Submit your questions now for the upcoming HD Dev Chat: Click here.

I sent four in already about questions that I have had since starting. I think you should change the title so people see that there is a Dev chat coming up in case they don't read the post. Glad to see them doing it.

Posted by chapelhillne on 9/23/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I sent four in already about questions that I have had since starting. I think you should change the title so people see that there is a Dev chat coming up in case they don't read the post. Glad to see them doing it.

Yup. On next Tuesday from 11:30-1:00.

I wish there was some way we could see the list of questions submitted that they DON'T answer...that'd be some entertaining reading.

? : What happened to seble, and who gets credit for finally driving him over the cliff?

Bump in case anyone wasn't aware, this is going on now.

High vs Very High has been a big topic in the forums. Would you please use some examples to illustrate how differences in recruiting effort translate to the chances of signing a recruit, both in two-team battles and multiple-team battles? Thanks. (CoachSpud - Rookie - 12:42 PM)

We'd prefer not to go into too much detail on this topic. The interest level is range based (like an A and a B in school). The more you've recruited a player, the better shot you'll have at landing the recruit. Very High is better than High.

Credit to CoachSpud for asking this. Big time negative points to seble for basically refusing to address what seems to be the #1 concern with the new engine in the early going.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/27/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):

High vs Very High has been a big topic in the forums. Would you please use some examples to illustrate how differences in recruiting effort translate to the chances of signing a recruit, both in two-team battles and multiple-team battles? Thanks. (CoachSpud - Rookie - 12:42 PM)

We'd prefer not to go into too much detail on this topic. The interest level is range based (like an A and a B in school). The more you've recruited a player, the better shot you'll have at landing the recruit. Very High is better than High.

Credit to CoachSpud for asking this. Big time negative points to seble for basically refusing to address what seems to be the #1 concern with the new engine in the early going.

+1

Too many important questions WIS refuses to answer.

Sports require clear rules, otherwise all you're doing is throwing a ball around. HD 3.0 lacks clear rules.

So seble insists that prestige is just as powerful as it always was and that they are internally evaluating battles to make sure they make sense. Both are good things, IMO, but this doesn't comport with my recruiting experience. So I submitted a ticket with more details of the battle that was confusing me. Hopefully, they'll give some explanation, although I understand that they might not.

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 1:23:00 PM (view original):
So seble insists that prestige is just as powerful as it always was and that they are internally evaluating battles to make sure they make sense. Both are good things, IMO, but this doesn't comport with my recruiting experience. So I submitted a ticket with more details of the battle that was confusing me. Hopefully, they'll give some explanation, although I understand that they might not.

He didn't say it was just as powerful though. He said it was unchanged. It's a subtle distinction but that's not the same as saying its impact is equal.

To clarify my point, if the value of prestige was previously worth 10 points, the answer that was provided is that it's still worth 10 points. What wasn't said is that the weight of prestiges, which were essentially 0 before may now also be worth 10 points, so prestige may not have the same impact.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/27/2016 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 1:23:00 PM (view original):
So seble insists that prestige is just as powerful as it always was and that they are internally evaluating battles to make sure they make sense. Both are good things, IMO, but this doesn't comport with my recruiting experience. So I submitted a ticket with more details of the battle that was confusing me. Hopefully, they'll give some explanation, although I understand that they might not.

He didn't say it was just as powerful though. He said it was unchanged. It's a subtle distinction but that's not the same as saying its impact is equal.

To clarify my point, if the value of prestige was previously worth 10 points, the answer that was provided is that it's still worth 10 points. What wasn't said is that the weight of prestiges, which were essentially 0 before may now also be worth 10 points, so prestige may not have the same impact.

yeah, I know that prestige is no longer the only multiplier, because there are preferences now too. but the case I'm thinking of is one where preferences are even, so presumably, a prestige that's unchanged should be as effective as in 2.0

In that case I would agree, but I think there are distinctions between preferences as well and he did say today that not all preferences are equal.

That had been stated during beta as well, that O and D sets did not have the same high and low end range as others but today the answer seemed to be even more vague. So I wonder if something more has changed with preference weighting.

Posted by possumfiend on 9/27/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):
In that case I would agree, but I think there are distinctions between preferences as well and he did say today that not all preferences are equal.

That had been stated during beta as well, that O and D sets did not have the same high and low end range as others but today the answer seemed to be even more vague. So I wonder if something more has changed with preference weighting.

the battle I had in mind is one where the teams run the same defense and have almost identical defensive stats. But there is a success preference, and one team has more than a full letter grade advantage, and there is a distance preference, and the less prestigious team has a 300 mile advantage. I'm only working with rough numbers because none of us are going to know the exact details, but the way this battle was playing out really surprised me--it wasn't within the bounds of "yeah, my calculations were rough, but it's just a little off what I expected," so I'm hoping for some clarity.

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 9/27/2016 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/27/2016 1:23:00 PM (view original):
So seble insists that prestige is just as powerful as it always was and that they are internally evaluating battles to make sure they make sense. Both are good things, IMO, but this doesn't comport with my recruiting experience. So I submitted a ticket with more details of the battle that was confusing me. Hopefully, they'll give some explanation, although I understand that they might not.

He didn't say it was just as powerful though. He said it was unchanged. It's a subtle distinction but that's not the same as saying its impact is equal.

To clarify my point, if the value of prestige was previously worth 10 points, the answer that was provided is that it's still worth 10 points. What wasn't said is that the weight of prestiges, which were essentially 0 before may now also be worth 10 points, so prestige may not have the same impact.

yeah, I know that prestige is no longer the only multiplier, because there are preferences now too. but the case I'm thinking of is one where preferences are even, so presumably, a prestige that's unchanged should be as effective as in 2.0

There is also a separate division factor, further separating the divisions. Seble put that in at the same time as his red light.