Was the effort exactly the same?
what about ap and minutes/start?

Maybe they will tell us specific numbers and percentages if a ticket is submitted .. maybe not.

I made a guess based on some facts about how many ap points equal a hv in beta but I can't remember. I think it was around 80-100.

One thing I think we need to be clear on for the people not in beta hughes is the difference between the "effort %s" and the "chance to sign %s".
I am stating that, all else equal, an A+ vs a B should result in a VH vs H scenario due to prestige importance.
From my understanding that gets us to at most a 61% vs 39% effort variance (or is it 56% vs 44%?). (Whatever the cutoff of VH to H is)
Once the "leader adjustment" is made that would actually climb to +75% - 25%.

TJ - at some point I thought the beta forum myth was 160AP = a HV

Posted by hughesjr on 10/12/2016 1:34:00 PM (view original):

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.

I understand probabilities. I also understand that your analysis involves assumptions about the bump that the leader receives. So, if you'd like to include an honest margin of error to your analysis, wouldn't it look something like 5-7%. That would mean that the difference between 10% & 16% is not necessarily significant.

I am glad that you agree that the numbers could be tweaked a bit. That's what I have been arguing since the results in the Beta became clear. There's no reason why the overall structure cannot work, but the market that has been generated does not function well. I guess that you are ambivalent about whether, all else being equal, a B vs. A+ prestige battle should be any different than a 16% spread on max effort, but the comparison to blackjack is silly.
The way to get the results in blackjack is to be willing and able to play enough hands well. With time (both RL and per cycle) and budget constraints involved in the recruiting structure, I argue that a 16% spread (+/- X%) in this example is insufficient. The benefits rolling down to a B prestige D1 team will be felt in the fact that A+ teams have to battle other A+ schools and expend resources and time (AP) for top tier recruits. If the result of the update is that a B team has too great a chance to win a battle like this one, then the proper play is to enter the battle.

The question boils down to whether WIS has the line appropriately placed where a B or C D1 team ought to decide to avoid a battle. It seems to me that, too often, they can get themselves into the RNG, even as an underdog, and have a significant chance of signing the top-flight talent. That's a perverse market in the opposite direction of the prior perversity under 2.0.

So what you think mully is that if all else is truly equal, that you should have a 3 times as likely to sign the recruit instead of 1.5 times as likely?

i am not trying to be a dick, just trying to clarify

Posted by rogelio on 10/12/2016 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 10/12/2016 1:34:00 PM (view original):

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.

I understand probabilities. I also understand that your analysis involves assumptions about the bump that the leader receives. So, if you'd like to include an honest margin of error to your analysis, wouldn't it look something like 5-7%. That would mean that the difference between 10% & 16% is not necessarily significant.

I am glad that you agree that the numbers could be tweaked a bit. That's what I have been arguing since the results in the Beta became clear. There's no reason why the overall structure cannot work, but the market that has been generated does not function well. I guess that you are ambivalent about whether, all else being equal, a B vs. A+ prestige battle should be any different than a 16% spread on max effort, but the comparison to blackjack is silly.
The way to get the results in blackjack is to be willing and able to play enough hands well. With time (both RL and per cycle) and budget constraints involved in the recruiting structure, I argue that a 16% spread (+/- X%) in this example is insufficient. The benefits rolling down to a B prestige D1 team will be felt in the fact that A+ teams have to battle other A+ schools and expend resources and time (AP) for top tier recruits. If the result of the update is that a B team has too great a chance to win a battle like this one, then the proper play is to enter the battle.

The question boils down to whether WIS has the line appropriately placed where a B or C D1 team ought to decide to avoid a battle. It seems to me that, too often, they can get themselves into the RNG, even as an underdog, and have a significant chance of signing the top-flight talent. That's a perverse market in the opposite direction of the prior perversity under 2.0.

As I said, tweaking the results is fine. We should try to get WIS to talk about what they see and who wins the battles. I am sure they are gathering stats.

Yes TJ - that is correct IMO
So how could a "B" win a battle with an "A+" in this world?
Fight battles where you have a scholly advantage and a preference advantage to even the odds. So WIS has already created a way to make it happen. It did not ALSO have to rip the balls off the prestige.

But straight up A+ vs B should be 75% chance of success IMO.

"As I said, tweaking the results is fine. We should try to get WIS to talk about what they see and who wins the battles. I am sure they are gathering stats."

I made a post in BETA that we were spending our time on the wrong issues. If Seble were more competent he would have laid out +20 scenarios for us with results and we would have voted on if they made sense or not. Many of us in BETA though prestige was fkced up but we didn't get to see enough battles posted/analyzed to know for sure.

SO now we have so suffer through it in the real game.

Appreciate your input hughes.

I understand that argument. I think it's valid. I think you should submit a ticket and ask them if that's what they think should happen.

I understand that argument. I think it's valid. I think you should submit a ticket and ask them if that's what they think should happen.

OK OK I heard you the first time!!

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.

Not if they understand what's going on and didn't get upset about probabilities being introduced into signings.

Yeah.... True