Posted by npb7768 on 9/30/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Moving forward, a solution to this could be that each player under the preferences tab would have a "Signing Tendency"... maybe a random 25% of recruits will always sign with the team that's ahead at 50.0001%, call them "Loyal"... another 25% will be "Erratic", with wild fluctuations in who they sign with... the final 50% will be regular as it is now (once we find a sensible balance).

Also: in Beta, i think at first there was no Timing preference, but eventually it was added where "Early", "by End of Period 1", "Whenever" and "Late" were added as preferences... this was a big improvement.

Following up on my own post here...

Maybe 10% of recruits would be "Highly Erratic", so that any school at Moderate or better would have an equal chance to sign the player.
Then maybe 25% would be "Extremely Loyal", and will sign with any team at Very High 50.1%.
Then 65% would be regular 3.0 odds.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 9/30/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
There was no way for Spud to know St Johns was +6, unless he saw the inside math. Or, he's wrong and just made up +6.

I think he got +6 from the OP; 1 very bad (-2), 3 very goods (+6), 2 goods (+2).

First time I've seen this. Is that really a known formula? Do we know VG is 2x the value of G for every preference, not 3x or 1.5x or 6x?

No, I think this is spud's formula.

I was generally simplifying it that way too just for the sake of a basic tally. Which by my tally should have put me up over St Johns in preferences too. How can I have been leading in every category, since the beginning, and lose in one cycle? This makes poaching far worse in 3.0 than 2.0.

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 9/30/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
There was no way for Spud to know St Johns was +6, unless he saw the inside math. Or, he's wrong and just made up +6.

I think he got +6 from the OP; 1 very bad (-2), 3 very goods (+6), 2 goods (+2).

First time I've seen this. Is that really a known formula? Do we know VG is 2x the value of G for every preference, not 3x or 1.5x or 6x?

No, I think this is spud's formula.

I was generally simplifying it that way too just for the sake of a basic tally. Which by my tally should have put me up over St Johns in preferences too. How can I have been leading in every category, since the beginning, and lose in one cycle? This makes poaching far worse in 3.0 than 2.0.

Not all preferences are equal. They mentioned that in the 1st dev chat. I suspect that O/D and Play style preferences matter a little less than the others. But just a hunch, don't know for sure.

Also, snafu4u - strong defense is determined by points per possession.

IMO, the biggest problem with "poaching" was that often times you were left with no recourse to even go and recruit a sort of decent player to fill that spot. This is no longer the case with this system.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 9/30/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
There was no way for Spud to know St Johns was +6, unless he saw the inside math. Or, he's wrong and just made up +6.

I think he got +6 from the OP; 1 very bad (-2), 3 very goods (+6), 2 goods (+2).

Looking at it again it appears that OP was referring to the recruit's preferences with his own team. At first glance, it looked to be the other way around.

Exactly. He was talking about St. John's earlier in the paragraph and I took it as the recruit's preferences with St. John's. My bad.

Now the conspiracy theorists can resume clucking.

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/30/2016 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 9/30/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
There was no way for Spud to know St Johns was +6, unless he saw the inside math. Or, he's wrong and just made up +6.

I think he got +6 from the OP; 1 very bad (-2), 3 very goods (+6), 2 goods (+2).

Looking at it again it appears that OP was referring to the recruit's preferences with his own team. At first glance, it looked to be the other way around.

Exactly. He was talking about St. John's earlier in the paragraph and I took it as the recruit's preferences with St. John's. My bad.

Now the conspiracy theorists can resume clucking.

I made an edit to make it more clear, but this gets back to my point. I was +6 and St Johns was +4 (by this basic, tally). I had much more AP, maxed out everything (visists, promises) all done from the get go. I have a higher prestige. How did St Johns come in and go from not on the list to signed in 2 cycles? I should have been so far ahead that a coin flip should have been mitigated. If it were A+ Virginia or Syracuse I could understand it, but not B St Johns with less effort. If the RNG is that powerful then why the hell do we bother recruiting? Should there just be a lottery for each and every player?

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 7:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 9/30/2016 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 9/30/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):
There was no way for Spud to know St Johns was +6, unless he saw the inside math. Or, he's wrong and just made up +6.

I think he got +6 from the OP; 1 very bad (-2), 3 very goods (+6), 2 goods (+2).

Looking at it again it appears that OP was referring to the recruit's preferences with his own team. At first glance, it looked to be the other way around.

Exactly. He was talking about St. John's earlier in the paragraph and I took it as the recruit's preferences with St. John's. My bad.

Now the conspiracy theorists can resume clucking.

I made an edit to make it more clear, but this gets back to my point. I was +6 and St Johns was +4 (by this basic, tally). I had much more AP, maxed out everything (visists, promises) all done from the get go. I have a higher prestige. How did St Johns come in and go from not on the list to signed in 2 cycles? I should have been so far ahead that a coin flip should have been mitigated. If it were A+ Virginia or Syracuse I could understand it, but not B St Johns with less effort. If the RNG is that powerful then why the hell do we bother recruiting? Should there just be a lottery for each and every player?

No, not lottery .. well, at least not a straight lottery with even odds.

It is a weighted lottery though, yes. If there are 100 balls (100% chance) .. If you have a 70% chance, you have 70 Balls .. every other team that is high or above gets SOME balls as well. Maybe 3 other teams share the other balls (or in your case 1 other team). But, it is possible that someone with 1 ball CAN win.

That's just how it is.

But, only teams with High or Very High get any balls .. and the balls given are weighted based on the teams percentage of total effort.

And with just a quick glance through those that have signed in the top 100, there are way more that 3% of recruits signing with lower prestige schools at only High, against higher prestige schools at Very High. This new system is straight up broken from the start. No fun to play a game you cant be competitive in since there don't appear to be any rules to follow. Or worse (as I suspect) it is gamed so that less successful programs/coaches will win more often to garner more interest and subscriptions out of them.

Not sure where they got the 3%. Late in Wooden's first cycle recruitment it was 50%, 13 of 26 at the DI level.

Posted by grecianfox on 9/30/2016 8:05:00 PM (view original):
Not sure where they got the 3%. Late in Wooden's first cycle recruitment it was 50%, 13 of 26 at the DI level.

Devchat said High wins over Very High in only 3% of instances.

Yeah would be great if people could post some stats of signings.

Whats frustrating as hell is they took the one part of the game that was competitive and turned it into a lottery. If what I experienced is normal for recruiting in 3.0 the funk this shirt. I am out. WIS was my favorite game/time waster/brain cleanser--my competitive outlet. I have spent hundreds of dollars with them over the years, but this new system is just crap. I will just sit on my remaining credits and hope they bring back a 2.0 world. What they have done to HD is worse than what Kanye has done to hip-hop. Why do these cornholes have to ruin everything I love?

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grecianfox on 9/30/2016 8:05:00 PM (view original):
Not sure where they got the 3%. Late in Wooden's first cycle recruitment it was 50%, 13 of 26 at the DI level.

Devchat said High wins over Very High in only 3% of instances.

That's not true.

High will win ~25% of the time

Posted by mullycj on 9/30/2016 9:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grecianfox on 9/30/2016 8:05:00 PM (view original):
Not sure where they got the 3%. Late in Wooden's first cycle recruitment it was 50%, 13 of 26 at the DI level.

Devchat said High wins over Very High in only 3% of instances.

That's not true.

High will win ~25% of the time

It's not my Stat.

As I said in another thread...

100 recruits
3 sign with "high" in a battle with one or more "very highs"
97 sign with very highs, or had no teams reach very high consideration.

This is the only way the 3% figure makes sense with what we know. This fits anecdotally with my experience in beta, where only 3 of the 15 rolls I've gone to featured a high battling a very high (I did happen to win one of those battles as the "high").