Posted by buddhagamer on 3/23/2017 10:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/20/2017 3:16:00 PM (view original):
No I think the ticket above just states that when HVs/CVs are sent as part of the same cycle, that the promises are processed first (and then the HVs/CVs would get the benefit of any multiplier).

If there is some type of hidden multiplier with minutes/starts beyond the preference, I would think that is a unintended function that makes recruiting even more difficult for new users who won't have that knowledge.

What the ticket should ask is: Does all subsequent effort get some type of multiplier effort if a recruit is offered a start/minutes regardless of his preference to play?.

Turns out drichar138 was correct in that promises in of themselves carry both a multiplying effect and some recruiting value. The "Wants to Play" preference just magnifies it even more.

Ticket sent into CS:

A question regarding recruiting actions and if they have some type of multiplier associated with them.

In the absence of any preferences, does the order of any recruiting actions have any effect of other subsequent actions?

Two identical teams battling for a recruit with NO preferences what so ever, Team A sends start promise, 20 minutes in one cycle, then next cycle sends 20 HVs + CV. Team B sends 20 HVs + CV in one cycle, then next cycle sends start promise + 20 minutes. Is the recruiting effort equal? or does Team A benefit due to some multiplying effect given by promise start and/or minutes.

CS response:

Team A would benefit. Promises do have a multiplying effect but only for that cycle and onward. Preferences also have a multiplying offer.

In my opinion that's messed up. All things equal should be equal. That's built in version of "gaming the system". Theoretically you could offer the starts/ minutes, then visits that get multiplied, then pull the minutes and only lose the "recruiting action" of the minutes. If what they are saying of once something is multiplied then it's done. Am I seeing this correct?

Posted by all2matt on 3/23/2017 11:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/23/2017 10:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/20/2017 3:16:00 PM (view original):
No I think the ticket above just states that when HVs/CVs are sent as part of the same cycle, that the promises are processed first (and then the HVs/CVs would get the benefit of any multiplier).

If there is some type of hidden multiplier with minutes/starts beyond the preference, I would think that is a unintended function that makes recruiting even more difficult for new users who won't have that knowledge.

What the ticket should ask is: Does all subsequent effort get some type of multiplier effort if a recruit is offered a start/minutes regardless of his preference to play?.

Turns out drichar138 was correct in that promises in of themselves carry both a multiplying effect and some recruiting value. The "Wants to Play" preference just magnifies it even more.

Ticket sent into CS:

A question regarding recruiting actions and if they have some type of multiplier associated with them.

In the absence of any preferences, does the order of any recruiting actions have any effect of other subsequent actions?

Two identical teams battling for a recruit with NO preferences what so ever, Team A sends start promise, 20 minutes in one cycle, then next cycle sends 20 HVs + CV. Team B sends 20 HVs + CV in one cycle, then next cycle sends start promise + 20 minutes. Is the recruiting effort equal? or does Team A benefit due to some multiplying effect given by promise start and/or minutes.

CS response:

Team A would benefit. Promises do have a multiplying effect but only for that cycle and onward. Preferences also have a multiplying offer.

In my opinion that's messed up. All things equal should be equal. That's built in version of "gaming the system". Theoretically you could offer the starts/ minutes, then visits that get multiplied, then pull the minutes and only lose the "recruiting action" of the minutes. If what they are saying of once something is multiplied then it's done. Am I seeing this correct?

No, as I explained recently in this post, withdrawing minutes promises (without offering *more* minutes) results in a heavy penalty beyond just removing the value of the promise itself (likely applies a huge negative multiplier on all accrued recruiting credit up to that point). Likely the same thing occurs for promised starts.

Posted by all2matt on 3/23/2017 11:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/23/2017 10:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/20/2017 3:16:00 PM (view original):
No I think the ticket above just states that when HVs/CVs are sent as part of the same cycle, that the promises are processed first (and then the HVs/CVs would get the benefit of any multiplier).

If there is some type of hidden multiplier with minutes/starts beyond the preference, I would think that is a unintended function that makes recruiting even more difficult for new users who won't have that knowledge.

What the ticket should ask is: Does all subsequent effort get some type of multiplier effort if a recruit is offered a start/minutes regardless of his preference to play?.

Turns out drichar138 was correct in that promises in of themselves carry both a multiplying effect and some recruiting value. The "Wants to Play" preference just magnifies it even more.

Ticket sent into CS:

A question regarding recruiting actions and if they have some type of multiplier associated with them.

In the absence of any preferences, does the order of any recruiting actions have any effect of other subsequent actions?

Two identical teams battling for a recruit with NO preferences what so ever, Team A sends start promise, 20 minutes in one cycle, then next cycle sends 20 HVs + CV. Team B sends 20 HVs + CV in one cycle, then next cycle sends start promise + 20 minutes. Is the recruiting effort equal? or does Team A benefit due to some multiplying effect given by promise start and/or minutes.

CS response:

Team A would benefit. Promises do have a multiplying effect but only for that cycle and onward. Preferences also have a multiplying offer.

In my opinion that's messed up. All things equal should be equal. That's built in version of "gaming the system". Theoretically you could offer the starts/ minutes, then visits that get multiplied, then pull the minutes and only lose the "recruiting action" of the minutes. If what they are saying of once something is multiplied then it's done. Am I seeing this correct?

No. Pulling promises has a stand alone effect, and it goes farther in the negative than the original promise brought you in the positive. Will you keep the little extra boost they added to your visits? Maybe, maybe not. You can ask, I suppose. Or try it and report back. :) But the game was designed to discourage pulling promises, so I suspect the stand alone loss will end up hurting you more, even if you keep the multiplier boosts.

I got insanely lucky and ended up winning both of the below recruiting battles.

Team	Coach	Division	Prestige	Int Level	Scholarship Offer?	Odds
Francis Marion	ldjvjr	DII	B+	Very High	Yes	37%
Missouri, St. Louis	gdog13cavs	DII	A	Very High	Yes	39%
Valparaiso	una_hoops	DI	B-	High	Yes	25%

On the above, I had 844 AP (36.7 avg), 18 Home Visits, 1 Campus Visit, and Promised Minutes and a Promised Start. I led throughout, but FM came on strong late in period 1, and Valpo made it to high right before he signed at the beginning of period 2. I had 1 VG, 1 G, and 1 B preference.

Team	Coach	Division	Prestige	Int Level	Scholarship Offer?	Odds
Notre Dame	boskie	DI	C-	Very High	Yes	70%
Missouri, St. Louis	gdog13cavs	DII	A	High	Yes	30%

On the above, I had 597 AP (23.88 avg), with no other recruiting actions. No one else had expended any serious efforts at all until ND entered and jumped to Low with a scholarship offer the third session of Period 2, and then they jumped up to Very High the session he decided to sign with me. I had 1 VG and 1 G preference.

Posted by all2matt on 3/23/2017 11:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/23/2017 10:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 3/20/2017 3:16:00 PM (view original):
No I think the ticket above just states that when HVs/CVs are sent as part of the same cycle, that the promises are processed first (and then the HVs/CVs would get the benefit of any multiplier).

If there is some type of hidden multiplier with minutes/starts beyond the preference, I would think that is a unintended function that makes recruiting even more difficult for new users who won't have that knowledge.

What the ticket should ask is: Does all subsequent effort get some type of multiplier effort if a recruit is offered a start/minutes regardless of his preference to play?.

Turns out drichar138 was correct in that promises in of themselves carry both a multiplying effect and some recruiting value. The "Wants to Play" preference just magnifies it even more.

Ticket sent into CS:

A question regarding recruiting actions and if they have some type of multiplier associated with them.

In the absence of any preferences, does the order of any recruiting actions have any effect of other subsequent actions?

Two identical teams battling for a recruit with NO preferences what so ever, Team A sends start promise, 20 minutes in one cycle, then next cycle sends 20 HVs + CV. Team B sends 20 HVs + CV in one cycle, then next cycle sends start promise + 20 minutes. Is the recruiting effort equal? or does Team A benefit due to some multiplying effect given by promise start and/or minutes.

CS response:

Team A would benefit. Promises do have a multiplying effect but only for that cycle and onward. Preferences also have a multiplying offer.

In my opinion that's messed up. All things equal should be equal. That's built in version of "gaming the system". Theoretically you could offer the starts/ minutes, then visits that get multiplied, then pull the minutes and only lose the "recruiting action" of the minutes. If what they are saying of once something is multiplied then it's done. Am I seeing this correct?

In response to the "all things should be equal" comment, I think the theory is that recruits value the team that was willing to commit to them first. The advantage for the example in the ticket is slight, but it would grow with every passing cycle team B continued to wait before making the same promise.

I first learned of this dynamic the hard way in HD 2.0

4/17/2016 1:44 AM	drichar138
Can you give me some insight as to how I lost a recruit named Albert Greenberg to Purdue? I spent nearly 79k from a distance of 550 and I have an A- prestige. Purdue was 650 miles away, with a B- prestige and only spent 77k according to the coach. I am looking to see If I used the wrong combination of recruiting effort or if the game just had a glitch. I have been playing this game a long time and have never seen this happen.
4/18/2016 9:57 AM	Customer Support
Hi Christopher, This is one of the closest recruiting battles we have ever seen here. Purdue was ultimately able to win based on how much effort he put in on the recruit early. We don't want to speculate, but things could have swung the other way if you had just offered the starting spot early in the recruiting period. It was that close. Thank you.

Posted by drichar138 on 3/23/2017 9:57:00 PM (view original):
I first learned of this dynamic the hard way in HD 2.0

4/17/2016 1:44 AM	drichar138
Can you give me some insight as to how I lost a recruit named Albert Greenberg to Purdue? I spent nearly 79k from a distance of 550 and I have an A- prestige. Purdue was 650 miles away, with a B- prestige and only spent 77k according to the coach. I am looking to see If I used the wrong combination of recruiting effort or if the game just had a glitch. I have been playing this game a long time and have never seen this happen.
4/18/2016 9:57 AM	Customer Support
Hi Christopher, This is one of the closest recruiting battles we have ever seen here. Purdue was ultimately able to win based on how much effort he put in on the recruit early. We don't want to speculate, but things could have swung the other way if you had just offered the starting spot early in the recruiting period. It was that close. Thank you.

I think a lot of people assumed this went away with "considering credit". But what's really at work here, in 3.0, is the modifier boosting the value of the effort. So being first or early doesn't matter as much as getting the modifiers set *before* the serious effort starts. That starts day 1 with APs, but the impact on the big stuff is a huge consideration.

Team	Coach	Division	Prestige	Int Level	Scholarship Offer?	Odds
Cal State Northridge	shoe3	DI	C	Very High	Yes	52%
Sacramento State	gjalpert	DI	C+	Very High	Yes	48%

CSUN (won recruit)
604 APs
20/1 HV/CV
20 minutes & start

Sacremento State
824 APs
7/1 HV/CV
25 minutes & start

Player had 2 preferences, wants to play, and wants rebuild. The rebuild preference was neutral for CSUN, bad for SSU. Worth noting that all 20 CSUN visits were conducted in second session with C prestige. 544 of the 604 APs were extended in the first session with D+ prestige.

Alright so I landed a guy in IBA

The Human user didn't cut any players, had no openings and so I got the player.

50% for each of us was the end result.

He was at very high and yes even before I put AP on. I was very low to start, then got to moderate when the scholarship was offered. Obviously it changed to very high when he signed, but it was moderate until that point.