Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

It will be figured out soon enough. And they'll be forced to make another change. Sometimes a few variables are better left unknown.

I'll admit I'm basing this off the "cookie cutter" teams from SLB when I first joined but, if someone figures it out, others will follow their lead.

Posted by mullycj on 12/21/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

Cards face up will be HVs (assume 20 for true battles), CV, pref matches (can be reasonably guessed), your promises, and prestige.

Hidden cards will be APs invested, opponent promises, aaaaand.... maybe RS, which could come face up later.

One half-full conference working together on this will figure out the formula in three cycles.

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/21/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

Cards face up will be HVs (assume 20 for true battles), CV, pref matches (can be reasonably guessed), your promises, and prestige.

Hidden cards will be APs invested, opponent promises, aaaaand.... maybe RS, which could come face up later.

One half-full conference working together on this will figure out the formula in three cycles.

So what would you find out exactly? I'm not sure I'm understanding how you could 'game' the system by doing this. Not saying you said you could game it but that's what I'm taking away.

Posted by Benis on 12/21/2016 9:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/21/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

Cards face up will be HVs (assume 20 for true battles), CV, pref matches (can be reasonably guessed), your promises, and prestige.

Hidden cards will be APs invested, opponent promises, aaaaand.... maybe RS, which could come face up later.

One half-full conference working together on this will figure out the formula in three cycles.

So what would you find out exactly? I'm not sure I'm understanding how you could 'game' the system by doing this. Not saying you said you could game it but that's what I'm taking away.

Same principle as card-counting. New system is all about odds; revealing the percentages will give those who learn to card-count a competitive edge.

But hey, this is happening, so let's just sit back and see what happens.

"Card-counting" is a really fun term for probabilistic variables, but inaccurate in this case (kind of like "coin flip"). This will give everyone who battles a better idea of the value of their recruiting efforts, as well as how prestige and preferences affect your odds. It's only card-counting if all things always remain the same - you'll never know exactly what your odds are to sign a player beforehand regardless of how much data you put together. Here are two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Team A has A+ prestige, Team B has C+ prestige. Team A gives 20 HVs, a CV, and 15 APs per cycle. Team B gives 20 HVs, a CV, and 30 APs per cycle as well as a promised start and minutes (in this particular scenario, the player prefers to play early). In the end Team A [hypothetically] has a 42% chance to sign the player, Team B has a 58% chance (everyone else is Moderate, or low, but also completely fictional).

Scenario 2: Exact same scenario as the first, only Team B doesn't promise the start until the 2nd to last cycle before the recruit is signed. To my understanding, a promised start operates as a kind of multiplier to APs, so with the exact same effort Team A could [hypothetically] have a 51% chance of signing, with Team B having a 49% chance.

Now imagine much more complicated scenarios where more than two teams are involved. There's too much you won't know before the recruit signs to "count cards". Get more creative with your complaining, or just be honest and say "I don't like 3.0 as much as 2.0, and I'm trying to find new ways to express that".

It would be nice if WIS worked more like my work. The people who complain the most and are the most negative have a more difficult to get their quarterly bonus.

So if any of the big time naysayers happen to find themselves into a Championship game, let the administration tweak their odds of winning.

And then they'll really have a reason to complain, but then it will always come back to being their own responsibility. "Don't bite the hands that feeds you", "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar", and my favorite "He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. "

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 10:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/21/2016 9:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/21/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

Cards face up will be HVs (assume 20 for true battles), CV, pref matches (can be reasonably guessed), your promises, and prestige.

Hidden cards will be APs invested, opponent promises, aaaaand.... maybe RS, which could come face up later.

One half-full conference working together on this will figure out the formula in three cycles.

So what would you find out exactly? I'm not sure I'm understanding how you could 'game' the system by doing this. Not saying you said you could game it but that's what I'm taking away.

Same principle as card-counting. New system is all about odds; revealing the percentages will give those who learn to card-count a competitive edge.

But hey, this is happening, so let's just sit back and see what happens.

I get your point, and don't necessarily disagree. My preference is that people just suck it up and accept that they can't completely control the outcome, and sometimes you don't get what you want.

At the same time, the actual value of seeing the odds - even if we can assume a group of users could reverse engineer it - is not nearly the value of knowing how it all worked in the previous version, where 51 always beat 49. And I think what mully is saying above - though I would never speak for him! - is that with preferences involved, the actual calculus should really be different for each player. So we can probably get some pretty close eyeball level estimations hashed out, my guess is that people who have been playing since beta already have a pretty good idea of the relative stand-alone value of prestige, promises, and visits.

Posted by skinndogg on 12/22/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
It would be nice if WIS worked more like my work. The people who complain the most and are the most negative have a more difficult to get their quarterly bonus.

So if any of the big time naysayers happen to find themselves into a Championship game, let the administration tweak their odds of winning.

And then they'll really have a reason to complain, but then it will always come back to being their own responsibility. "Don't bite the hands that feeds you", "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar", and my favorite "He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. "

consider the difference between customers and employees

I was helping someone recruit and under my watch he lost a battle to a team that was High. There were THREE Very Highs in the battle too. I would love to see the odds on that one. But honestly I don't really know how it would help. That team would be listed at like 8% and people would be even more upset. Or not. I don't know.

Posted by Benis on 12/22/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
I was helping someone recruit and under my watch he lost a battle to a team that was High. There were THREE Very Highs in the battle too. I would love to see the odds on that one. But honestly I don't really know how it would help. That team would be listed at like 8% and people would be even more upset. Or not. I don't know.

As time goes on we're all going to have those happen, though. It'll actually give me more peace of mind for to know that I lost a battle to a team that had an 8% chance over a 30% or 40% chance because it's guaranteed to happen at some point to everyone. With probability being such a large part of recruiting, the law of averages is bound to catch up with everyone eventually.

Posted by mbriese on 12/22/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
"Card-counting" is a really fun term for probabilistic variables, but inaccurate in this case (kind of like "coin flip"). This will give everyone who battles a better idea of the value of their recruiting efforts, as well as how prestige and preferences affect your odds. It's only card-counting if all things always remain the same - you'll never know exactly what your odds are to sign a player beforehand regardless of how much data you put together. Here are two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Team A has A+ prestige, Team B has C+ prestige. Team A gives 20 HVs, a CV, and 15 APs per cycle. Team B gives 20 HVs, a CV, and 30 APs per cycle as well as a promised start and minutes (in this particular scenario, the player prefers to play early). In the end Team A [hypothetically] has a 42% chance to sign the player, Team B has a 58% chance (everyone else is Moderate, or low, but also completely fictional).

Scenario 2: Exact same scenario as the first, only Team B doesn't promise the start until the 2nd to last cycle before the recruit is signed. To my understanding, a promised start operates as a kind of multiplier to APs, so with the exact same effort Team A could [hypothetically] have a 51% chance of signing, with Team B having a 49% chance.

Now imagine much more complicated scenarios where more than two teams are involved. There's too much you won't know before the recruit signs to "count cards". Get more creative with your complaining, or just be honest and say "I don't like 3.0 as much as 2.0, and I'm trying to find new ways to express that".

I respect you, but you rather clearly don't understand how card counting works, so I stopped reading after the first sentence.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/22/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 10:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/21/2016 9:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 8:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 12/21/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/21/2016 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 12/21/2016 11:39:00 AM (view original):
this is really interesting!

I'm not sure that my behavior would be different depending on whether I have a 35 or 37% chance of success - BUT this is a great way to educate the user base about the new architecture

thank you

I completely disagree. The whole entire point of 3.0 recruiting was to make it less of a math problem. If you're going to show coaches' cards like in a poker game, what was the point of any of this? Just to show that sometimes you'll draw a bad beat on the river?

Hardly - you would have to plug in 1000 scenarios into a computer to begin to understand how EACH individual variable is affecting the recruit decision.

This is a great idea that was brought up in BETA and poopooed by Seble. Glad to see more open minds are in control now.

Cards face up will be HVs (assume 20 for true battles), CV, pref matches (can be reasonably guessed), your promises, and prestige.

Hidden cards will be APs invested, opponent promises, aaaaand.... maybe RS, which could come face up later.

One half-full conference working together on this will figure out the formula in three cycles.

So what would you find out exactly? I'm not sure I'm understanding how you could 'game' the system by doing this. Not saying you said you could game it but that's what I'm taking away.

Same principle as card-counting. New system is all about odds; revealing the percentages will give those who learn to card-count a competitive edge.

But hey, this is happening, so let's just sit back and see what happens.

I get your point, and don't necessarily disagree. My preference is that people just suck it up and accept that they can't completely control the outcome, and sometimes you don't get what you want.

At the same time, the actual value of seeing the odds - even if we can assume a group of users could reverse engineer it - is not nearly the value of knowing how it all worked in the previous version, where 51 always beat 49. And I think what mully is saying above - though I would never speak for him! - is that with preferences involved, the actual calculus should really be different for each player. So we can probably get some pretty close eyeball level estimations hashed out, my guess is that people who have been playing since beta already have a pretty good idea of the relative stand-alone value of prestige, promises, and visits.

The RNG will always be the joker in the deck, for sure. I guess I'd just prefer to not have other evidence of the formula out there to give an edge to the real addicts.

But I'm not a current player (have a free season on account that Im waiting to see if I'll use)... I cheerfully recognize my opinion doesn't carry much wait given my current status.

Posted by kcsundevil on 12/22/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 12/22/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
"Card-counting" is a really fun term for probabilistic variables, but inaccurate in this case (kind of like "coin flip"). This will give everyone who battles a better idea of the value of their recruiting efforts, as well as how prestige and preferences affect your odds. It's only card-counting if all things always remain the same - you'll never know exactly what your odds are to sign a player beforehand regardless of how much data you put together. Here are two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Team A has A+ prestige, Team B has C+ prestige. Team A gives 20 HVs, a CV, and 15 APs per cycle. Team B gives 20 HVs, a CV, and 30 APs per cycle as well as a promised start and minutes (in this particular scenario, the player prefers to play early). In the end Team A [hypothetically] has a 42% chance to sign the player, Team B has a 58% chance (everyone else is Moderate, or low, but also completely fictional).

Scenario 2: Exact same scenario as the first, only Team B doesn't promise the start until the 2nd to last cycle before the recruit is signed. To my understanding, a promised start operates as a kind of multiplier to APs, so with the exact same effort Team A could [hypothetically] have a 51% chance of signing, with Team B having a 49% chance.

Now imagine much more complicated scenarios where more than two teams are involved. There's too much you won't know before the recruit signs to "count cards". Get more creative with your complaining, or just be honest and say "I don't like 3.0 as much as 2.0, and I'm trying to find new ways to express that".

I respect you, but you rather clearly don't understand how card counting works, so I stopped reading after the first sentence.

Believe it or not, I do! It's much simpler than what I do every day at my job, where I analyze complex data sets all day. My first sentence was just pointing out that he was using the term "card counting" to describe something that is in no way card counting. But hey, thanks for respecting me!