Posted by noleaniml on 10/12/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/12/2016 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Just thinking out loud here, are we saying that EVERY single time an A+ prestige should beat out a B prestige? If so, A+ schools can just sign whoever they want with no competition...how fun and fair is that?

Not exactly, but the sentiment remains among a lot of posters here and elsewhere that division alone should trump any amount of recruiting effort, and within a division prestige should trump almost any amount of recruiting effort. It can be hard to let go of the old HD2.0 advantages of being at the top.

It can also be hard to understand that this is a simulation of real life. In this case, most of us believe it should mirror real life. If a real life D1 school offers, especially one with any prestige at all, it would be EXTREMELY rare for a D2 school to compete and IMPOSSIBLE for a D3 school to compete. Many recruits that feel as though they are capable of play D1 ball choose to go JUCO rather than play D2 ball if they are not getting the attention they think they deserve.

I agree with this, but the OP wasnt talking about D2 and 3....it was about 2 highly prestiged D1 schools

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/12/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
This is a game that was designed to allow Gardner-Webb (B+) to sign the #1 recruit in Allen without a battle. Some people will hate this and some will love it.

It is what it is.

But without a battle, why shouldnt Gardner-Webb be able to sign the #1 recruit? If no other team was in on him...he has to go somewhere right?

Posted by noleaniml on 10/12/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/12/2016 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Just thinking out loud here, are we saying that EVERY single time an A+ prestige should beat out a B prestige? If so, A+ schools can just sign whoever they want with no competition...how fun and fair is that?

Not exactly, but the sentiment remains among a lot of posters here and elsewhere that division alone should trump any amount of recruiting effort, and within a division prestige should trump almost any amount of recruiting effort. It can be hard to let go of the old HD2.0 advantages of being at the top.

It can also be hard to understand that this is a simulation of real life. In this case, most of us believe it should mirror real life. If a real life D1 school offers, especially one with any prestige at all, it would be EXTREMELY rare for a D2 school to compete and IMPOSSIBLE for a D3 school to compete. Many recruits that feel as though they are capable of play D1 ball choose to go JUCO rather than play D2 ball if they are not getting the attention they think they deserve.

I know what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree. The divisions cannot become equal, or what are divisions for? But it can also be hard to understand that a simulation of real life needs most of all to be playable as a sim game. I think WIS has been good at that. Devotion to trying to mirror RL without regard to the playability of the game as a game isn't the best idea. Simulation cannot equal mirror.

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 8:54:00 AM (view original):
Welcome to 3.0 where EVERYONE is a winner!!
Nice little experiment against another team with almost identical preferences. Both all in.
A+ prestige vs B Prestige.
Result = VH vs VH
Well screw off WIS if getting to a A+ prestige doesn't mean dick anymore.
No wonder every wannabe loves this version.

It does to mean something.

It increases your probability.

Stop with the taking of individual events to then projecting it to every event. Maybe you don't understand math and probabilities.

An A+ prestige gives you more probability than a B prestige. Every Action is modified/corrected for prestige and for preferences. So, if an A+ team and a B team both put in 20 HVs and both put in 1 CV and both put in the same amount of Attention Points. Then the A+ guy has a better change of sgning than does the B guy. How much better .. probably around 0.15 times the effort. So if we take 1000 points as the Max Effort (what the A+ guy has) and if we use a .15 factor for how much better an A+ is than a B (100% vs 85% roughly) then that means that Player B has 850 points.

That would mean player A has 1000/1850 or 54% chance to win that means the B guy has a 46% chance.

If there is a +4% added for the leader (what was suggested before) that shifts the probability to:

58% to 42%

So, the A+ guy had 58% chance and he lost. It happens.

None of that suggests that A+ doesn't mean anything.

In blackjack, the house has an 8% advantage. That would be 54 to 46 odds .. people still make money on blackjack .. you can't take an individual win from the 46% Player and declare the 54% house means nothing. Overall, more often than not, in a way where the house makes a huge profit .. they win. They don't win every event though .. in fact they lose 46 times out of 100.

So, an A+ means a lot .. it means you will win a battle 58 times out of 100 .. it also means you lose 42 times.

All the singular event exaggeration is just looking at a single sample. The only way to win 100% if the time is to be the only person who is at Very High.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 10/12/2016 11:37:00 AM (view original):
are the APs about the same in that battle, mully? if so that's pretty silly.

assuming similar APs, i could see the argument that, all things being the same, they get in the RNG as 'high' with max effort, with a 35% chance--after all that would be similar-ish result to the old system (65-35)...but with the RNG at the end to encourage battles. but it absolutely shouldn't get the B-prestige team to very high and near-equal chance to land the recruit.

it definitely seems like APs are overpowered and prestige is underpowered. i think they need to consider adjusting one of these variables and see if balances things a bit, and, if not, adjust both.

They are not the same (APs), they are adjusted by a factor that takes into account both prestige and preferences .. as is every action.

Every event is modified by prestige, according to the way this was explained.

You can't take individual events and project them to all events. If I roll a ten sided die and it come up 1, and that says nothing about the next dice roll.

I'm with you on all of that hughes, but I think it does bear some discussion about whether an A+ school should be even be at 58-42 to sign a guy over a B, all else remaining equal.I know this is my own personal opinion, but I think that is too close. I think the best is the 65-35 VH vs H scenario. If they roll goes that other way- so be it, but I (and others) are beginning to think that prestige may not be enough of a factor based far more than just this example.

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/12/2016 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Just thinking out loud here, are we saying that EVERY single time an A+ prestige should beat out a B prestige? If so, A+ schools can just sign whoever they want with no competition...how fun and fair is that?

Not exactly, but the sentiment remains among a lot of posters here and elsewhere that division alone should trump any amount of recruiting effort, and within a division prestige should trump almost any amount of recruiting effort. It can be hard to let go of the old HD2.0 advantages of being at the top.

No, Spudhole (try to comprehend this)
What we are saying is ALL ELSE equal, a battle between an A+ school and a B school should NOT result in an even chance of signing.

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/12/2016 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Just thinking out loud here, are we saying that EVERY single time an A+ prestige should beat out a B prestige? If so, A+ schools can just sign whoever they want with no competition...how fun and fair is that?

Not exactly, but the sentiment remains among a lot of posters here and elsewhere that division alone should trump any amount of recruiting effort, and within a division prestige should trump almost any amount of recruiting effort. It can be hard to let go of the old HD2.0 advantages of being at the top.

No, Spudhole (try to comprehend this)
What we are saying is ALL ELSE equal, a battle between an A+ school and a B school should NOT result in an even chance of signing.

It ABSOLUTELY did not result in an even chance in signing.

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 10/12/2016 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 10/12/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Just thinking out loud here, are we saying that EVERY single time an A+ prestige should beat out a B prestige? If so, A+ schools can just sign whoever they want with no competition...how fun and fair is that?

Not exactly, but the sentiment remains among a lot of posters here and elsewhere that division alone should trump any amount of recruiting effort, and within a division prestige should trump almost any amount of recruiting effort. It can be hard to let go of the old HD2.0 advantages of being at the top.

No, Spudhole (try to comprehend this)
What we are saying is ALL ELSE equal, a battle between an A+ school and a B school should NOT result in an even chance of signing.

And it doesn't result in an EVEN chance of signing. It does, however, result in some chance of the B guy winning. And in ANY single battle, the B guy CAN win. The A+ guy will win MOST of the time .. but not every time.

Keep spinning it hughes. Prestige has had it's nuts cut off with 3.0. The fact that a prestige difference of 4 spots (B+/A-/A/A+) results in only a 5-10% difference in effort is pretty funny. Enjoy the "anyone can sign anyone" version of 3.0.

"I'm with you on all of that hughes, but I think it does bear some discussion about whether an A+ school should be even be at 58-42 to sign a guy over a B, all else remaining equal.I know this is my own personal opinion, but I think that is too close. I think the best is the 65-35 VH vs H scenario. If they roll goes that other way- so be it, but I (and others) are beginning to think that prestige may not be enough of a factor based far more than just this example."

Most if the people who have already left probably agree with the post above.

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 8:54:00 AM (view original):
Welcome to 3.0 where EVERYONE is a winner!!
Nice little experiment against another team with almost identical preferences. Both all in.
A+ prestige vs B Prestige.
Result = VH vs VH
Well screw off WIS if getting to a A+ prestige doesn't mean dick anymore.
No wonder every wannabe loves this version.

I think this arc.gument is based on a faulty premise. A good in offense isn't worth the same as a good in distance AND not all goods are the same.  being one mile away isn't the same as a hundred even thought they are both very goods. Much like in the old system a b- might have been almost a 2/3rds of a grade better than a c+, I don't think we can assume nearly identical preferences to be a very close #.

They are identical TJ - long term coach / strong conference / M2M defense - we each have the same results for the preferences. That's why this IS a good example.

Was one conference stronger than the other? How long were both coaches at their school? Just wondering.

Same conference so that doesn't matter. I have more tenure.

Posted by mullycj on 10/12/2016 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Keep spinning it hughes. Prestige has had it's nuts cut off with 3.0. The fact that a prestige difference of 4 spots (B+/A-/A/A+) results in only a 5-10% difference in effort is pretty funny. Enjoy the "anyone can sign anyone" version of 3.0.

"I'm with you on all of that hughes, but I think it does bear some discussion about whether an A+ school should be even be at 58-42 to sign a guy over a B, all else remaining equal.I know this is my own personal opinion, but I think that is too close. I think the best is the 65-35 VH vs H scenario. If they roll goes that other way- so be it, but I (and others) are beginning to think that prestige may not be enough of a factor based far more than just this example."

Most if the people who have already left probably agree with the post above.

You don't have to like it. You don't even have to play it.

I did not say that they couldn't adjust the probabilities a bit more. I am for tweaking the numbers to get a better desired outcome if that is what people want.

And 58 to 42 is 16% not 5% or 10%, it is significantly more than that.