Breaking news—

“Promising minutes is only a multiplier if the player has a preference of "Wants to Play". Otherwise, you just get the one-time credit of the promise.”-
site staff in an answer to another question

This is a 180 from what was a known fact in the forums that promises were a multiplier for anything no matter if there was a want to play or not. Because of the 100% consensus in the forums I don’t know if I quite believe the guy.

Would you mind posting the whole conversation, for context? It is true that promised minutes only modify the value of *attention points* when the player has a preference to play. But if CS is telling you that promised minutes don’t modify the value of *visits* for all players, either this response is wrong, a previous response to another question was wrong, or they’ve changed something without telling anyone.

“This is a general question about the game. In recruiting, I know promising minutes and starts are a multiplier on effort. Does that multiplier also apply to scholarships? Meaning would you have more recruiting effort if you promised minutes and start before offering a scholarship, compared to the normal order of of scholarship and then promises?”— me

“Promising minutes is only a multiplier if the player has a preference of "Wants to Play". Otherwise, you just get the one-time credit of the promise.

If he does have a playing time preference, and you promise him that, there is a boost for all other recruiting actions the same as for any other positive preference match.”—CS

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 1/13/2018 1:56:00 AM (view original):
Breaking news—

“Promising minutes is only a multiplier if the player has a preference of "Wants to Play". Otherwise, you just get the one-time credit of the promise.”-
site staff in an answer to another question

This is a 180 from what was a known fact in the forums that promises were a multiplier for anything no matter if there was a want to play or not. Because of the 100% consensus in the forums I don’t know if I quite believe the guy.

The CS response is always what Ive been told and seen

Posted by mullycj on 1/13/2018 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 1/13/2018 1:56:00 AM (view original):
Breaking news—

“Promising minutes is only a multiplier if the player has a preference of "Wants to Play". Otherwise, you just get the one-time credit of the promise.”-
site staff in an answer to another question

This is a 180 from what was a known fact in the forums that promises were a multiplier for anything no matter if there was a want to play or not. Because of the 100% consensus in the forums I don’t know if I quite believe the guy.

The CS response is always what Ive been told and seen

Agree.

Crap, now we have to find the other Cs statement that said the opposite

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/13/2018 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Crap, now we have to find the other Cs statement that said the opposite

Fwiw, we've seen several contradicting CS responses lately, at least compared to CS responses from 3+ years ago when the same exact questions were asked (and I'm not even talking about recruiting, just general gameplay). It kind of seems like there's a bunch of new CS people around that may not be completely familiar with this game.

Here was the ticket I put in back in April:

A question regarding recruiting actions and if they have some type of multiplier associated with them.

In the absence of any preferences, does the order of any recruiting actions have any effect of other subsequent actions?

Two identical teams battling for a recruit with NO preferences what so ever, Team A sends start promise, 20 minutes in one cycle, then next cycle sends 20 HVs + CV. Team B sends 20 HVs + CV in one cycle, then next cycle sends start promise + 20 minutes. Is the recruiting effort equal? or does Team A benefit due to some multiplying effect given by promise start and/or minutes.

The response I got was:

Team A would benefit. Promises do have a multiplying effect but only for that cycle and onward. Preferences also have a multiplying offer.

From that response, you can conclude that all promises have some sort of multiplying effect (and having the "Wants to Play" preference makes it bigger).

Keep in mind, the OP question was specific to the boost from the scholarship offer. Buddha’s question was more direct, and I think the answer he got is probably the better one, in terms of understanding whether promises affect recruiting efforts beyond APs and the scholarship offer.

Does anyone else find this statement a weird way to phrase something

" but only for that cycle and onward."

I just sent Buddha’s ticket as a response to the one I got answered, I will let you know what they say.

“Nothing changed, probably just a misunderstanding of the question on our end.”

so sounds like the answer I got was correct, looks like we have been promising stuff early for nothing.

Posted by Benis on 1/13/2018 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Does anyone else find this statement a weird way to phrase something

" but only for that cycle and onward."

Your point?

Posted by Benis on 1/13/2018 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Does anyone else find this statement a weird way to phrase something

" but only for that cycle and onward."

No. I mean onward isn't quite in my regularly used syntax but it looks to me like they are trying to write in positive way as opposed to negative.

"It itsn't retroactive" is the same statement but negative. I try to speak and write that way.

"but only from that time forward."

"but only from that point forward."

"not retroactively."