The above was in reference to seeing who other schools are recruiting.

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/2/2019 5:56:00 PM (view original):
thanks! one more question - it is pretty different to me not easily being able to see what other teams are doing, at least at a macro level. how much do folks spend time like, searching the local players to see who is considering who, and kind of trying to judge your opponent's strategy for the battle(s) in question based on that data? is that sort of expected in the top tier of recruiting?

I actually put quite a bit of time into this and just landed the #11 rated center at D prestige Rutgers. I think it's important to know how many APs and recruiting money other surrounding schools have(up to a 500 mile radius) or where ever your recruiting range is.

Another strategy I will use often is scouting every state, including internationals and will keep an eye out on recruiting battles. For instance, if I see an A range prestige team in 3 other battles and that 4th player that same team is on isn't battling anybody and if the preferences are at least somewhat favorable, I just might take a chance on that player. It doesn't happen often, but once in a while, you might be able to steal a player, which can make a huge difference to a lower prestige team.

Posted by thewizard17 on 6/2/2019 11:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/2/2019 5:56:00 PM (view original):
thanks! one more question - it is pretty different to me not easily being able to see what other teams are doing, at least at a macro level. how much do folks spend time like, searching the local players to see who is considering who, and kind of trying to judge your opponent's strategy for the battle(s) in question based on that data? is that sort of expected in the top tier of recruiting?

I actually put quite a bit of time into this and just landed the #11 rated center at D prestige Rutgers. I think it's important to know how many APs and recruiting money other surrounding schools have(up to a 500 mile radius) or where ever your recruiting range is.

Another strategy I will use often is scouting every state, including internationals and will keep an eye out on recruiting battles. For instance, if I see an A range prestige team in 3 other battles and that 4th player that same team is on isn't battling anybody and if the preferences are at least somewhat favorable, I just might take a chance on that player. It doesn't happen often, but once in a while, you might be able to steal a player, which can make a huge difference to a lower prestige team.

i totally believe this kind of benefit is achievable with the effort, no matter what your prestige - its just that the extra good player is way more valuable for the lower prestige teams. nice job!

2 more questions (unrelated to this) -
1) is there still an EE benefit to prestige? how does that work now? is it like, last season's boost impacts phase 1 recruiting (session 1?), but this season's boost impacts this season's effort?

2) are the % chances of winning in 2-way battles established? like, very high vs very high can range from 65/35 to 35/65, very high vs high can range from 65/35 to 100/0, etc? this seems pretty easy to put together, maybe a dozen's of seasons worth of data would get you pretty close, i think.

if it doesn't exist, same question stated differently - whats the highest % anyone has seen in a 2 way battle with a high? whats the lowest %? (may also be worth asking what the most difference anyone has seen on very high in a 2 way battle, to double-check that very high / high boundary). benis mentioned a 0% high but unclear if that was due to no openings and how many people in the battle, so i guess i'm a bit skeptical of that 0% on its own because i would assume 0% can be achieved multiple ways.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/2/2019 9:45:00 PM (view original):
Frankly, between the RNG-based statistical decisions recruits make at signing and the caps on spending on individual recruits, there is somewhat less need for deep analytical decision-making prior to entering a battle. Unless there is a massive preferences mismatch, and/or a massive prestige mismatch, if you max out your effort you usually at least get some numbers on that RNG. And you'll still have resources left to go after your other targets. Obviously you want to prioritize targets, but most people prioritize more heavily on which recruits they like the most and less on who they will have the biggest edge on than they used to. In the non-deterministic system, small differences are small, not crucial.

makes a lot of sense, thanks!

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/3/2019 12:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 6/2/2019 11:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/2/2019 5:56:00 PM (view original):
thanks! one more question - it is pretty different to me not easily being able to see what other teams are doing, at least at a macro level. how much do folks spend time like, searching the local players to see who is considering who, and kind of trying to judge your opponent's strategy for the battle(s) in question based on that data? is that sort of expected in the top tier of recruiting?

I actually put quite a bit of time into this and just landed the #11 rated center at D prestige Rutgers. I think it's important to know how many APs and recruiting money other surrounding schools have(up to a 500 mile radius) or where ever your recruiting range is.

Another strategy I will use often is scouting every state, including internationals and will keep an eye out on recruiting battles. For instance, if I see an A range prestige team in 3 other battles and that 4th player that same team is on isn't battling anybody and if the preferences are at least somewhat favorable, I just might take a chance on that player. It doesn't happen often, but once in a while, you might be able to steal a player, which can make a huge difference to a lower prestige team.

i totally believe this kind of benefit is achievable with the effort, no matter what your prestige - its just that the extra good player is way more valuable for the lower prestige teams. nice job!

2 more questions (unrelated to this) -
1) is there still an EE benefit to prestige? how does that work now? is it like, last season's boost impacts phase 1 recruiting (session 1?), but this season's boost impacts this season's effort?

2) are the % chances of winning in 2-way battles established? like, very high vs very high can range from 65/35 to 35/65, very high vs high can range from 65/35 to 100/0, etc? this seems pretty easy to put together, maybe a dozen's of seasons worth of data would get you pretty close, i think.

if it doesn't exist, same question stated differently - whats the highest % anyone has seen in a 2 way battle with a high? whats the lowest %? (may also be worth asking what the most difference anyone has seen on very high in a 2 way battle, to double-check that very high / high boundary). benis mentioned a 0% high but unclear if that was due to no openings and how many people in the battle, so i guess i'm a bit skeptical of that 0% on its own because i would assume 0% can be achieved multiple ways.

You do get a boost for early entries.The higher the draft pick the higher the prestige boost. When you're prestige changes after the season, it should have an impact for period 2 recruiting, however have read a couple of "forum rumors" in the past that might suggest, it doesn't. Period 1 recruiting is whatever your current prestige is. Hope that answered your question.

In a 2 way battle, the highest point for VH, that I've seen is at 76% to 24% for H. I'm not sure exactly at what point it goes from H to VH, but might be somewhere around 60%.

However, one thing you should know is that recruiting effort doesn't necessarily mean the odds will be the same. For instance, a team that might have a 60%-40% recruiting effort, let's just say 60 APs to 40 APs. The leading team will get an additional boost, not sure exactly what it is, but the odds might end up being 70%-30%.

A high consideration team at 0% means the team could not sign the player, ie no openings at the time the player made the decision. Could happen to a team with very high consideration too, of course. This was a part of the last announced update Seble made, so this has not always been true.

You have to amass roughly 60% of the effort credit of the “leader” to be in signing range (or ~37-63 in terms of odds before the stretch). As wiz says, the odds get stretched to favor the leader, reducing the likelihood of big upsets. So the 37-63 battle in practice has final signing odds of something like 20-80 (21-79 is the widest I’ve seen personally).

I think 59-41 is the widest final odds I’ve seen in VH-VH battles.

I haven't read everything, but I didn't see this, and I think the "when does he want to sign" preference is very important for planning your class, regardless of level but used differently at different levels...

Strategies differ, but knowing when a guy wants to sign can make a big difference in when/how to allocate resources depending on priorities.

what does play style : strong defense mean? im not really sure i get what the deal is there, how the heck would that even be evaluated? opponent fg% or something?

is very high vs medium 100/0 or can medium teams get in there too?

Posted by shoe3 on 6/3/2019 5:21:00 AM (view original):
A high consideration team at 0% means the team could not sign the player, ie no openings at the time the player made the decision. Could happen to a team with very high consideration too, of course. This was a part of the last announced update Seble made, so this has not always been true.

You have to amass roughly 60% of the effort credit of the “leader” to be in signing range (or ~37-63 in terms of odds before the stretch). As wiz says, the odds get stretched to favor the leader, reducing the likelihood of big upsets. So the 37-63 battle in practice has final signing odds of something like 20-80 (21-79 is the widest I’ve seen personally).

I think 59-41 is the widest final odds I’ve seen in VH-VH battles.

fantastic info, thanks! so you are figuring roughly 60/40 is the barrier between VH-VH and VH-H? sounds pretty plausible (developers love their round numbers). and 80/20 is the barrier between VH-H and VH-M? i think i heard medium is always 0%, but not sure. i could totally seem seble not wanting to allow a 90/10 battle, for fear of the guy losing the 90% getting really frustrated and quitting (or whatever).

anyone else have numbers like this? 1 person having a similar experience could just about confirm the ranges (the odds, not what effort level it takes to get those ranges) as fact.

thanks again shoe!

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/4/2019 11:52:00 PM (view original):
what does play style : strong defense mean? im not really sure i get what the deal is there, how the heck would that even be evaluated? opponent fg% or something?

is very high vs medium 100/0 or can medium teams get in there too?

Strong defense is based upon points per possession given up. It was actually pretty smart to measure it this way.

Reading through this thread makes me really miss the old HD recruiting system. I don’t want to come off as a whiner because I still love the game and understand why the changes were made to level the playing field, but the strategy of the old recruiting system was just so much fun. The battling strategy is simply not there with the new system, as every major battle is now a carbon copy of each other. 20 HV, 1 CV, and maybe some promises. Rinse and repeat. I came into HD relatively late compared to a lot of the old timers, and by the time I was finally recruiting in D1 at a high level with an A prestige the switch was made. I remember setting up my depth chart and treating battles with the care of a military strategist. Creeping on other teams considering list, staying up until 2:00 and occasionally setting an alarm for 5:00 for the perfect opportunity to poach are some of my best memories in any game. Do you spend a few extra HVs to make a recruit *tight* to ward off poachers even though you seemingly have them locked up? Anxiously checking your emails after every recruiting cycle that you are in a lead, knowing that no news is good news. That kind of strategy simply isn’t in the game any more. Granted, this is slightly made up for with AP, the required expansion of your target list, and preferences, but it isn’t the same.

I don’t want to sound all doom and gloom because I still really enjoy the game, but I miss the high level strategy involved. Many people complained about the top schools being overpowered, which was certainly true, but it was still absolutely possible to turn around a school and make them your own powerhouse if you took the time and knew what you were doing. I have a dream of them opening up one new world using the old recruiting system, but know this would never happen.

Everyone is entitled to their own preferences, of course. But this statement is categorically false: “every major battle is now a carbon copy of each other. 20 HV, 1 CV, and maybe some promises.” There are legit 4 and 5-Star players every year going to teams for substantially less than this; going “all in” for your top targets, and declining to line up other options is one way to play, but it is neither the only, nor necessarily the best.

You can miss the old setup. That’s valid. Some people don’t like probability games; they don’t want to play Sid Meier’s Civilization, they want to play chess. But the idea that *strategy* has been reduced in this version is just absolutely false. What has happened is that the value of knowing and executing one particular type of strategy has been substantially reduced, which allows for the development and execution of other types of strategies.

There are *all sorts* of viable strategies open to players now. You don’t have to avoid battling higher level teams. You don’t have to try to figure out what your rivals have to possibly spend. You don’t have to hoard resources, calculate HV-CV ratios, or mess up your sleep patterns (which is actually medically dangerous for some of us). All you have to do is decide who you want to go after, and how hard; which again, actually puts an even higher premium on strategy. You must choose how to scout (depth vs breadth); and how much risk you’re willing to tolerate, ie how open you are to playing walkons vs taking on projects; and how you value flexibility against the desire to field a team with as many superstars as possible; and how (if) to plan for the reality that the elite commodities come with volatility (early entries); and of course how to deal with probability-based outcomes. Individual recruiting battles are not *the game*. It comes down to what you can do with what you can get. It’s a much more rational setup of risk/reward choices, and that makes it a more competitive multiplayer game.

"every major battle is now a carbon copy of each other. 20 HV, 1 CV, and maybe some promises."

Yup, pretty much.