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.