Also I finally figured out how to upload images in case anyone is asking.

I can supply data and algorithms to anyone who wants to do a study on recruits and their "potential lifetime grade/overall rating" to put some numbers against perception.

Perception is that all 3-stars are bad and not as good as 4-stars.

Reality is that some are as good or better.

ALL THREE STAR PLAYERS ARE MAX AT SOMETHING.

All 4 stars (and 5-stars) are not guaranteed to be MAX at anything...

As usual, it depends.

The problem with 3*s is that they regularly end up horrible players. People are afraid of SL7 Fs, rightly so.

I guess they would turn much more interesting if they all get at a +1/+2 max.

This way - with a SL 10/11 guaranteed - they would turn out useful alternatives to 4*s and even 5*s.

Jonas Gutierrez - 3* walk on - 2nd best setter in TMVL - just saying.

First, I love the image and implication that Ian's Kendal Town team is a 3*-quality squad in United2.

Second, TRIGGER WARNING: maths ahead.

If you're just thinking about a 3* player at auction vs. getting a 3* player for free as a walk-on, there's little argument to be made on "value."  Hard to beat free.  If you have 3 auction players already, and are weighing the 4th vs. the walk-on, do what you like.

However, I think people are overlooking some value in targeting a 3* at auction as a useful role player or #2 at an "only need one player" position.  This past season, half the league (16 teams) didn't even bid on a 3* player.  11 of us bid on just 1 3* player.  Only 5 teams bid on two or more throughout the season.

When I think of "value" I think of what I'm getting for the price, as opposed to what I could get for that price elsewhere or on a different item.  If you can land a 4* player for really close to what you'd have to pay for a 3*, that's better value.  If can land a 5* for even twice what you'd pay for a 3*, that's better value if you like winning.  There is no way for a standard 3* to even be rated better than a 5* at the same position.  Even a 3* Max+2, who will be equal or better (50/50 chance) at that one skill area, won't be overall rated better than a 5*.

So instead, think in terms of what you can get for your RP.  Let's use a MB for example.  At auction, the 3* MB has a minimum bid of 240 RP.  Of the 4 3* MBs this season at auction, 2 went for the minimum 240, 1 went for 258, and 1 for 300.  All well under the 480 RP that a 3* would cost you as a walk-on.  In addition, because every 3* at auction is at least a 'max' player at one skill, you have a better chance of getting a 'max' player.  If you just buy a 3* MB as a walk-on, you have a 1 in 108 chance of getting a player maxed at all 4 skills.  Because the auction player is already maxed at one of those, you now have a 1 in 36 chance of getting a player maxed at all 4 skills.

But the value is better than just increased odds.  For 240 RP as a walk-on, you can only get a 2* player, not 3*.  That's one less max point at every skill, at best.  So in figuring value, start with the floor of a 2*, the worst possible you can get for your RP. For a MB, that's 6 at SRV, ATK, BLK, and 2 at DEF.  20 total skill points.  Based on even odds, you have a 72% chance of getting a player 3-6 points better than that, in some combo across the 4 skills. Not all those are equal of course (+1 DEF for a MB is worth less in winning points in an actual game than +1 BLK or ATK).  A standard 3* MB has a 72% chance of being 7-10 points better than the 2* floor.  And for a player who is Max at auction (not even +1 or +2), that raises to a 78% chance of being 8-11 points better with the highest probability (16 of 36 possible outcomes) at 9-10.  So barring extremely bad luck, even the worst of the most likely outcomes for a 3* Max MB at auction are better than the best of the most likely outcomes for a 2*.  Absolute worst-case scenario for your 3* Max MB, you're still +6 over the 'floor' of a 2*, and will be even or better on total skills points 86% of the time (only 15 of 108 outcomes for the 2* are in the +7 to +9 range).

So if I need a MB (because 4 are required), yet I also know that I'm going to be spending a lot of RP on a top-line Setter or OH where costs run higher for good reason, it makes a lot of sense to target a 3* MB at auction, especially if +1 or +2 at BLK or ATK (you can use the L to serve for them).  If you can get one for 240-320 RP, that's great value compared to what your 240 RP would get you for a walk-on.

Additionally, most 4* MBs at auction were not "plus" players.  There were 12 4* MB.  One was Max.  Two were Max +1.  Other 9 were normal.  Only three went for the minimum (320 RP).  The most expensive went for 771.  The average cost was 525 RP, more than double the 3* cost.

And how does a 3* Max MB compare to a normal 4* MB?  While the max and min for each definitely favor the 4*, if you're looking for "value" or need an extra guy to fill out a roster spot and can gamble on being a solid player vs. backup only, consider these figures:

A 3* Max MB (240 RP min bid) has 15% odds of being better than a standard 4* MB (320 RP min bid).  That is to say, once Olmec is done rolling the random stat allocations for skills in the off-season, the 3* MB's total skill points come out equal or better than the 4* MB's 15% of the time.

If you get a Max+1 MB?  That jumps to 27%.  If you get a Max+2 MB?  It jumps to 42%.  So if land a Max+2 MB, you have approaching a 50/50 shot of getting a player overall better than a standard 4*, and likely at a way better auction price.  Plus, you are guaranteed to know he's going to be solid a key stat, because it's guaranteed by the shiny +2 marker.

The exact same is true of the RS and L positions as well, because they also have just 4 stats (3 major, 1 secondary).  The odds get worse some for S and OH, because they have 5 and 6 skills.  Even so, a 3* Max+2 Set Setter has about a 1 in 4 chance of ending up better overall than a 4* Setter (standard).  The 2 3* Setters this season (both Max+1 players) went for 300 & 451.  There were 7 4* Setters, 1 Max and 1 Max+2.  The cheapest went for 504.  The most expensive for 1076.  5* setters went for 1231, 1301, 1500, and 1502 (a Max).

So is there "value" in a 3* at auction?  Absolutely.  If you're going to end up 2 5* or a 5* and 4* at auction and are looking to "save RP," then definitely use the free 3* walk-on.  And instead of 'wasting RP' with a 1* or 2*, look to get a 3* Max or better at auction for under 400 RP.  Your whole team will be better off in the long run.  More better back-ups that will have to play at some point = more better odds to win a set = more better odds to win a match = more XP, more CP, and maybe better Cup or Conf placement to get more RP back.

3*s at Auction.  An investment that pays for itself (trademark pending).

Disclaimer: Past performance not a guarantee of future results; if you're Cinci or Nashville and only buy 5* anyway, ignore.

Mostly agreed upon your 3* evaluation, however ...

> more XP, more CP, and maybe better Cup or Conf placement to get more RP back

does not work in TMVL.

Given that a win only gives you 3 CPs - and thus almost all teams are within a 25 CP range per season - investing in B7 players gets no pay off. Even more with the abundance of "don't care" matches (Non-Conf etc).

And unless you get a perfect roll 3* (or a useful +x max), I don't think they pay for itself - no trademark needed.

I want to go back and really digest Kev's great post/detail before commenting fully, but my top-of-my-head take has always been a 3 with a +/max is almost a 4 and often come way more cheaply.

I just now have readed the comment of Kevin, what a interesting read with some nice knowledge.