wont learn the game.

From late BETA
Effort lead % Chance to sign%
Team A : 53% ~58%
Team B : 47% ~42%

The only other direct comment from Seble is as the effort gap grew the chance to sign grew exponentally (vs. linear)

FYI another post from BETA agreeing with the numbers above. Some assumptions here but agree the % are around ~40% down to ~13%

Recruiting Credit %........... Tarv (linear).............. Mully (new linear)
52%......................................62%...........................58%
57%......................................72%.......................... 68%
62%......................................87%.......................... 83%
65%......................................100%........................ 100%

48%......................................38%...........................42% Very High
43%......................................28%...........................32% High
38%......................................13%.......................... 17% High
35%......................................0%............................ 0% Moderate

Posted by mullycj on 10/14/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Shoe - the only reason I think a new user would/should care is that if they don't understand why they are losing battles they wont learn the game.

From late BETA
Effort lead % Chance to sign%
Team A : 53% ~58%
Team B : 47% ~42%

The only other direct comment from Seble is as the effort gap grew the chance to sign grew exponentally (vs. linear)

Ok, but there's always going to be a simpler answer, and that's why I responded to the idea that this system is inherently more confusing. In the old version, it was *vital* to understand the relation of HVs to CVs to STs, and how distance affected each, or else you routinely get burned in battles you were never going to be able to win. It's not vital to understand that now. If you're a high team losing to very high, it was because you were beat by prestige, or preferences, or you didn't offer a start, or you ran out of cash before you could max visits. If you're a VH losing to high, it's because you had a tough roll.