Just reading this thread. This game. FML. I'm just going to close the tab before I derail this.

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 8:24:00 PM (view original):
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?

"College Dropout" was a masterpiece. Apologize to Kanye.

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 9:46:00 PM (view original):
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").

agreed

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 9:46:00 PM (view original):
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").

Minor clarification, all 100 had to have VHs in consideration based on the quote from the dev chat:

"3% have gone with a High interest team over a Very High interest."

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 10:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 8:24:00 PM (view original):
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?

"College Dropout" was a masterpiece. Apologize to Kanye.

"Paid in Full" was a masterpiece. "Illmatic" was a masterpiece. "Black on Both Sides" was a masterpiece. "College Dropout" was a sketch on a napkin left on the table next to a mediocre tip for the server by comparison.

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 10:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 10:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 9/30/2016 8:24:00 PM (view original):
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?

"College Dropout" was a masterpiece. Apologize to Kanye.

"Paid in Full" was a masterpiece. "Illmatic" was a masterpiece. "Black on Both Sides" was a masterpiece. "College Dropout" was a sketch on a napkin left on the table next to a mediocre tip for the server by comparison.

To further the analogy--this game has turned into Ja Rule's "Greatest Hits" on repeat.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 10:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 9:46:00 PM (view original):
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").

Minor clarification, all 100 had to have VHs in consideration based on the quote from the dev chat:

"3% have gone with a High interest team over a Very High interest."

I know at first glance it looks like they're saying highs have a 3% win rate against very highs. But that's not what they said. Go back another sentence for full context:

"Only a couple worlds have begun to recruit but thus far a majority of the signed recruits have gone with the team that had the most interest as expected. Only 3% have gone with a High interest team over a Very High interest." (emphasis mine, obviously)

They aren't saying highs have a 3% win percentage over very highs. I suspect that's actually between 20 and 30%, and I don't expect them to disclose that figure, nor the target figure they have in mind; they probably would have done it already if they intended to. They're saying of the set of signed recruits, a majority go with the team with most interest (% not disclosed) and a subset of only 3% includes recruits that chose high over very high. It's not a win rate, it's a percentage of the overall signees that chose high over very high. The point being, while those upsets understandably get a lot of attention, they represent a very small number of overall recruits, because most signings don't involve a battle between high and very high.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/1/2016 12:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/30/2016 10:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 9/30/2016 9:46:00 PM (view original):
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").

Minor clarification, all 100 had to have VHs in consideration based on the quote from the dev chat:

"3% have gone with a High interest team over a Very High interest."

I know at first glance it looks like they're saying highs have a 3% win rate against very highs. But that's not what they said. Go back another sentence for full context:

"Only a couple worlds have begun to recruit but thus far a majority of the signed recruits have gone with the team that had the most interest as expected. Only 3% have gone with a High interest team over a Very High interest." (emphasis mine, obviously)

They aren't saying highs have a 3% win percentage over very highs. I suspect that's actually between 20 and 30%, and I don't expect them to disclose that figure, nor the target figure they have in mind; they probably would have done it already if they intended to. They're saying of the set of signed recruits, a majority go with the team with most interest (% not disclosed) and a subset of only 3% includes recruits that chose high over very high. It's not a win rate, it's a percentage of the overall signees that chose high over very high. The point being, while those upsets understandably get a lot of attention, they represent a very small number of overall recruits, because most signings don't involve a battle between high and very high.

I see how you're reading it. If your interpretation is correct, the explanation WIS gave us (the one you interpreted) is wildly misleading.

I don't know if it's intentionally misleading, but I do suspect that they are reframing the issue to highlight for folks that in the grand scheme of things, the instances of highs beating very highs don't represent a large number of signings. They aren't going to spill the hard numbers, though Seble did share some vague ranges with us in beta (something to the tune of 40% was too high, he was looking for closer to 20-30%). It's hard to believe it's gone from there to 3%, and I think we all know that in the actual cases of battles that go to H vs VH, the outcomes are a lot closer to 1 in 3 or 4, than 1 in 30 or 40.

To follow up:

After a very long exchange with CS over the last week I have at least an understanding of what happened and there were a couple aspects of this new system that really surprised me (and not in a good way). What it boiled down to was that St. Johns never actually approached my level of effort, and I had a HUGE lead on them. They put in just enough effort in that cycle to move from "Moderate" to "a very low 'High'" as CS put it, while I was still at a dominating "very high". It just so happened that the recruit "decided" he was going to sign that cycle, and because St Johns has moved just over the line into High he was eligible for the dice roll/lottery/whatever you want to call the RNG. CS would not give me concrete numbers, but when I suggested that according to my estimations I should have had a 90/10 probability advantage, CS said that was pretty darn close. I lost the dice roll despite the overwhelming advantage and disparity in effort, and the recruit signed with St. Johns.

Long story short, it all comes down to the RNG--even when you are DOMINATING your opponent in effort. I didn't know it was basically an RNG that decides when a recruit will sign (your effort has NO BEARING AT ALL on when the recruit decides to pull the trigger--frankly shocking to me). You don't have to plan for anything, you just need to get lucky. Dice roll dynasty.

Also, he said that "High" beating "Very High" is happening at an 8% rate according to their data across worlds, which again seems much lower than what we are seeing here.

Yeah it was talked in beta quite a bit about effort influencing when a recruit signs. Seble didn't want to change it because it would defeat the purpose of having the signing tendencies.

So I tried to track the High vs VH on another thread. It was a small sample size but it was around 30%. And I think was 3 out of 5 times that a High beat TWO VHs.

Supposedly what they really mean is that only 8% of ALL signings are going to a High over VH. Not that a High beats a VH 8% of the time.

Posted by Benis on 10/6/2016 6:51:00 PM (view original):
Yeah it was talked in beta quite a bit about effort influencing when a recruit signs. Seble didn't want to change it because it would defeat the purpose of having the signing tendencies.

So I tried to track the High vs VH on another thread. It was a small sample size but it was around 30%. And I think was 3 out of 5 times that a High beat TWO VHs.

Supposedly what they really mean is that only 8% of ALL signings are going to a High over VH. Not that a High beats a VH 8% of the time.

Not according to what he said. He was talking specifically about when a Very High and High are battling (at least, his response was to a question directly about that).

He wrote: "So far we've seen about 8% of top ranked recruits sign with a team at High over Very High and that's about where we would expect that number to be."

Posted by snafu4u on 10/6/2016 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/6/2016 6:51:00 PM (view original):
Yeah it was talked in beta quite a bit about effort influencing when a recruit signs. Seble didn't want to change it because it would defeat the purpose of having the signing tendencies.

So I tried to track the High vs VH on another thread. It was a small sample size but it was around 30%. And I think was 3 out of 5 times that a High beat TWO VHs.

Supposedly what they really mean is that only 8% of ALL signings are going to a High over VH. Not that a High beats a VH 8% of the time.

Not according to what he said. He was talking specifically about when a Very High and High are battling (at least, his response was to a question directly about that).

He wrote: "So far we've seen about 8% of top ranked recruits sign with a team at High over Very High and that's about where we would expect that number to be."

Yeah... not what the data I pulled said. I'll link to my thread.

edit- take it with a grain of salt since it's a small sample size. But if others want to start pulling the data from their worlds, that'd be great.

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=496649

Posted by snafu4u on 10/6/2016 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/6/2016 6:51:00 PM (view original):
Yeah it was talked in beta quite a bit about effort influencing when a recruit signs. Seble didn't want to change it because it would defeat the purpose of having the signing tendencies.

So I tried to track the High vs VH on another thread. It was a small sample size but it was around 30%. And I think was 3 out of 5 times that a High beat TWO VHs.

Supposedly what they really mean is that only 8% of ALL signings are going to a High over VH. Not that a High beats a VH 8% of the time.

Not according to what he said. He was talking specifically about when a Very High and High are battling (at least, his response was to a question directly about that).

He wrote: "So far we've seen about 8% of top ranked recruits sign with a team at High over Very High and that's about where we would expect that number to be."

If they meant to say that highs have an 8% win percentage over very highs, that's what they would say. See my responses above. What he's saying is that among top ranked recruits who sign (let's just say the top 100 in a given world), 8% of those signees were results of battles where highs beat very highs. The actual win rate is probably something like 25%. So perhaps there were 32 battles in the top 100 featuring a high vs a very high, and the high won 8 of them. The rest of the signees in the top 100 were decided among very highs only, or didn't have battles at all.

Posted by snafu4u on 10/6/2016 6:36:00 PM (view original):
To follow up:

After a very long exchange with CS over the last week I have at least an understanding of what happened and there were a couple aspects of this new system that really surprised me (and not in a good way). What it boiled down to was that St. Johns never actually approached my level of effort, and I had a HUGE lead on them. They put in just enough effort in that cycle to move from "Moderate" to "a very low 'High'" as CS put it, while I was still at a dominating "very high". It just so happened that the recruit "decided" he was going to sign that cycle, and because St Johns has moved just over the line into High he was eligible for the dice roll/lottery/whatever you want to call the RNG. CS would not give me concrete numbers, but when I suggested that according to my estimations I should have had a 90/10 probability advantage, CS said that was pretty darn close. I lost the dice roll despite the overwhelming advantage and disparity in effort, and the recruit signed with St. Johns.

Long story short, it all comes down to the RNG--even when you are DOMINATING your opponent in effort. I didn't know it was basically an RNG that decides when a recruit will sign (your effort has NO BEARING AT ALL on when the recruit decides to pull the trigger--frankly shocking to me). You don't have to plan for anything, you just need to get lucky. Dice roll dynasty.

Also, he said that "High" beating "Very High" is happening at an 8% rate according to their data across worlds, which again seems much lower than what we are seeing here.

FWIW, seble said elsewhere that a 65/35 effort advantage results in a 100/0 signing probability. And after he said that, he actually skewed things even farther toward the leading team.

So if you had a 90/10 probability advantage, it means your effort advantage was probably no greater than 60/40. You may already know this, and if so, I apologize for overexplaining. Just trying to provide context (without going back through the whole thread to see what's been said)