Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).

Seems like you're the one being deliberately obtuse, because you're arguing that 19% should = 0%, and 39% should = 0%.

Again, that's not how math works.

As JS said, it's a big gameplay issue. When school A has 5 very good preferences and a 75% chance to win and school B has 0 good or VG prefs but wins the battle with a 25% chance, it just doesn't make sense in a gameplay sense. It's like a recruit saying "man, school A has everything I've ever wanted in a college but I'm gonna go to school B just for the hell of it." Again, not realistic.

And before I get slaughtered on the "realism" aspect of the game the scenario outlined above is another tough sell to a new user. The game isn't going to be 100% realistic but there are lots of issues that just make much sense.

It has nothing to do with math. It has everything to do with programming and at what point a team has no chance of signing a recruit.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/17/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Publishing the percentages was not a great idea. I'd very much like for them to be hidden again.

so you would rather keep users in the dark and inhibit their ability to learn than frustrate them. After how many seasons of losing battles and not knowing why will they become equally frustrated?

Posted by mullycj on 7/17/2017 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/17/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Publishing the percentages was not a great idea. I'd very much like for them to be hidden again.

so you would rather keep users in the dark and inhibit their ability to learn than frustrate them. After how many seasons of losing battles and not knowing why will they become equally frustrated?

The percentages illustrate the inherent silliness of the new system. It allows for recruits to ignore their own preferences AND the weight of the effort coaches put into recruits. Players will choose which school to go to only once, so to make the decision potentially on a drunken lark is just weird.

I think it's more frustrating to see the gears functioning this way than it would be to just see the end results and let coaches fill in the logical gaps.

Remember, the whole point of 3.0 per Seble was to make recruiting less of a math problem. Releasing the percentages cuts completely in the opposite direction.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/17/2017 1:48:00 PM (view original):
And before I get slaughtered on the "realism" aspect of the game the scenario outlined above is another tough sell to a new user. The game isn't going to be 100% realistic but there are lots of issues that just make much sense.

I recognize losing a 70/30 battle is frustrating(I've lost one of similar percentages) but you also win one on occasion(I've won one at 44, IIRC).

This is NOT something that keeps new users away. Hell, they probably have no idea because I see, in these forums all the time, "Where are you guys getting these percentages?"

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/17/2017 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/17/2017 1:48:00 PM (view original):
And before I get slaughtered on the "realism" aspect of the game the scenario outlined above is another tough sell to a new user. The game isn't going to be 100% realistic but there are lots of issues that just make much sense.

I recognize losing a 70/30 battle is frustrating(I've lost one of similar percentages) but you also win one on occasion(I've won one at 44, IIRC).

This is NOT something that keeps new users away. Hell, they probably have no idea because I see, in these forums all the time, "Where are you guys getting these percentages?"

They don't battle. D3 is a wait and reallocate ap long void.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).

Seems like you're the one being deliberately obtuse, because you're arguing that 19% should = 0%, and 39% should = 0%.

Again, that's not how math works.

Read my last post again. I'm not arguing about math. If you don't understand that (and apparently you don't), you maybe should step away from the conversation.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/17/2017 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 7/17/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/17/2017 9:27:00 AM (view original):
You all realize that teams with a 19% chance of winning a recruiting battle should win roughly 19% of those battles. You guys sound like they should win 0% of those recruiting battles.

That's not how math works.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that underdogs are winning battles at a statistically significant higher rate than they should, then there's nothing really to see here. My guess is that such evidence does not exist, at least in a way measurable to the HD user community, because neither the "favorites" who are winning the lopsided battles, nor the underdogs who are losing the lopsided battles, are making noise in the forums the way the favorite/losers are.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I don't think anyone is arguing the math -- I'm arguing policy/gameplay. Of course as things are currently set up, someone who has a 19% chance will win 19% of the time -- my argument is that it's a poor way to set up the game, and the game should be changed so that a 19% in a three-man battle has 0% chance to win (I'm not sure where the cutoff should be in a three-man battle -- 25%? 28?). What I am advocating is that for two-person battles, if one side hasn't put in enough effort to get to a 40% probability, they should have 0% chance. That's a better gameplay mode, IMO, because then you only have losses when it's a true tossup, or at least pretty close (which is really the way it works in real life, too, which is an added benefit).

JS, remember the odds you see don't represent the difference in effort credit. The odds are stretched, so battles are always closer than they appear by looking at odds, and that's most exaggerated at the margins. A team has to be somewhere above 60% of the effort credit leader to be in signing range. A team that only just makes the cutoff isn't going to have the ~38% chance you'd expect if it was a straight correlation, though. It's going to be down around 20%. So a 50.1 to 49.9 battle in effort credit is stretched to 52-48. A 62-38 battle is stretched to something like 80-20.

The game is already leaning toward the favorite in recruiting battles.

What are you basing your first paragraph on? This is the first I've heard of any "odds-stretching." If a post-battle percentages reads 70% for Team A and 30% for Team B, I've been reading that as Team A had a 70% chance to win the recruit, and Team B had a 30% chance. If you're telling me that the actual percentages in my hypothetical are 80% for Team A and 20% for Team B (despite saying 70/30), that makes my point that this needs to be reworked even stronger, because that makes no sense.

In Tark recruiting last season my Chaminade team "lost" a battle to Oklahoma State despite having a 69-31 advantage.

Humorously, those odds didn't factor in that I had no more scholarships to offer, so my real chances were 0.

Posted by zorzii on 7/17/2017 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/17/2017 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/17/2017 1:48:00 PM (view original):
And before I get slaughtered on the "realism" aspect of the game the scenario outlined above is another tough sell to a new user. The game isn't going to be 100% realistic but there are lots of issues that just make much sense.

I recognize losing a 70/30 battle is frustrating(I've lost one of similar percentages) but you also win one on occasion(I've won one at 44, IIRC).

This is NOT something that keeps new users away. Hell, they probably have no idea because I see, in these forums all the time, "Where are you guys getting these percentages?"

They don't battle. D3 is a wait and reallocate ap long void.

I've been in 3-4 D3 battles. Maybe, since you don't even know how D3 works, it would be best to quit trying to fix it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/17/2017 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 7/17/2017 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/17/2017 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by darnoc29099 on 7/17/2017 1:48:00 PM (view original):
And before I get slaughtered on the "realism" aspect of the game the scenario outlined above is another tough sell to a new user. The game isn't going to be 100% realistic but there are lots of issues that just make much sense.

I recognize losing a 70/30 battle is frustrating(I've lost one of similar percentages) but you also win one on occasion(I've won one at 44, IIRC).

This is NOT something that keeps new users away. Hell, they probably have no idea because I see, in these forums all the time, "Where are you guys getting these percentages?"

They don't battle. D3 is a wait and reallocate ap long void.

I've been in 3-4 D3 battles. Maybe, since you don't even know how D3 works, it would be best to quit trying to fix it.

I have played it. Avoid battles at all cost, get a head start in ap, hope your players are not plan b, c, d, for D1,D2 teams. But most of all, get the less crowded location with the most generated recruits. Profit!

But you just said "They(D3) don't battle." I'm telling you they do.

I think what we've learned today is that you CHOSE to play D3 in a way you found boring. So, rather than play differently, you think the game should conform to the way you want to play it.

Same ol' zorzii. What's good for him should be good for everybody.

I lost a 73/27 today where I was the 73. It happens.